# Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013



## DNAprotection (Dec 23, 2012)

Just to be clear, this is not 'spam' nor is it an 'advertizement' or anything of the sort.
This is a honest outreach for needed discussion on this urgent topic and we are counting on feedback as to how folks would amend the text of the act if they thought it should be etc.

The DNA Protection Act would ban all genetically engineered cannabis from California before it 'legally' (as in federally mandated) starts and stop whatever may have already begun.
Be it called 'creation' or 'nature' etc, are we prepared to allow it to be genetically redesigned by corporate interests?
The natural genetics or DNA of the natural world or the commons is under attack.
Corporate interests are working 24 hours a day 7 days a weeks to re-design and or re-sequence the genetic material or DNA of the natural world in effort to patent and own such modified genetic designs or 'blueprints'.
The DNA Protection Act of 2013 will protect the naturally intended genetic designs of the living natural world and or the commons within the state of California from the immanent threat of broken DNA caused by genetic engineering and or genetic modification technologies.
We need your help to make The DNA Protection Act of 2013 into a law by way of getting it on the ballot and then getting it passed into law by a majority vote of the people.
The first thing anyone can do to help is to get the word out by re-posting this message and the Act itself anywhere and everywhere you think people might read it.
All forms of volunteerism are needed in this effort from signature gathering to just about any way you can think of to help.
Find us at facebook for more info on volunteering and for progress updates.
This is exclusively a non-partisan and non-affiliated grass roots effort on behalf of all life and all the generations of life to come.
At this stage all further suggestions on changes or additions to the text of the Act are still welcome, and thank you.

"THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013"

This act shall be known as, and may be cited as THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013, and is hereby incorporated to amend and or be added to the California Health and Safety Code as;
DIVISION 123.THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013... 151004,
and is as set forth herein as follows;

section 1. FINDINGS,
The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013 are as follows:

1.(a) whereas the people of the state of California recognize the many different religions and cultures and individuals, including "secular", that all together define and or represent and or make up what is commonly known as "THE PEOPLE" of the state of California, and as such, have different names for that which is ultimately responsible for the creation and or existence of the people and all that exists, as exampled by the following sample:
GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al,
and,
1.(b) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, has endowed unto the people to equally share in dependency on, and responsibility to, what is commonly known as "the commons",
and,
1.(c) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that private and public entities are involved in what is commonly known as "genetic engineering" and or "gene splicing" and or "genetically modifying" all forms of life in effort to redesign the natural creation and or natural world and are applying such technology to 'food crops' and 'farm animals' that then end up in the human food chain,
and,
1.(d) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that said practices and or technologies have unknown side effects and or consequences to the natural world, and or "the commons" in general, and to humans specifically, and that said practices irreparably damage the original and or naturally intended design of life itself, and or specifically that of the commons, and thereby denying the people and the future generations of people of the commons in their naturally intended form and or naturally occurring DNA sequences that were and are naturally designed by and bestowed upon them by GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, and to which the people have relied upon since the dawn of human kind and are inseparably dependent upon in the common struggle to live,
and,
1.(e) whereas said genetic engineering practices result in private and or public corporations and or private individuals owning patents on the genetic design of life forms,
and,
1.(f) whereas the naturally occurring forms of life that inhabit the commons currently have no statutory protections against the inevitable and eminent danger of 'genetic pollution' that results and or can result from genetic engineering,
1.(g) we the people of California therefor find that genetic engineering poses an eminent threat of danger to all the naturally sequenced DNA in the natural world, and by the act of direct or indirect manipulation of naturally sequenced DNA does in itself create the irreparable permanent damage to the original genetic designs of life, and so we do hereby create the urgently necessary DNA protections contained herein as described in section 3 of this ACT.

section 2. DEFINITIONS:

2.(a) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "DNA", (deoxyribonucleic acid), shall mean the complex substance that is the main carrier of genetic information for all organisms and a major component of chromosomes and can be analogized to mean the 'blueprints' that determine what form(s) life takes and is central to the natural function(s) of all life in the common struggle to live.

2.(b) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "the commons" shall mean the natural biological world and all life and ecosystems naturally existing in the natural world in its natural state of genetic design or DNA sequencing, and specifically, but not limited to, naturally occurring varieties of plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof) and insects (including the offspring thereof).

2.(c) For the purposes of this ACT, the terms "genetically engineered" and "genetically modified" shall mean the scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism, and or the technology of preparing recombinant DNA in vitro by cutting up DNA molecules and splicing together fragments from more than one organism.

section 3. PROVISIONS, PROTECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS:

3.(a) This ACT does hereby prohibit live genetically engineered and or genetically modified plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such organisms from existing within the boarders of the state of California, and that all living genetically engineered plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such genetically engineered genetically modified organisms have six months from the date of the adoption of this ACT into law to be removed from the state by those individuals or corporate or government entities that brought and or posses such within the state of California, and which shall be done in a manner that does not further the threat of genetic pollution and or genetically engineered DNA contamination exposure to the commons and or natural world.

3.(b) Failure to satisfy the requirements of this ACT, and or anyone who possesses and or sponsors in any way the possession of living genetically engineered organisms within the state of California after the initial six month clearing out period shall be subject to the punishments of fines no less than one million dollars per day for corporations and one hundred dollars per day for private individuals and or shall also be punishable by no less than six months in jail for private individuals and no less than ten years in prison for individuals working for or on behalf of corporate entities, and said penalties are to be paid to, and or, served in the county where said violation(s) has occurred. The penalties imposed by this ACT are to be adjudicated and assessed in the Superior Court jurisdiction of the county where the violation(s) have occurred and are to be determined exponentially based on estimates of damage and or potential damage to the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to which consideration of possible impact of said damage is not limited to the county where the violation has occurred, and further, nothing in this ACT shall in any way be construed to mean limiting, preventing or precluding a California court of proper jurisdiction from increasing any of the stated penalties of this ACT at the courts discretion, and that such increases are to be determined based on estimates of damage(s) and or potential damage(s) to a specific and or the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to, whether directly or indirectly, human beings and their naturally designed genetic inheritance of the commons and their collective dependence on, and responsibility to such.

3.(c) This ACT is not intended to preclude or limit or interfere in any way with medical personnel from applying medical technologies or medical procedures that employ genetic modification technologies in their application(s) and or the research in effort to develop such, and so does hereby exempt such conduct from the requirements of this ACT, but said medical technologies or medical procedures and or research must ensure that they are to be applied in a way that isolates the intended or unintended effects of such to the specific patient(s) and is in no way a broader genetic contamination threat and or in no way can be a possible contaminant to the naturally sequenced DNA of any other living organisms of the commons and or the natural world, further, this ACT is not intended to "exempt" any living plant (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such living genetically engineered and or genetically modified organisms intended for human consumption as "medicine" and or "nutritional medicine" that would be self applied at 'home' by ingestion or topically or any other method and is allowed only in a controlled hospital setting and is to be applied directly by or with the assistance of qualified medical personal.

3.(d) If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.


----------



## desert dude (Dec 23, 2012)

You want to ban science? What are you, a Republican?

I say genetically engineer the shit right out of cannabis, and corn, and wheat, and fish, and humans.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 23, 2012)

DNAp ... with all due respect, we ARE Nature. 

I would suggest that genetic engineering is an adolescent Nature just discovering how to pleasure herself. Would you deny her those stolen, private moments? cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 23, 2012)

desert dude said:


> You want to ban science? What are you, a Republican?
> 
> I say genetically engineer the shit right out of cannabis, and corn, and wheat, and fish, and humans.


Thanks for your input, it is most assuredly appreciated. 
The Act would not "ban" medical science in any way as long as its done in a controlled environment by qualified personnel.
Also, I and we have no political affiliation.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 23, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> DNAp ...we ARE Nature.


Thank you, and yes exactly. 
You seem to have a keen sense and ability to articulate the obvious.


----------



## desert dude (Dec 23, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Just to be clear, this is not 'spam' nor is it an 'advertizement' or anything of the sort.
> This is a honest outreach for needed discussion on this urgent topic and we are counting on feedback as to how folks would amend the text of the act if they thought it should be etc.
> 
> The DNA Protection Act would ban all genetically engineered cannabis from California before it 'legally' (as in federally mandated) starts and stop whatever may have already begun.
> ...


Luddites. I will be happy to vote against this if it ever makes it to a California ballot. One of the dumber ideas to be proposed.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 23, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Thank you, and yes exactly.
> You seem to have a keen sense and ability to articulate the obvious.


Then why does the text of your proposal seek to divide Nature from Artifice? 
Once we understand that we ARE Nature and there is no boundary between Nature and Artifice, the proposal loses meaning. 
because now genetic engineering is recognized as nature in operation, and there is no protected class. cn

_ceterum censeo_ the language of section 1 (d) contains the phrase "original and naturally-intended design of life itself", which leads me to ask ... how old do you believe the planet to be?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 23, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Then why does the text of your proposal seek to divide Nature from Artifice?
> Once we understand that we ARE Nature and there is no boundary between Nature and Artifice, the proposal loses meaning.
> because now genetic engineering is recognized as nature in operation, and there is no protected class. cn
> 
> _ceterum censeo_ the language of section 1 (d) contains the phrase "original and naturally-intended design of life itself", which leads me to ask ... how old do you believe the planet to be?


First I truly thank you for the perception and the questions which seem to be clearly based in critical thinking, something I get excited about...even if I'm not the brightest bulb in the barn.
"Then why does the text of your proposal seek to divide Nature from Artifice?"
I know it may appear as such, but it seeks only to not be in conflict with any more existing law then need be. As written it will already face an equal protection/commerce clause challenge from the bio tech industry.
This might also be considered, what is ones definition of the word "animal"?
" how old do you believe the planet to be?"
I truly can only guess, and even my guess would only be based on the 'educated' guesses of those who calculate based on all available dependable data etc, and it seems that earth is at least 4 billion years old, happy birthday.
The phrase that apparently led you to that question is based in the natural evolution of DNA, in other words absent of gene splicing. 
Maybe by the time we as a species and in the law realize that "we are nature" and that gene splicing is a natural function of our species natural evolution etc, we will have matured enough to maybe not wipe ourselves out in the RnD process, and maybe laws like the act posted here could give us that little bit of extra evolutionary time...or time out.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 23, 2012)

We don't know enough about GMO. Cannabis is already getting fucked as it is because of the bullshit Dutch cross breeding. 

I got myself some good nearly landrace Afghan Kush. Good stuff. I don't like OG. But unlike OG, no paranoia. It's super sticky, so that's why I question it being pure. I never knew pure Afghan to be sticky like that, but it has the distinct musky mint smell.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 23, 2012)

My question to the OP is: why the fuck not?

It's a plant, we've been cross-breeding, inter-breeding, self breeding, "cloning", doing tissue cultures for years without any complaint. 

Why just use a computer as-is when you now know it's programming language?


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 23, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> First I truly thank you for the perception and the questions which seem to be clearly based in critical thinking, something I get excited about...even if I'm not the brightest bulb in the barn.
> "Then why does the text of your proposal seek to divide Nature from Artifice?"
> I know it may appear as such, but it seeks only to not be in conflict with any more existing law then need be. As written it will already face an equal protection/commerce clause challenge from the bio tech industry.
> This might also be considered, what is ones definition of the word "animal"?
> ...


 Thank you for your replies. i asked the age-of-planet question because you were using language i associate with the "creation scientists". It does not appear that that is your angle..

On the other item, i disagree. i think we should become as good at gen.eng. as fast as we can and apply it to ourselves. It is an article of my faith that our sociopolitical problems stem from our animal human nature. Until we can feed our will back into its substrate, we are captives of wild Nature. Once we can do this - use our will to change the nature of the carrier of our will. (i.e. our headmeat) ... that is when we will have acquired the freedom to survive such a singularity's other consequences. 

So I think the great hurdle of our specific* survival is yet to come, and oddly enough I suspect we're better off rushing it and not dithering. My opinion. cn

*adjective pertaining to species


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 23, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Thank you for your replies. i asked the age-of-planet question because you were using language i associate with the "creation scientists". It does not appear that that is your angle..
> 
> On the other item, i disagree. i think we should become as good at gen.eng. as fast as we can and apply it to ourselves. It is an article of my faith that our sociopolitical problems stem from our animal human nature. Until we can feed our will back into its substrate, we are captives of wild Nature. Once we can do this - use our will to change the nature of the carrier of our will. (i.e. our headmeat) ... that is when we will have acquired the freedom to survive such a singularity's other consequences.
> 
> ...


Your responses are very well thought out in my opinion.
It's hard for me to agree or disagree with your conclusions because sometimes if I take a shot without thinking to much (on automatic), I seem to be a better shot, yet sometimes not...and conversely sometimes when I take my time to aim and double and triple aim, I seem to be a better shot, yet sometimes not.
One thing that keeps going through my mind though is the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Another one that might be more apropos to gene splicing would be "measure twice and cut once"


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 23, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Your responses are very well thought out in my opinion.
> It's hard for me to agree or disagree with your conclusions because sometimes if I take a shot without thinking to much (on automatic), I seem to be a better shot, yet sometimes not...and conversely sometimes when I take my time to aim and double and triple aim, I seem to be a better shot, yet sometimes not.
> One thing that keeps going through my mind though is the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
> Another one that might be more apropos to gene splicing would be "measure twice and cut once"


I absolutely agree with the latter. "I've cut this board three times already ... and it's still too short!" Gotta love woodworker humor.

As for the first, I submit that human nature is broken. We tend to operate from fear or greed, and the considerate moral veneer is sometimes awfully threadbare. Abandonconflict and I have little flame wars (well, on a weed site, rather polite smolderspats) about the essential goodness or badness of human nature. I'm the one who ... oh look! Brake lights!! cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 23, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I absolutely agree with the latter. "I've cut this board three times already ... and it's still too short!" Gotta love woodworker humor.
> 
> As for the first, I submit that human nature is broken. We tend to operate from fear or greed, and the considerate moral veneer is sometimes awfully threadbare. Abandonconflict and I have little flame wars (well, on a weed site, rather polite smolderspats) about the essential goodness or badness of human nature. I'm the one who ... oh look! Brake lights!! cn


Well no matter what they say, I think I'd want you on my team in a skirmish lol.
As for human nature and it's (seemingly) current shortcomings, might it not be natural evolution to grow through these shortcomings by learning, thus inducing natural genetic modification?
From my seat (in the back of the class) it seems like gene splicing would be a short cut to the solution, like cheating on a test...end result is failure to really learn and understand the material.


----------



## TroncoChe (Dec 23, 2012)

What about the potential mutation of diseases from GMO's? I read about that some where.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 23, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Well no matter what they say, I think I'd want you on my team in a skirmish lol.
> As for human nature and it's (seemingly) current shortcomings, might it not be natural evolution to grow through these shortcomings by learning, thus inducing natural genetic modification?


 To the best of (my knowledge of!) our knowledge, I don't think it works that way. That is the basic break between Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution. The Lamarckians postulated a "practice effect" in which heavily-used traits could be inherited. But every test to which I have seen Lamarck's ideas subjected, they failed.


> From my seat (in the back of the class) it seems like gene splicing would be a short cut to the solution, like cheating on a test...end result is failure to really learn and understand the material.


My aesthetic take is otherwise. It's like a toddler taking her first two unaided steps ... a source of immense "parental" pride. It's not so much cheating as deriving the correct answer by another route. Jmo. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 23, 2012)

TroncoChe said:


> What about the potential mutation of diseases from GMO's? I read about that some where.


I have a slightly silly mental image of herpes that is Round-up Ready&#8482; ... cn


----------



## TroncoChe (Dec 23, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I have a slightly silly mental image of herpes that is Round-up Ready&#8482; ... cn



Ya, but they got it from a toilet seat.


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 23, 2012)

Monsanto, now there's a roll/role model. I can see it now, people in prison for unknowingly growing a strain that had 10% patented genetics.


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Dec 23, 2012)

Monsanto Weed, finally now i can get rid of those pesky spider mites with roundup 

IM all for GMO, but not if it means a company can copyright DNA


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

RyanTheRhino said:


> Monsanto Weed, finally now i can get rid of those pesky spider mites with roundup
> 
> IM all for GMO, but not if it means a company can copyright DNA


The patents are what it'$ all about.
Controlling food and nature by way of owning the patents on such is part of the whole biotech business model.
Further, because the biotech industry GE varieties are protected by law (patents), and naturally occurring varieties are not, the biotech industry has been able to make case law in the direction of their GE varieties being protected from genetic pollution from non patented or naturally occurring varieties of plants etc.
This law seeks to level the field of protection for 'the commons'.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> To the best of (my knowledge of!) our knowledge, I don't think it works that way. That is the basic break between Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution. The Lamarckians postulated a "practice effect" in which heavily-used traits could be inherited. But every test to which I have seen Lamarck's ideas subjected, they failed.
> 
> My aesthetic take is otherwise. It's like a toddler taking her first two unaided steps ... a source of immense "parental" pride. It's not so much cheating as deriving the correct answer by another route. Jmo. cn


OK, but would a 'proud' parent want their toddler to be attempting their first steps in a spot where there was only room to stand because there are potentially fatal cliffs or unreasonably steep stairways on all sides, or would that kind of 'pride' come before humpty dumpty falls off the wall?
Also, to your first point, I recall an experiment with two identical looking birds of the same species, one bird came from the family genetics of birds from a harsh weather region where they really had to work for a living, the other bird came from family genetics of birds from a mild easy living climate zone/region. Both birds were born and raised in separate but equal captivity environments. They then challenged each bird to a food gathering test where grubs were placed in a hole covered by a steel washer with a clear glass or plastic center so that the birds could see the grub but could not get to the grub unless they could figure out to move the washer to the side.
The bird from the more task adapted genetics scored right off and kept on eating from hole to hole.
The bird from easy street just kept banging its beak against the clear center over each whole and seemed to have no ability whatsoever to think it through and so went unfed.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Dec 24, 2012)

RyanTheRhino said:


> Monsanto Weed, finally now i can get rid of those pesky spider mites with roundup
> 
> IM all for GMO, but not if it means a company can copyright DNA


There it is. I do not like the idea of a company creating a monopoly on a naturally occurring plant.

Greedy bastards!


----------



## brimck325 (Dec 24, 2012)

they have been stealing farms and putting farmers in jail all over the world with these patent's on strains. monsanto is greed!!!


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> OK, but would a 'proud' parent want their toddler to be attempting their first steps in a spot where there was only room to stand because there are potentially fatal cliffs or unreasonably steep stairways on all sides, or would that kind of 'pride' come before humpty dumpty falls off the wall?
> Also, to your first point, I recall an experiment with two identical looking birds of the same species, one bird came from the family genetics of birds from a harsh weather region where they really had to work for a living, the other bird came from family genetics of birds from a mild easy living climate zone/region. Both birds were born and raised in separate but equal captivity environments. They then challenged each bird to a food gathering test where grubs were placed in a hole covered by a steel washer with a clear glass or plastic center so that the birds could see the grub but could not get to the grub unless they could figure out to move the washer to the side.
> The bird from the more task adapted genetics scored right off and kept on eating from hole to hole.
> The bird from easy street just kept banging its beak against the clear center over each whole and seemed to have no ability whatsoever to think it through and so went unfed.


The parent would be wise to find a safer place to raise his/her child, that is if the parent cares for the child and must earn a living.


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> DNAp ... with all due respect, we ARE Nature.
> 
> I would suggest that genetic engineering is an adolescent Nature just discovering how to pleasure herself. Would you deny her those stolen, private moments? cn


Do you wish us to go BLIND! lol


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

st0wandgrow said:


> There it is. I do not like the idea of a company creating a monopoly on a naturally occurring plant.
> 
> Greedy bastards!


The corporate plans for cannabis are also a convenient inroad to a legal precedent where for the first time only the GE varieties will be deemed 'safe' by the Gmen, and thereby maintaining all naturally occurring varieties in a scheduled 1 armed and 'dangerous' controlled substance category. 
Achieving the 'only legal seed' and or varieties of any species has been a corporate biotech milestone target for a long time.
Monsanto via the US gov put a model in place in the occupation of Iraq and the 100 first provisional laws set by Paul Bremer our installed provisional Governor during the beginning of the 'occupation'...

*"Bremer&#8217;s Order 81*​ The CPA explicitly defined the legal importance of the 100 Orders to leave no doubt that they were, indeed, orders. An Order was defined as, &#8216;binding instructions or directives to the Iraqi people that create penal consequences or have a direct bearing on the way Iraqis are regulated, including changes to Iraqi law.&#8217; In other words, Iraqis were told, &#8216;do it or die.&#8217; The law of occupation was supreme.​ Buried deep among the Bremer laws was Order 81, &#8216;Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law&#8217;.​ At the heart of Order 81 was the Plant Variety Protection (PVP) provision. Order 81, states: &#8216;Farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any variety mentioned in items 1 and 2 of paragraph (C) of Article 14 of this Chapter.&#8217;​ In plain English, this gives holders of patents on certain plant varieties, i.e. large foreign multinationals, absolute rights for 20 years over use of their seeds in Iraqi agriculture. The protected plant varieties are Genetically Modified or Gene Manipulated (GM) plants, and an Iraqi farmer who chose to plant such seeds must sign an agreement with the seed company holding the patent that he would pay a &#8216;technology fee&#8217; and an annual license fee for planting the patented seeds.​ Any Iraqi farmer seeking to take a portion of those patented seeds to replant in following harvest years would be subject to heavy fines from the seed supplier. Iraqi farmers would become vassals, not of Saddam Hussein, but of multinational GM seed giants."

ps...how does one go about getting their avatar uploaded up in here? this is a brothel right?​


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 24, 2012)

When profits fall into play, shortcuts are made much to determent of society/environment. (Dow, Monsanto, Bayer, Exxon, BP, restitution yet to be paid)
I don't see how it will be a benefit to society, other then putting more farmers/independents out of work. My taxes go up.


----------



## desert dude (Dec 24, 2012)

Just to clarify your proposed law: It seeks to outlaw genetic engineering of ANY plant, animal, bacteria, yeast, any living thing in California, not just cannabis.

Dumber than dumb. Truly dangerous. Would probably destroy agriculture in California.


----------



## desert dude (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> The corporate plans for cannabis are also a convenient inroad to a legal precedent where for the first time only the GE varieties will be deemed 'safe' by the Gmen, and thereby maintaining all naturally occurring varieties in a scheduled 1 armed and 'dangerous' controlled substance category.
> Achieving the 'only legal seed' and or varieties of any species has been a corporate biotech milestone target for a long time.
> Monsanto via the US gov put a model in place in the occupation of Iraq and the 100 first provisional laws set by Paul Bremer our installed provisional Governor during the beginning of the 'occupation'...
> 
> ...


Post a link to Bremer's order 81. I want to read the actual order, not some paranoid conspiracy theory interpretation. I smell putrid bullshit.


----------



## doublejj (Dec 24, 2012)

I pay extra & always buy "organic" products. Just because organic means "no GMO", not because I think it's any healthier. It's because I don't want any of my $'s going to Monsanto! Evil bastards!


----------



## canndo (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Just to be clear, this is not 'spam' nor is it an 'advertizement' or anything of the sort.
> This is a honest outreach for needed discussion on this urgent topic and we are counting on feedback as to how folks would amend the text of the act if they thought it should be etc.
> 
> The DNA Protection Act would ban all genetically engineered cannabis from California before it 'legally' (as in federally mandated) starts and stop whatever may have already begun.
> ...



This has the potential to ruin my business prospects and scrub two years of work for me. It is clear that this is an attempt to deal with patent issues regarding plant organisms and that is exactly the audience I am playing to with my products.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

desert dude said:


> Post a link to Bremer's order 81. I want to read the actual order, not some paranoid conspiracy theory interpretation. I smell putrid bullshit.


Yes sir, understood sir, I will carry out your orders to the best of my ability.
The first link I would suggest is:
here
and then:
here


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

canndo said:


> This has the potential to ruin my business prospects and scrub two years of work for me. It is clear that this is an attempt to deal with patent issues regarding plant organisms and that is exactly the audience I am playing to with my products.


Sorry to read that, I hope that isn't accurate, does your business involve specifically gene splicing?
Cloning cells would not be banned by this Act.
Most people confuse language (not that you are) with regards to 'cloning' and taking 'cuttings' in the cannabis world, but regardless neither would be effected by this Act.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

desert dude said:


> Just to clarify your proposed law: It seeks to outlaw genetic engineering of ANY plant, animal, bacteria, yeast, any living thing in California, not just cannabis.
> 
> Dumber than dumb. Truly dangerous. Would probably destroy agriculture in California.


It would not stop medical research with regards to biotech in cali and would otherwise only ban 'living' GMO's, not the non living processed GMO ingredients in foods or medicine etc.
Also, I think it would actually save farming and or 'agriculture' in cali for many reasons.


----------



## canndo (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Sorry to read that, I hope that isn't accurate, does your business involve specifically gene splicing?
> Cloning cells would not be banned by this Act.
> Most people confuse language (not that you are) with regards to 'cloning' and taking 'cuttings' in the cannabis world, but regardless neither would be effected by this Act.




My processes are enablers for genetic engineering and their uses otherwise, though significant won't bring in the contracts I had hoped for. If that is so I will be forced to cater to lower level growers - but there is hope in China where they are looking to engineer help but China has a habit of stealing other's tequniques for their own. We shall see where it all goes, beyond that, the GE prototypes will need to use artificial seeds in order to perpetuate geneticaly pure lines where conventional seeds may not.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Just to be clear, this is not 'spam' nor is it an 'advertizement' or anything of the sort.
> This is a honest outreach for needed discussion on this urgent topic and we are counting on feedback as to how folks would amend the text of the act if they thought it should be etc.
> 
> The DNA Protection Act would ban all genetically engineered cannabis from California before it 'legally' (as in federally mandated) starts and stop whatever may have already begun.
> ...


"naturally intended genetic designs" sounds a lot like "intelligent design" mummery. 

the genetic material of various non-native plants aready subject to a HUGE array of selective breeding programs is not in danger. 

describing genetic material of a domesticated crop as "The Commons" is a massive overreach. 

since weed is "controlled" on a federal level the feds have already established their claim to regulatory power on this one. do we need another bureaucracy getting their noses up in our beeswax? 

whoever wrote this blibbering appeal to emotion and ignorance should be held up to the scorn of the whole of the people

invoking dieties, gods, gaia, any of the other titans, nature itself as an anthropomorphized entity, Dagoth, The Dreaming God or even Gozur the Gozarian in any proposed legislation is clearly not gonna fly.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> The corporate plans for cannabis are also a convenient inroad to a legal precedent where for the first time only the GE varieties will be deemed 'safe' by the Gmen, and thereby maintaining all naturally occurring varieties in a scheduled 1 armed and 'dangerous' controlled substance category.
> Achieving the 'only legal seed' and or varieties of any species has been a corporate biotech milestone target for a long time.
> Monsanto via the US gov put a model in place in the occupation of Iraq and the 100 first provisional laws set by Paul Bremer our installed provisional Governor during the beginning of the 'occupation'...
> 
> ...


nobody is REQUIRED to plant any particular cultivar of any crop. if you dont want to buy seeds from monsanto/adm/iga/genetech/etc then you can plant the old fashioned crops which have been working pretty damned well for ohh... a couple years now. 

GM crops are selected for a VERY FEW commercial farmers who want to herbicide their problems away, and for certain crops which are extremely vulnerable to a pest. the only large scale use of any patent crop by small farmers is Boll Weevil Resistant BT Cotton and thats only an issue in india, where smallholders and co-operatives make up a sizeable share of the cotton crop. in india, the indianj courts under INDIAN LAW gave the Monsanto Corp an unambiguous message, "You're Not The Boss Of Us!" and indian smallholders may save seeds to their heart's content. conversely Monsanto may refuse to sell their seeds to india, and may sue any american grower who orders their patented seeds from india. much like Microsoft's attempts to keep windows xp from becoming the idiot's version of Free BSD, the courts decide what constitutes a patent/copyright violation, but that only holds ture in the US and nations which are bound by treaty to respect our patents. 

if you REALLY want to prevent patenting plant cultivars, then BAN PATENTS FOR PLANTS! this bullshit proposition simultaneously appeals the the ignorance and foolishness of religious fundamentalist intelligent design weirdos, nutty hippie morons who think genetic manipulation causes disease, and the anarcho-didnt-think-it-throughists who are always ready to hurl their bodies at the barricades if they even catch a whiff of "sticking it to the man". 

theres not a scintilla of logic reason or science behind this proposal. you might as well promulgate legislation to ban "Meanies", and give all "Mean People Who Suck" 30 days to vacate the state as well. 

i get it, you think "corporations are bad", "GM foods will turn the children into frankensteins", "god doesnt want his creations altered" and "Fight the Powah!" is an adequate justifications for a retarded law.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> i get it, you think "corporations are bad", "GM foods will turn the children into frankensteins", "god doesnt want his creations altered" and "Fight the Powah!" is an adequate justifications for a retarded law.


Howdy and thanks for responding.
Actually as I read your seemingly educated yet somewhat misleading posts here I realized once again why we need "retarded" laws like this one.


----------



## desert dude (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> It would not stop medical research with regards to biotech in cali and would otherwise only ban 'living' GMO's, not the non living processed GMO ingredients in foods or medicine etc.
> Also, I think it would actually save farming and or 'agriculture' in cali for many reasons.



The biotech revolution has ensured that we are able to continue to feed the growing multitudes. Why do you want poor people to starve?


----------



## desert dude (Dec 24, 2012)

The salmon on top grows twice as fast on half the food input, thanks to genetic engineering. This idiotic piece of proposed legislation would make it illegal for this fish to be alive within the borders of California.


----------



## doublejj (Dec 24, 2012)

Keep those Frankenfish out of my food chain!


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> BAN PATENTS FOR PLANTS! .


I must apologize for the glib rude sarcasm in my first response to your posts.
Maybe its better that I should have replied concerning the area where we do agree.
The problem with what your quote suggests is that it would either take a 50/50 shot (generous odds) very long and expensive law suit or an Act of the US congress to do so and I think you can imagine what the likelihood of either of those things happening. 
The US patent office was originally dead set against 'patents on life' and fought it all the way to the high courts, they lost back in (I think) 1983, and so began the race to own the genetic design of everything that could generate a profit, and at this point that means every living thing possible.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Howdy and thanks for responding.
> Actually as I read your seemingly educated yet somewhat misleading posts here I realized once again why we need "retarded" laws like this one.


really? and what reasons are those? 

[ ] because corporations are meanies and they are patenting their custom designed crops? 

[ ] because GMO foods are dangerous to people who eat them? 

[ ] because god doesnt want us fucking with his perfect creations? 

[ ] because the natural world will collapse if roundup resistant soybeans are planted in bakersfeild? 

[ ] because you dont know that the roundup resistant soybeans are NO DIFFERENT from other soybeans except they lack the vulnerability to roundup? 

[ ] because roundup resistant crops will cause farmers to dump gigatons of herbicides on their fields since it wont hurt their crops, and herbicides are like free and shit? 

[ ] because bee colonies are dying and nobody knows why so we should immediately revert to living in caves and wearing uncured hides, just in case it's cotton and housepaint thats killing the bees? 

[ ] because gaia is angry and she may call for help from her children, like maybe cronus prometheus calypso and hyperion? 

[ ] because some imaginary rule established in the occupation of iraq prevents iraqis from saving seeds even though they now have their own government and courts which can at their whim say "fuck you" to the imaginary rule cited? 

check which ones apply


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

desert dude said:


> The biotech revolution has ensured that we are able to continue to feed the growing multitudes. Why do you want poor people to starve?


I've noticed that many of your opinions seem to be based on unquestioned assumptions which seem to be put forward by you as fact.
If you research this 'feeding the hungry through biotech' assumption (just as I linked you to the last thing you called BS and based on assumption, order 81, Iraq), then you will find that the data not only doesn't support your conclusions, but it finds that the reverse is actually more accurate, GMO crops are actually helping to cause hunger in some parts of the world already.
Maybe you should be a big boy though and go research this one for yourself, its good for the brain.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> I must apologize for the glib rude sarcasm in my first response to your posts.
> Maybe its better that I should have replied concerning the area where we do agree.
> The problem with what your quote suggests is that it would either take a 50/50 shot (generous odds) very long and expensive law suit or an Act of the US congress to do so and I think you can imagine what the likelihood of either of those things happening.
> The US patent office was originally dead set against 'patents on life' and fought it all the way to the high courts, they lost back in (I think) 1983, and so began the race to own the genetic design of everything that could generate a profit, and at this point that means every living thing possible.


the courts have ruled that the GM crops may be patented but they have not allowed the patenting of non-GM organisms and cultivars. 
the only reason the GM crops are exepted from the usual prohibitions on patenting a cultivar is the extensive R&D involved in making these UNIQUELY DIFFERENT organisms. without patent protection no-one would pursue genetic research except by government grants or charitable donations, and the corporations scientists and regulators who argued for the exemption made a compelling case for the NEED for more research into GM crops. 

if i created a GMO baboon that had organs which were easily transplanted into humans without the risk of rejection, i would have 2 choices, keep the baboons under wraps as a "Trade Secret" which esentially means i would have to breed raise tend, harvest and ship my baboon organs to every hospital which needed some livers hearts or lungs for transplant, and hope nobody got a sample of my 'boon's DNA so they could clone up a few of their own, ruining my monopoly, or patent my 'boons and sue the shit out of anyone who tried to cut in on my action. 

trade secrets are almost impossible to keep, especially in self propagating organisms. patents exist to encourage developments in technology by creating a financial incentive to create new and useful things. without patents, nothing new would be created, save that the object would be nearly impossible to duplicate without the designs. 

you obviously view patents in the same way the "Occupy Whatever I Desire" crowd does, as a greedy infringement on their right to have whatever they want for free. 
the rampant piracy of movies books and software will inevitably reduce the impetus to create such works in the future since nobody likes working for free. if you ban patents on genetic technologies youll eliminate any reason to bother spending so damned much cash to create something which any asshole with a flowerpot and a watering can could duplicate on his back porch. 

but then the patents of GM organisms is a canard. it's just a ploy to get the anarcho-didnt-think-it-throughists on your side by "sticking it to the man"


----------



## desert dude (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> I've noticed that many of your opinions seem to be based on unquestioned assumptions which seem to be put forward by you as fact.
> If you research this 'feeding the hungry through biotech' assumption (just as I linked you to the last thing you called BS and based on assumption, order 81, Iraq), then you will find that the data not only doesn't support your conclusions, but it finds that the reverse is actually more accurate, GMO crops are actually helping to cause hunger in some parts of the world already.
> Maybe you should be a big boy though and go research this one for yourself, its good for the brain.


As Kynes already pointed out, order 81 simply says: "if you use GM seeds to produce a crop, you have to pay the IP owner for the privilege". If you want to plant old-style seeds, go right ahead, nobody is forcing anybody to plant GM crops.

You are no Norman Ernest Borlaug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
*
"Norman Ernest Borlaug* (March 25, 1914 &#8211; September 12, 2009[SUP][1][/SUP]), "The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives", was an American agronomist, humanitarian, and Nobel laureate who has been called "the father of the Green Revolution".[SUP][2][/SUP] Borlaug was one of six people to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal.[SUP][3][/SUP] He was awarded the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian honor.[SUP][4]"[/SUP]


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Yes sir, understood sir, I will carry out your orders to the best of my ability.
> The first link I would suggest is:
> here
> and then:
> here


The first link is about Iraq. The second opens blank. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> OK, but would a 'proud' parent want their toddler to be attempting their first steps in a spot where there was only room to stand because there are potentially fatal cliffs or unreasonably steep stairways on all sides, or would that kind of 'pride' come before humpty dumpty falls off the wall?
> Also, to your first point, I recall an experiment with two identical looking birds of the same species, one bird came from the family genetics of birds from a harsh weather region where they really had to work for a living, the other bird came from family genetics of birds from a mild easy living climate zone/region. Both birds were born and raised in separate but equal captivity environments. They then challenged each bird to a food gathering test where grubs were placed in a hole covered by a steel washer with a clear glass or plastic center so that the birds could see the grub but could not get to the grub unless they could figure out to move the washer to the side.
> The bird from the more task adapted genetics scored right off and kept on eating from hole to hole.
> The bird from easy street just kept banging its beak against the clear center over each whole and seemed to have no ability whatsoever to think it through and so went unfed.


To the first: consider Arctic nesting birds. They kick their young out of the nest very early. Bad parents? By human standards perhaps, but by the demands of the environment they've found the way that works. I suspect that, adapting the metaphor, our current window of technical opportunity is Arctic in nature: intense but brief, and followed by an inhospitable time.

To the second, I will wager that the behavior described is not genetically occasioned but the consequence of epigenetics. Regardless, it can be described by a purely darwinian model. Every species, though seemingly very uniform, has a remarkable palette of recessive traits available in need. (The spectacular radiation of different sizes, shapes and behaviors of the dog from a very recent starting point (wolf) illustrates.) In the case of the bird from Easy Street, if his kind lived there for a few dozen generations, the recessive trait for efficient foraging will have had no selective advantage and will have been allowed to dilute out of that bird's recessives. No need to invoke Lamarck, even though humans have an emotional/sentimental stake in Lamarckian genetics holding at least a kernel of truth. It squares with our mythos of self-improvement _via _hard work. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> really? and what reasons are those?
> 
> [ ] because corporations are meanies and they are patenting their custom designed crops?
> 
> ...


I'm sorry to say that your posts are so lacking in coherent logic and also lacking any glimmer of actual ability or inclination to engage in reasonably coherent discussion that I feel I must simply decline your proposition.
Also though you might actually look stuff up before you start listening to the voices in your head claiming things are "imaginary".
I'll (as an act of mercy and kindness) make this one easy for you (and its an expired law, not one that's still active to my knowledge):
click here
and here


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> I'm sorry to say that your posts are so lacking in coherent logic and also lacking any glimmer of actual ability or inclination to engage in reasonably coherent discussion that I feel I must simply decline your proposition.
> Also though you might actually look stuff up before you start listening to the voices in your head claiming things are "imaginary".
> I'll (as an act of mercy and kindness) make this one easy for you (and its an expired law, not one that's still active to my knowledge):
> click here
> and here


and it's still an imaginary rule. US laws and US dictates no longer apply (and have not for some time) in iraq. 

thus the rule cited is INVALID. pretending it is valid places the issue squarely in the realm of the IMAGINATION.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> To the first: consider Arctic nesting birds. They kick their young out of the nest very early. Bad parents? By human standards perhaps, but by the demands of the environment they've found the way that works. I suspect that, adapting the metaphor, our current window of technical opportunity is Arctic in nature: intense but brief, and followed by an inhospitable time.
> 
> To the second, I will wager that the behavior described is not genetically occasioned but the consequence of epigenetics. Regardless, it can be described by a purely darwinian model. Every species, though seemingly very uniform, has a remarkable palette of recessive traits available in need. (The spectacular radiation of different sizes, shapes and behaviors of the dog from a very recent starting point (wolf) illustrates.) In the case of the bird from Easy Street, if his kind lived there for a few dozen generations, the recessive trait for efficient foraging will have had no selective advantage and will have been allowed to dilute out of that bird's recessives. No need to invoke Lamarck, even though humans have an emotional/sentimental stake in Lamarckian genetics holding at least a kernel of truth. It squares with our mythos of self-improvement _via _hard work. cn


No doubt epigenetics plays a dominant role in behavior and response functions (as clearly exampled in the differences between your posts and *Dr Kynes* posts), but the the experiment I referred to took great measures to try to set the boundaries in such a way as to distinguish between 'nature' and 'nurture' and so concluded that the behavior exhibited was more than likely embedded in the genetics of each bird after generations of epigenetic signals in one direction or the other, thus modifying the evolving genetics of each bird etc.
I do wonder though how many generations it takes to devolve?
Hard to know if the 'kicking out of the nest' analogy properly applies at this point though, in my mind it might be better analogized as a (corporate) vulture raiding the nest before the babes ever have the chance to attempt to fly.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> and it's still an imaginary rule. US laws and US dictates no longer apply (and have not for some time) in iraq.
> 
> thus the rule cited is INVALID. pretending it is valid places the issue squarely in the realm of the IMAGINATION.


If you actually bothered to accurately reed the original post it simply describes a test model that was absolutely put in place and implemented until it expired.
Just like the US uses 'conflicts' to test new weapons, they also use occupations to test new laws.
I don't know why I bother responding to your continued incoherence, guess I'm an old compassionate softy.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> No doubt epigenetics plays a dominant role in behavior and response functions (as clearly exampled in the differences between your posts and *Dr Kynes* posts), but the the experiment I referred to took great measures to try to set the boundaries in such a way as to distinguish between 'nature' and 'nurture' and so concluded that the behavior exhibited was more than likely embedded in the genetics of each bird after generations of epigenetic signals in one direction or the other, thus modifying the evolving genetics of each bird etc.
> I do wonder though how many generations it takes to devolve?
> Hard to know if the 'kicking out of the nest' analogy properly applies at this point though, in my mind it might be better analogized as a (corporate) vulture raiding the nest before the babes ever have the chance to attempt to fly.


I'm taking a longer perspective, beyond ephemera like corporations. In fact, I worry that ephemera like corporations could be influencing our destiny by having otherwise soundminded folk like you see only danger (and attempt blockade) where I see a refreshing shot at survival for our species, or more precisely the first flush of posthumans. We're a breed of midwives in my concept. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

desert dude said:


> As Kynes already pointed out, order 81 simply says: "if you use GM seeds to produce a crop, you have to pay the IP owner for the privilege". If you want to plant old-style seeds, go right ahead, nobody is forcing anybody to plant GM crops.
> 
> You are no Norman Ernest Borlaug.
> 
> ...


OK dd, but weigh that against all the links here.
Also, prov order 81 put in place a gov permit/certification process whereby seeds could not be planted unless certified and permitted by the prov gov etc and the contract to provide the 'certified' seed belonged to Monsanto.
Here's a link to info on gmo cannabis, when you get the google page just click on *gmo cannabis watch*.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I'm taking a longer perspective, beyond ephemera like corporations. In fact, I worry that ephemera like corporations could be influencing our destiny by having otherwise soundminded folk like you see only danger (and attempt blockade) where I see a refreshing shot at survival for our species, or more precisely the first flush of posthumans. We're a breed of midwives in my concept. cn


OK please forgive me for this, but at this point I've gotta play the Hitler card, because if that is true then H is one of the founding midwife's of the whole midwifery analogy, I mean GE was his greatest dream and goal, also backed and encouraged by corporate interests that are still at play to this day.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> OK please forgive me for this, but at this point I've gotta play the Hitler card, because if that is true then H is one of the founding midwife's of the whole midwifery analogy, I mean GE was his greatest dream and goal, also backed and encouraged by corporate interests that are still at play to this day.




hitler had nothing to do with General Electric, perhaps you mean IBM, but he was merely a devoted customer of that company, not a stakeholder and definitely not the founder.

youre getting wackier by the minute.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> OK dd, but weigh that against all the links here.
> Also, prov order 81 put in place a gov permit/certification process whereby seeds could not be planted unless certified and permitted by the prov gov etc and the contract to provide the 'certified' seed belonged to Monsanto.
> Here's a link to info on gmo cannabis, when you get the google page just click on *gmo cannabis watch*.


weigh all those google results depicting fear and insanity to the information found HERE:

a list of every person ever harmed by eating GMO food. 

http://www.nosh.com/404


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> hitler had nothing to do with General Electric, .


"General Electric"
That was a joke right? Either way thanks for the lol...just in case it wasn't a joke then GE means Genetic Engineering and the subject being referred to in that conversation is called Eugenics.
If you must be in this thread then how about be useful and tell me how I load an avatar?
Thanks again<3


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> OK please forgive me for this, but at this point I've gotta play the Hitler card, because if that is true then H is one of the founding midwife's of the whole midwifery analogy, I mean GE was his greatest dream and goal, also backed and encouraged by corporate interests that are still at play to this day.


Thread Godwin'd!! 

The analogy collapses. Hitler and his eugenicist confrères were into selective breeding of humans, the way we've done to pets, livestock and crops.
Genetic engineering is an entirely different toolset and technique. It no longer relies on the recessive palette. 

Want half of my ham&cheese?  cn

<add> to load an avatar, go to "My Rollitup" and select Edit Avatar on the left. You can then ctrl V an image (including a gif, if its size does not exceed the site's limit) directly in.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> "General Electric"
> That was a joke right? Either way thanks for the lol...just in case it wasn't a joke then GE means Genetic Engineering and the subject being referred to in that conversation is called Eugenics.
> If you must be in this thread then how about be useful and tell me how I load an avatar?
> Thanks again<3


the accepted acronym for genetically modified organisms and the processes involved is GMO. 

when you say GE, even in this context many will assume General Electric since they in fact are the parent company of several GMO innovators, and they manufacture a lot of the hardware used in making genetic modifications. 

genetic engineering is usually used in the context of science fiction, where an organism is designed from the ground up (usually by a dangerously wacky madman or some sinister alien race...) for a particular purpose. 

if you wish to add an image and make it your picture to the left (avatar) log in and go to "My Rollitup" (toolbar top right of every page) and look to the left. youll see a frame titled "My Settings" select "Edit Avatar" use one of the defaults, or upload your own. you may also direct to a URL but if the image you use goes 404 at a later date you will most likely catch the Aids.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 24, 2012)

*FIDDY HIDDY!*







The ONLY way to celebrate a Godwin.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 24, 2012)

^^ Is this [impolite term] necessary? I will begin getting moddish with this font abuse. Next time ... cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Thread Godwin'd!!
> 
> The analogy collapses. Hitler and his eugenicist confrères were into selective breeding of humans, the way we've done to pets, livestock and crops.
> Genetic engineering is an entirely different toolset and technique. It no longer relies on the recessive palette.
> ...


Yup I had a suspicion something like all that was going to happen if dropped the H bomb lol...and thanks for the avatar answer.
The thing about the H bomb though is that its not really about the technological capabilities of that era as much as its about intent.
Do you really think H and DuPont and others weren't already deep into the notion that some day this technology would be at hand and intended on being the first to develop such?
I would pose to you that H labs are exactly where some of the most root foundational work done in this area probably started, what with no shortage of prisoner test subjects etc especially with the IG Farben/Auschwitz operations going on.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Yup I had a suspicion something like all that was going to happen if dropped the H bomb lol...and thanks for the avatar answer.
> The thing about the H bomb though is that its not really about the technological capabilities of that era as much as its about intent.
> Do you really think H and DuPont and others weren't already deep into the notion that some day this technology would be at hand and intended on being the first to develop such?
> I would pose to you that H labs are exactly where some of the most root foundational work done in this area probably started, what with no shortage of prisoner test subjects etc especially with the IG Farben/Auschwitz operations going on.


What ruins this reverie is that the work defining the basis of genetic chemistry wasn't done 'til the '50s. The identity of DNA as the genetic material was discovered in '44 by an American research group. Without the chemical basis of heredity, all we could have is conventional selective breeding.

Seventy years have passed, and our genetic Odyssey (in the sense of a blundering stumble in the dark) has brought very little by way of practical gen-eng technology. Much sensationalized work was done on developing a tech to read coded strings of DNA (in the process highlighting the importance of epigenetics and proteomics, which are as much a frontier today as genetics was in the '40s), and some remarkably heavy-handed but successful gene splices into organisms across specific and phyletic lines. We have not come very far at all, and it'll be probably a good century (presuming continuity of prosperity!) before we get good enough to begin doing the things that the old-school eugenicists had in mind. 
And I imagine that they, especially the Germans, were smart enough to understand that the time horizon was against them. cn


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 24, 2012)

Bear,

Epigenes prove Darwin was partly wrong and Lamarck is partly right. Life is much more complicated than anyone thought.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> What ruins this reverie is that the work defining the basis of genetic chemistry wasn't done 'til the '50s. The identity of DNA as the genetic material was discovered in '44 by an American research group. Without the chemical basis of heredity, all we could have is conventional selective breeding.
> 
> Seventy years have passed, and our genetic Odyssey (in the sense of a blundering stumble in the dark) has brought very little by way of practical gen-eng technology. Much sensationalized work was done on developing a tech to read coded strings of DNA (in the process highlighting the importance of epigenetics and proteomics, which are as much a frontier today as genetics was in the '40s), and some remarkably heavy-handed but successful gene splices into organisms across specific and phyletic lines. We have not come very far at all, and it'll be probably a good century (presuming continuity of prosperity!) before we get good enough to begin doing the things that the old-school eugenicists had in mind.
> And I imagine that they, especially the Germans, were smart enough to understand that the time horizon was against them. cn


I don't challenge anything you've stated here accept "What ruins this reverie", (did you go to Boise state or UC Davis?lol, but do you really disagree that this technology was 'still just a twinkle in dad's eye' as they say, dad being H et al?
OK at risk of another thread bomb from the dr., here I go again lol all apologies in advance just as before, but to me trying to wriggle out of H already trying to work in this direction even if only entertaining theories of this kind of technology is about as plausible as saying the US gov could have never foreseen planes, highjacked or otherwise crashing into the trade towers as was their standard PR line at the time.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Life is much more complicated than anyone thought.


Now that's what I'm talking about, thanks<3
I would add 'or will think for a long time to come', which is why its just not wise to mess with the houses foundation until we have a better grip on what actions do or do not bring the house down. That's what labs are for, what's going on now is fueled purely by profit margins, and that's always a dangerous motivation, it's what motivates paid killers and diverts them from their consciences.
Watch the teli for 10 minutes and you will see probably at least 2 commercials trying to sell you 'medicine's' that have possible side effects that sound like they are reading from the causes of action in a criminal prosecution, most all including death...and these are some of the same folks who are busy redesigning our genetic existence...OK...


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 24, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> My question to the OP is: why the fuck not?
> 
> It's a plant, we've been cross-breeding, inter-breeding, self breeding, "cloning", doing tissue cultures for years without any complaint.
> 
> Why just use a computer as-is when you now know it's programming language?


Right, as recently as 14 years ago they thought 90% of the nucleus contained "junk DNA". Now we know differently. We barely are scratching the surface, but let's just throw it all out there into the wild, almost completely untested, because that's smart. 

Reality is we should abolish patent law. Do that and no one bothers with GMOs because they haven't improved anything, at all, and to think we'll be able to by randomly inserting genes that will alter incredibly complicated systems that took billions of years to evolve (all without causing any harm) with a gene gun is pretty hilarious at best. The human ego knows no boundaries.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> I don't challenge anything you've stated here accept "What ruins this reverie", (did you go to Boise state or UC Davis?lol, but do you really disagree that this technology was 'still just a twinkle in dad's eye' as they say, dad being H et al?
> OK at risk of another thread bomb from the dr., here I go again lol all apologies in advance just as before, but to me trying to wriggle out of H already trying to work in this direction even if only entertaining theories of this kind of technology is about as plausible as saying the US gov could have never foreseen planes, highjacked or otherwise crashing into the trade towers as was their standard PR line at the time.


Hitler's embracing of eugenics was not a cause of action,, it was a RESULT of his desperate need for a scapegoat. the eugenicist's claptrap provided him with "evidence" of the inferiority of jews slavs poles negroes and all manner of people who's great sin was being Not German Enough. even his "aryan" bullshit was simply a slapdash re-imagining of history for his own purposes. describing the nordic peoples as aryan is not only idiotic abundantly obviously flawed. if he werent Der Fuhrer he would have been laughed out of town. Hitler was also an ardent believer in astrology, esoteric mysticism, the psuedo-philosophies of Marx and Engles, and the trenchant insights of Benito Mussolini none of which are scientific either, yet all have been put up as such by adherents, proponents and touts many times over the years. if in some distant almost unimaginably madcap future some chucklehead actually draws a tenuous statistical link between the seasonal period in which one is born, and some percieved character trait in adults, would this be "Proof" of the veracity of the noble art of astrology? in that distant time i will still call bullshit even if Der Fuhrer thinks it's a grand idea. 

describing eugenics or eugenicists as anything scientific is way off the mark. most eugenics was based on fundamentally flawed assumptions, like average cranial capacity of a social group being a measure of intelligence, as well as the brilliant observations obtained through the rigorous science of phrenology, and the powerful theories of insightful thinkers like De Gobineau, and drunken racist rednecks wearing gravy stained klan robes. as much as i despise the feraful and misinformed hippies who believe that eating GMO corn will transform them into hideous mutations or trigger allergies from 5 genus away, trying to intimate that genetic research is the fruit of the poison tree with it's roots in hitler's bowel movements is just despicable. 

when you wind up declaring GMO's are bad because------------> (6 degrees of separation to hitler)---------------> therefore anyone who doesnt hate GMO's is in league with the Nazis... you have already lost the argument. 

you keep grasping for new reasons why your little bill is a good idea

for stoners, it will keep Monsanto from making GMO dope to poison all the little potheads. 
for anarcho-occupier nutbars,, it puts corporations in their place
for econauts it preserves nature's balance 
for religious wackadoos it protects Intelligent Design's designs\
for socialists it stigmatizes profit
for communists it "protects the commons" while expanding "the commons" to include ephemeral ideas and the natural world
for the anti-hitler brigade you conflate genetic science with eugenicists and drop the the H-Bomb like Harry Truman. 

im curious what you will include to sway the anti-gun lobby and the free abortion on demand crowd.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 24, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Bear,
> 
> Epigenes prove Darwin was partly wrong and Lamarck is partly right. Life is much more complicated than anyone thought.


Yet even with epigenes, Darwinian evolution seems to hold. We have no indication that epigenes display a practice effect. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Right, as recently as 14 years ago they thought 90% of the nucleus contained "junk DNA". Now we know differently. We barely are scratching the surface, but let's just throw it all out there into the wild, almost completely untested, because that's smart.
> 
> Reality is we should abolish patent law. Do that and no one bothers with GMOs because they haven't improved anything, at all, and to think we'll be able to by randomly inserting genes that will alter incredibly complicated systems that took billions of years to evolve (all without causing any harm) with a gene gun is pretty hilarious at best. The human ego knows no boundaries.


Right as acidfree rain from where I sit, it's the "*Reality is we should abolish patent law" *that is the tough proposition as I went over briefly in a previous post.
Thanks for the perfectly critically thought out response in my opinion<3


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> you keep grasping for new reasons why your little bill is a good idea
> for stoners, it will keep Monsanto from making GMO dope to poison all the little potheads.
> for anarcho-occupier nutbars,, it puts corporations in their place
> for econauts it preserves nature's balance
> ...


I'm considering using your quote as my new signature lol, seriously though I am, the only thing is you actually left out a bunch of other 'groups' or folks we had in mind to cross connect when wording this Act/or the working draft of. 
I truly must thank you for giving me a true ho ho ho belly laugh on this christmas eve<3


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 24, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Right as acidfree rain from where I sit, it's the "*Reality is we should abolish patent law" *that is the tough proposition as I went over briefly in a previous post.
> Thanks for the perfectly critically thought out response in my opinion<3


It's the only proposition that makes sense if we really want what's best for humanity.

I agree, good luck in getting it done.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 24, 2012)

canndo said:


> This has the potential to ruin my business prospects and scrub two years of work for me. It is clear that this is an attempt to deal with patent issues regarding plant organisms and that is exactly the audience I am playing to with my products.


Then for Jesus' sake, I hope you fail.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 24, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Then for Jesus' sake, I hope you fail.


That is both harsh and judgmental imo. cn


----------



## curious2garden (Dec 24, 2012)

Better living through Chemistry.
--Monsanto

The cannabis of today bears zero resemblance to the cannabis of the 60's. It's been genetically engineered. That genetic engineering did not occur by our direct manipulation of the cannabis genome but via decades of selected, focused, breeding programs. 

Does it make a difference if the proteins are cleaved by a restriction enzyme or by years of selective breeding, if the end product is the same? But if we can arrive at one faster than the other does that make it more or less useful? Should one be banned and the other embraced, why?

Genetic modifications can be harmful to the carrier and to the population. It really doesn't matter how the genetic modification occurred, does it?

Science has come so far so fast we have to rely on very strong peer review and ethics committees. I think it's impossible to legislate things like science and morality. It just won't work. It's been tried in the past, the Catholic Church and Galileo, the Scopes Monkey Trial, etc....


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> That is both harsh and judgmental imo. cn


Then he should watch his tongue when he spews his gun "logic." For many of us guns mean life or death in bad neighborhoods. He can always make a come back and get a new job. I'm not Hindu, so I can't make a come back after death. Nor can my family. If because of him they ban guns, that's much more harsh and judgmental imo.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 24, 2012)

curious2garden said:


> Better living through Chemistry.
> --Monsanto
> 
> The cannabis of today bears zero resemblance to the cannabis of the 60's. It's been genetically engineered. That genetic engineering did not occur by our direct manipulation of the cannabis genome but via decades of selected, focused, breeding programs.
> ...


The terms are used to highlight a technical distinction. While one _can _parse the words to make selective breeding a sort of genetic manipulation, the term "genetic engineering" has been used specifically to denote the snipping and splicing of direct genetic material, followed by the (re)introduction of that manipulated molecule into a germ line. cn


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> The terms are used to highlight a technical distinction. While one _can _parse the words to make selective breeding a sort of genetic manipulation, the term "genetic engineering" has been used specifically to denote the snipping and splicing of direct genetic material, followed by the (re)introduction of that manipulated molecule into a germ line. cn


Foreign (to the species) genetic material I would say is more accurate, although you could use the same techniques with genes from within the species, I haven't seen or heard of it.


----------



## curious2garden (Dec 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> The terms are used to highlight a technical distinction. While one _can _parse the words to make selective breeding a sort of genetic manipulation, the term "genetic engineering" has been used specifically to denote the snipping and splicing of direct genetic material, followed by the (re)introduction of that manipulated molecule into a germ line. cn



What I tried to say was it doesn't really matter where the genetic alteration came from the end results are the same. So you can go the quick and precise route or you can take the slow, 'hands off' approach. Personally I think it's a false dilemma. But this is a field I don't have the background to 'have' an opinion worth anything LOL.

Merry Christmas, CN and everyone.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 24, 2012)

It is obviously not even close to the same. How are you going to introduce bacterial DNA into a species not receptive to it except with genetic engineering?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 24, 2012)

curious2garden said:


> What I tried to say was it doesn't really matter where the genetic alteration came from the end results are the same. So you can go the quick and precise route or you can take the slow, 'hands off' approach. Personally I think it's a false dilemma. But this is a field I don't have the background to 'have' an opinion worth anything LOL.
> 
> Merry Christmas, CN and everyone.


Thank you and Merry Christmas to you to<3
I like your post because it just feels honest and frankly I don't think even the most qualified 'experts' in this field can guarantee that they have enough knowledge to know for sure whether or not they are doing any isolated or collective short term damage let alone long term damage as they go willy nilly into splicing genes like a bull in a china shop. 
There are more variables than we even know of and the odds of not irreversibly harming ourselves or other species or the commons in this 'wild west' R&D period would probably compare to the odds of winning the lottery 100 times in a row I'm guessing.
ps, as others have pointed out, there is a world of difference between species and varieties and sub varieties of such that have the natural ability to genetically mix in the pro creation process whether guided by humans or not, and splicing genes that would not normally by nature have any ability to mix and or procreate.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 25, 2012)

curious2garden said:


> Better living through Chemistry.
> --Monsanto
> 
> The cannabis of today bears zero resemblance to the cannabis of the 60's. It's been genetically engineered. That genetic engineering did not occur by our direct manipulation of the cannabis genome but via decades of selected, focused, breeding programs.
> ...


The cannabis of the 60's for the most part was fertilized (seeded), which means it was far less 'potent', and the more generations of full fertilization/pollination the less 'potent' a strain will become ie "hemp" or what is called by some "industrial hemp" or "no high" or "ditch weed", and conversely the more in a row generations a strain is kept from pollination the more 'potent' it will get, and when you add those variables alone (of course there are many more) with selective breeding its easy to understand how one can say the 60's cannabis didn't compare to the now kind, but in no way does that qualify as genetic engineering or modification = gene splicing.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 25, 2012)

If the good dr thinks its been wacky up till now, wait till he sees the Monsanto flying pigs I recently liberated who in turn will be pulling my slay tonight, speaking of which its past time for me to shuv off! So a very Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night<3


----------



## canndo (Dec 25, 2012)

desert dude said:


> The biotech revolution has ensured that we are able to continue to feed the growing multitudes. Why do you want poor people to starve?



Most of the most recent biotech revolution does not "ensure we are able to continue to feed the growing multitudes". In fact very few of the most recent advances have potentiated higher yields or more resistence to pests resulting in net increases in yeild. This is The biotech industries dirty little secret. Most of theh advances are self serving or B2B improvements that don't do much to feed the masses - They may preduced prettier fruit, fruit that may be more adaptable to long distance shipping but not much else. They do try to perpetuate the idea that they are single handedly feeding the world where no one else is capable of doing it.


Propaganda Desert Dude, simple Monsanto and big Ag propaganda. There are some studies that tend to indicate that there was no real net energy gain resulting from the green revolution either. I've not studied those in any sort of depth so I can't say definitely one way or another, what I can say is that the recent "advances" aren't nearly what they are cracked up to be.


----------



## canndo (Dec 25, 2012)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Right, as recently as 14 years ago they thought 90% of the nucleus contained "junk DNA". Now we know differently. We barely are scratching the surface, but let's just throw it all out there into the wild, almost completely untested, because that's smart.
> 
> Reality is we should abolish patent law. Do that and no one bothers with GMOs because they haven't improved anything, at all, and to think we'll be able to by randomly inserting genes that will alter incredibly complicated systems that took billions of years to evolve (all without causing any harm) with a gene gun is pretty hilarious at best. The human ego knows no boundaries.




GMOs may or may not represent improvements as yet but they do indeed present the distinct possibility if not the evenatuality of "improvements". Engineering a bug that eats oil spills could be considered an improvement, designing a goat that puts human insulin in it's milk could be an improvement as well. While it may be fun to randomly insert genes into complex systems and see what comes out, that is rarely what happens of late - and if taken at it's highest level, isn't that random alteration of genes the rough equivelent of evolution itself?

I personally don't think that it is wise to introduce interspeciies genetic alterations into nature and I think that if we wait for nanotechnology to make its presence known, there may well never have been a need for this sort of genetic engineering.


----------



## canndo (Dec 25, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Now that's what I'm talking about, thanks<3
> I would add 'or will think for a long time to come', which is why its just not wise to mess with the houses foundation until we have a better grip on what actions do or do not bring the house down. That's what labs are for, what's going on now is fueled purely by profit margins, and that's always a dangerous motivation, it's what motivates paid killers and diverts them from their consciences.
> Watch the teli for 10 minutes and you will see probably at least 2 commercials trying to sell you 'medicine's' that have possible side effects that sound like they are reading from the causes of action in a criminal prosecution, most all including death...and these are some of the same folks who are busy redesigning our genetic existence...OK...



Comparing what is a legal requirement to list all, no matter how remote, "side effects" of a drug that is advertised to the general public with the results of genetic engineering is hardly fair or accurate. Again, While I do not believe that we are yet (or ever) capable of asessing the risks and dangers of introducing modified organisms into nature, claiming that we should not do so simply because one of the side effects of cialis is 4 hour erections isn't much of an argument.


----------



## canndo (Dec 25, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Then for Jesus' sake, I hope you fail.



The marijuana plant has inherent in it as it stands a penchant for making complex, novel chemicals. Many of those chemicals are only now being recognized as possibly highly beneficial to medicine. Given that thes tiny factories might well be harnessed to produce even more of these chemicals - why on earth would you have me fail?


----------



## canndo (Dec 25, 2012)

curious2garden said:


> Better living through Chemistry.
> --Monsanto
> 
> The cannabis of today bears zero resemblance to the cannabis of the 60's. It's been genetically engineered. That genetic engineering did not occur by our direct manipulation of the cannabis genome but via decades of selected, focused, breeding programs.
> ...



This is a comon misreprentation of genetic engineering. Selective breeding could be considered engineering but only at a rudamentary level. It becomes questionable if and when genes foreign to the organism are introduced. Implanting a gene present in bacteria in a plant without a mechamism for that gene to be eradicated naturaly may well be.... unwise and there is no parallel in nature.


----------



## canndo (Dec 25, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Then he should watch his tongue when he spews his gun "logic." For many of us guns mean life or death in bad neighborhoods. He can always make a come back and get a new job. I'm not Hindu, so I can't make a come back after death. Nor can my family. If because of him they ban guns, that's much more harsh and judgmental imo.



Typicaly, you do the same as those who's reaction are kneejerk only. Nowhere have I proposed that guns be banned as a mater of course but that seems to be the only way you are capable of reading my statements. To me, that sort of kneejerk reaction is the real threat to your family and mine.


----------



## canndo (Dec 25, 2012)

Merry Christmas everyone - enjoy your time with your family, your friends and most importantly, with yourself.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 25, 2012)

canndo said:


> GMOs may or may not represent improvements as yet but they do indeed present the distinct possibility if not the evenatuality of "improvements". Engineering a bug that eats oil spills could be considered an improvement, designing a goat that puts human insulin in it's milk could be an improvement as well. While it may be fun to randomly insert genes into complex systems and see what comes out, that is rarely what happens of late - and if taken at it's highest level, isn't that random alteration of genes the rough equivelent of evolution itself?


Those goats aren't being released into the wild, and I know of no source of human insulin. Just close counterparts. Being a diabetic with a father who is also considered an expert in the field, many people don't do as well on the synthetics as they do the old school pig insulins. I have done fine on both synthetic and non. But that's also an isolated product (not a whole food) that can be vigourously and has been well tested in comparison to the current state of the garbage on grocery store shelves.

Even Monsanto admits their plants produce unknown (in effect) proteins. Probably why they won't serve their own food at their cafeterias. I'm not a baby with the bathwater kind of guy but no question none of this stuff should have ever entered the open environment.



> I personally don't think that it is wise to introduce interspeciies genetic alterations into nature and I think that if we wait for nanotechnology to make its presence known, there may well never have been a need for this sort of genetic engineering.


I agree.


----------



## curious2garden (Dec 25, 2012)

canndo said:


> This is a comon misreprentation of genetic engineering. Selective breeding could be considered engineering but only at a rudamentary level. It becomes questionable if and when genes foreign to the organism are introduced. Implanting a gene present in bacteria in a plant without a mechamism for that gene to be eradicated naturaly may well be.... unwise and there is no parallel in nature.


The question the op essentially asked is should we legislate genetic engineering? What I'm saying is we have a duty to keep legislation off the backs of our scientists. My argument is that with the exception of CN most likely none of us have earned the ticket to an opinion at this level. This is rare air stuff and it's best we trust our scientists and the peer review system to try to keep as much legislation off their backs as possible. So far as I'm aware all of our scientists are human and have as much to fear from an accident as any other of us.

Frankly I think prohibition is a failure, no matter the venue; gun, drugs, science etc...


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 25, 2012)

curious2garden said:


> The question the op essentially asked is should we legislate genetic engineering? What I'm saying is we have a duty to keep legislation off the backs of our scientists. My argument is that with the exception of CN most likely none of us have earned the ticket to an opinion at this level. This is rare air stuff and it's best we trust our scientists and the peer review system to try to keep as much legislation off their backs as possible. So far as I'm aware all of our scientists are human and have as much to fear from an accident as any other of us.
> 
> Frankly I think prohibition is a failure, no matter the venue; gun, drugs, science etc...


I agree, the problem is not the science but the people behind it, just like with guns, every now and then someone just snaps, or maybe they just need to get the company though the next quarter.

Not all have the good nature or morals of cn.  And if it's a "Corp" no one is responsible or held accountable should something go wrong.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 25, 2012)

canndo said:


> Comparing what is a legal requirement to list all, no matter how remote, "side effects" of a drug that is advertised to the general public with the results of genetic engineering is hardly fair or accurate. Again, While I do not believe that we are yet (or ever) capable of asessing the risks and dangers of introducing modified organisms into nature, claiming that we should not do so simply because one of the side effects of cialis is 4 hour erections isn't much of an argument.


I thank you for responding with heart and intelligence in all the posts you've made on this thread, and yes just like doni says, " Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up." Donald Rumsfeld, I should say though that the point of pointing out industry side effects was made in a corroborating evidence or credibility sort of way, not as any sort of front line argument.
ps, Merry Christmass
 ​


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 25, 2012)

curious2garden said:


> The question the op essentially asked is should we legislate genetic engineering? What I'm saying is we have a duty to keep legislation off the backs of our scientists. My argument is that with the exception of CN most likely none of us have earned the ticket to an opinion at this level. This is rare air stuff and it's best we trust our scientists and the peer review system to try to keep as much legislation off their backs as possible. So far as I'm aware all of our scientists are human and have as much to fear from an accident as any other of us.
> 
> Frankly I think prohibition is a failure, no matter the venue; gun, drugs, science etc...


what you are forgetting is that political opinions, illogical faith based beliefs and unreasoning fears are only detrimental to science if they come from people with R's behind their names. 

if your wildeyed yammering and demands that SOMEBODY do SOMETHING comes from unwashed hippies, lazy indolent Occupy morons, the Anarcho-Black Bloc, or the Worker's World Party then your shit is pure win and awesome. 

opposing those demands simply proves that your not THINKING OF THE CHILDREN!

the blather about aboloishing patent law is just another front for the neo-luddite eco-brigade who want us all to "Live Simply" but when you run the numbers most of the population of developed nations will have to "Simply Stop Living". 

but only developed nations... third world nations need their turn at bat, otherwise it's just not fair.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 25, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> ...reasons why your little bill is a good idea
> for stoners, it will keep Monsanto from making GMO dope to poison all the little potheads.
> for anarcho-occupier nutbars,, it puts corporations in their place
> for econauts it preserves nature's balance
> ...


I feel this post makes appropriate another 'just like doni say's' "If you try to please everybody, somebody's not going to like it." Donald Rumsfeld.  
​


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 25, 2012)

canndo said:


> Most of the most recent biotech revolution does not "ensure we are able to continue to feed the growing multitudes". In fact very few of the most recent advances have potentiated higher yields or more resistence to pests resulting in net increases in yeild. This is The biotech industries dirty little secret. Most of theh advances are self serving or B2B improvements that don't do much to feed the masses - They may preduced prettier fruit, fruit that may be more adaptable to long distance shipping but not much else. They do try to perpetuate the idea that they are single handedly feeding the world where no one else is capable of doing it.
> 
> 
> Propaganda Desert Dude, simple Monsanto and big Ag propaganda. There are some studies that tend to indicate that there was no real net energy gain resulting from the green revolution either. I've not studied those in any sort of depth so I can't say definitely one way or another, what I can say is that the recent "advances" aren't nearly what they are cracked up to be.


Yup its just like doni says "There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it, and that's just a fact." by Donald Rumsfeld


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 25, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> ...Life is much more complicated than anyone thought.


Thought this was worth repeating because its probably the best argument...but no worries cuz doni's got it all figured out and after this quote hes going to redesign our DNA  


Rumsfeld said:


> There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 25, 2012)

curious2garden said:


> What I tried to say was it doesn't really matter where the genetic alteration came from the end results are the same. So you can go the quick and precise route or you can take the slow, 'hands off' approach. Personally I think it's a false dilemma. But this is a field I don't have the background to 'have' an opinion worth anything LOL.
> 
> Merry Christmas, CN and everyone.


Merry Christmas Annie!

I would say that there is a difference of kind and not just technique. Yes, they both introduce directed genotypic change. But selective breeding is "natural" in the sense that we are using the unaltered mechanisms of heredity and selecting the results.

In current genetic engineering, we chemically select the gene we seek (and, with the polymerase chain reaction we can Xerox a few trillion copies) and then use talented enzymes to rather clumsily duct-tape the selected coding string (ideally the gene, the whole gene and nothing but the gene) and hope that there is one viable, complete cell that expresses the sought trait. If so, success.

But there is potential in this mode of engineering for something easily conceived but not easy to reduce to practice.
Until epigenetics and proteomics taught us that the DNA molecule is not a simple linear data tape, the direct ambition was to make a library of known gene sequences, prepare a combinatorial spread of changed sequences, and pan for gold in all that gravel.
But combinatorial approaches are less desirable when the core chemistry (prepping and inserting maybegenes) remains costly. 
So we need to devise a more spare and clever approach. But with molecular genetics not yet out of surprises, that approach is not currently clear. 

If we arrive at the point where, probably by a convergence of analytical and computational chemistries, we can predict the consequences of a change in a coding base (in a given gene in a given chromosome of one genotype of a species), then the promise of rational genetic engineering will begin to be realized. But the sheer size of the problem means that it'll be a large, long-term project. cn


----------



## desert dude (Dec 25, 2012)

After reading through this thread, I am left with a simple question: Why ban genetic engineering? I see nothing but good coming from it. The worry that a bacterial gene inserted into a plant, or animal, or human is "unnatural" strikes me as absurd. All life arose from the same soup. We all share the same genetics.

The knee jerk hatred of Monsanto is occu-tard silliness. The claim that all of this genetic engineering has resulted in nothing useful is laughable; why would anybody buy GM corn seeds if they were not useful?

And the final bottom line is this: the genie is out of the bottle and she is not going to be put back in the bottle by a bunch of superstitious Luddites.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 25, 2012)

desert dude said:


> After reading through this thread, I am left with a simple question: Why ban genetic engineering? I see nothing but good coming from it. The worry that a bacterial gene inserted into a plant, or animal, or human is "unnatural" strikes me as absurd. All life arose from the same soup. We all share the same genetics.
> 
> The knee jerk hatred of Monsanto is occu-tard silliness. The claim that all of this genetic engineering has resulted in nothing useful is laughable; why would anybody buy GM corn seeds if they were not useful?
> 
> And the final bottom line is this: the genie is out of the bottle and she is not going to be put back in the bottle by a bunch of superstitious Luddites.


I'm as interested in the claims that GM crops are causing harm. I've heard it stated as fact, but when I've looked for a confirmed instance, none has emerged. I can sympathize with the idea that GM crops could be dangerous or abused ... but for it to go beyond vague generic sympathy, I'd need to see a chain of evidence. And shrill doomsaying blogs don't ever provide one, and that's apparently all Google finds for me. cn


----------



## desert dude (Dec 25, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I'm as interested in the claims that GM crops are causing harm. I've heard it stated as fact, but when I've looked for a confirmed instance, none has emerged. I can sympathize with the idea that GM crops could be dangerous or abused ... but for it to go beyond vague generic sympathy, I'd need to see a chain of evidence. And shrill doomsaying blogs don't ever provide one, and that's apparently all Google finds for me. cn


Yeah, me too. The claims that GM crops are useless are likewise unconvincing. 

Frankly, it's all just superstition as far as I can tell. I am perfectly willing to let everybody practice their superstitions but I am not willing to remake the world to suit them. If one is convinced that GM food is dangerous then, by all means, don't eat it. I will be happy to eat your share.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 25, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I'm as interested in the claims that GM crops are causing harm. I've heard it stated as fact, but when I've looked for a confirmed instance, none has emerged. I can sympathize with the idea that GM crops could be dangerous or abused ... but for it to go beyond vague generic sympathy, I'd need to see a chain of evidence. And shrill doomsaying blogs don't ever provide one, and that's apparently all Google finds for me. cn


They've never been proven safe. If you think 90 day studies, where when reviewed by 3rd parties that don't have direct ties to the corporate interests (like the FDA) have shown statistically significant negative changes to the mice in question anyway (unless you're the FDA or GE or Monsanto) but claimed otherwise (falsely), you feel that's good enough?

How about we prove they are safe with extensive independent long term study? 

So far the only long term study has shown danger.

I've seen it criticized, but not with any legitimate criticism. They used mice more prone to tumors. Oh no. Humans are also more prone to tumors than mice typically are (which most likely why this breed of mouse was used). If the results were barely statistically significant, this might be a reasonable criticism. They weren't even close.

Meanwhile actual cancer rates continue to rise.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 25, 2012)

desert dude said:


> Yeah, me too. The claims that GM crops are useless are likewise unconvincing.
> 
> Frankly, it's all just superstition as far as I can tell. I am perfectly willing to let everybody practice their superstitions but I am not willing to remake the world to suit them. If one is convinced that GM food is dangerous then, by all means, don't eat it. I will be happy to eat your share.



How about we prove it's safe before we use it? Because that's never happened.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 25, 2012)

OGEvilgenius said:


> They've never been proven safe. If you think 90 day studies, where when reviewed by 3rd parties that don't have direct ties to the corporate interests (like the FDA) have shown statistically significant negative changes to the mice in question anyway (unless you're the FDA or GE or Monsanto) but claimed otherwise (falsely), you feel that's good enough?
> 
> How about we prove they are safe with extensive independent long term study?
> 
> ...


I know they haven't been proven safe. But I have heard people say they've caused e.g. livestock deaths. I've not been able to confirm such stories. 

When you say the long-term study "has shown danger", what danger? And does danger mean "bad things happened" or something less definite? cn


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 25, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I know they haven't been proven safe. But I have heard people say they've caused e.g. livestock deaths. I've not been able to confirm such stories.
> 
> When you say the long-term study "has shown danger", what danger? And does danger mean "bad things happened" or something less definite? cn


It means drastically reduced life span, increased rates of cancer and organ damage. Short term studies have shown organ damage as well.

 Statistically significant findings of toxicity did show up in Monsanto's own 90-day feeding trial on the maize, as revealed by Prof Seralini's team's re-analysis of Monsanto's data:
de Vendomois, J. S., F. Roullier, et al. (2009). "A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health." Int J Biol Sci 5(7): 706&#8211;726


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 25, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I know they haven't been proven safe. But I have heard people say they've caused e.g. livestock deaths. I've not been able to confirm such stories.
> 
> When you say the long-term study "has shown danger", what danger? And does danger mean "bad things happened" or something less definite? cn


there was a study done, that particular mouse developed for it's pretty much 100% chance of growing huge nasty tumors for cancer research were fed BT corn (starlink) and shockingly, the mice who were DESIGNED to grow tumors grew tumors. 

the wacky thing is those mice were genetically modified specifically to encourage the growth of tumors, and theres a variety of "Onco-mouse" which is practically guaranteed to develop just the tumor you want to study. 

you could feed them pure natural organic heirloom grown pesticide free corn in a grass hut on san cristobal island surrounded by magic anti-cancer totems while dosing them with coffee enemas and they will STILL grow tumors. 

flawed study is flawed.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 25, 2012)

OGEvilgenius said:


> It means drastically reduced life span, increased rates of cancer and organ damage. Short term studies have shown organ damage as well.
> 
> Statistically significant findings of toxicity did show up in Monsanto's own 90-day feeding trial on the maize, as revealed by Prof Seralini's team's re-analysis of Monsanto's data:
> de Vendomois, J. S., F. Roullier, et al. (2009). "A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health." Int J Biol Sci 5(7): 706&#8211;726



The study you reference: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm


thats a different study than the one i was looking at before. this one at least appears to be designed for science rather than a groteque freakshow of genetically modified tumor-mice with their entirely expected tumors. 

BT corn was designed to produce a toxin which fucks up bud worms but is largely harmless to any non arthropod. stuffing a mouse with this stuff till his belly pops and then examining the "damage' is hardly damning. . theres hundreds of compounds which are harmless to people animals, plants etc in normal doses that turn toxic if you overdose. 

even nutrients which are essential for life become toxic if you consume too much (like vitamin b12 which can kill you very slowly if you dont get any, but can kill you in an afternoon if you get too much). this study even declares:

"If a &#8220;sign of toxicity&#8221; may only provoke a reaction, pathology or a poisoning, a so-called &#8220;toxic effect&#8221; is without doubt deleterious on a short or a long term. Clearly, the statistically significant effects observed here for all three GM maize varieties investigated are signs of toxicity rather than proofs of toxicity, and this is essentially for three reasons. Firstly, the feeding trials in each case have been conducted only once, and with only one mammalian species. The experiments clearly need to be repeated preferably with more than one species of animal. Secondly, the length of feeding was at most only three months, and thus only relatively acute and medium-term effects can be observed if any similar to what can be derived in a process such as carcinogenesis [19, 20] or after endocrine disruption in adults [21]. Proof of toxicity is hard to decide on the basis of these conditions. Longer-term (up to 2 years) feeding experiments are clearly justified and indeed necessary. This requirement is supported by the fact that cancer, nervous and immune system diseases, and even reproductive disorders for examples can become apparent only after one or two years of a given intervention treatment under investigation, but they will not be evident in all cases after three months of administration when first signs of toxicity may be observed [22, 23]. In addition, large effects (e.g. 40% increase in triglycerides) in all likelihood will be missed with the protocol of the current studies, since they are limited by the number of animals used in each feeding group and by the nature of the parameters studied. Thirdly, the statistical power of the tests conducted is low (30%) because the experimental design of Monsanto (see Materials and Methods). However, it is important to note that these short-term (3-month) rat feeding trials are the only tests conducted on the basis of which regulators determine whether these GM crop/food varieties are as safe to eat as conventional types. Given that these GM crops are potentially eaten by billions of people and animals world-wide, it is important to discuss whether the experimental design, the statistical analyses and interpretations originally undertaken are appropriate and sufficient" 

IF BT corn causes the ingestion of possibly toxic levels of the natural budworm killing pesticide in mammals thats one thing, but without ACTUAL examples of critters with BT poisoning the issue remains a myth. 

one would think it owuld be fairly straightforward to feed a group of rats nothing but BT corn and a second group of rats regular corn and see which group of rats dies from the anti-budworm toxin. i kinda think it will be NEITHER group. 

proving something harmful is fairly simple, proving something "safe" is nearly impossible. how about we try to prove harm rather than demanding that everything be perfectly safe, since even plain ordinary coffee can be declared unsafe if a dumbass pours it on her pussy. cha-ching, wheres my 12 million dollars?


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 25, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> there was a study done, that particular mouse developed for it's pretty much 100% chance of growing huge nasty tumors for cancer research were fed BT corn (starlink) and shockingly, the mice who were DESIGNED to grow tumors grew tumors.
> 
> the wacky thing is those mice were genetically modified specifically to encourage the growth of tumors, and theres a variety of "Onco-mouse" which is practically guaranteed to develop just the tumor you want to study.
> 
> ...


Except that the control group didn't have the same outcomes (not even close).

This criticism is weak.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 25, 2012)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Except that the control group didn't have the same outcomes (not even close).
> 
> This criticism is weak.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/

forbes magazine does a fine job of tearing the cancermouse study to shreds. 

trenchant criticism is trenchant


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 25, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> ...
> In current genetic engineering, we chemically select the gene we seek (and, with the polymerase chain reaction we can Xerox a few trillion copies) and then use talented enzymes to rather clumsily duct-tape the selected coding string (ideally the gene, the whole gene and nothing but the gene) and hope that there is one viable, complete cell that expresses the sought trait. If so, success.
> 
> But there is potential in this mode of engineering for something easily conceived but not easy to reduce to practice.
> ...


cb doesn't your quote above qualify for an argument in favor of some kind of better regulative law(s) at this point in the technologies evolution?
Not saying that such a law(s) should or would ban development of said technologies, but this isn't like marketing a new product where it can sell or not and if it doesn't fly, then the only folks who really lose are the investors etc, this is a deal where if the product fails it could have devastating consequences far more reaching than just the investors etc, so from my perspective a precautionary 'do no harm' approach should be the first concern of anyone that is in that field, let alone all of us who are not.
It would seem to me that unless ones motive was just to gain money and power, if this was someones field they would be the first to be calling for regulation and the strictest protocol because after all after the first 'oil spill' if you will, the whole field gets a bad reputation.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 26, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> cb doesn't your quote above qualify for an argument in favor of some kind of better regulative law(s) at this point in the technologies evolution?
> Not saying that such a law(s) should or would ban development of said technologies, but this isn't like marketing a new product where it can sell or not and if it doesn't fly, then the only folks who really lose are the investors etc, this is a deal where if the product fails it could have devastating consequences far more reaching than just the investors etc, so from my perspective a precautionary 'do no harm' approach should be the first concern of anyone that is in that field, let alone all of us who are not.
> It would seem to me that unless ones motive was just to gain money and power, if this was someones field they would be the first to be calling for regulation and the strictest protocol because after all after the first 'oil spill' if you will, the whole field gets a bad reputation.


My main concern about pre-emptive lawmaking in this area has to do with who makes laws: legislators advised by attorneys. Both professions are heavily populated by the sorts of person who, in college, would point at my sort and shout Nerd. I forgive them their bigotry, but the lasting lesson is that many many legislators and attorneys add to scientific illiteracy a sort of distaste or contempt for science. This makes it hard to directly assail the illiteracy, which shows in the essential cluelessness in the text of many laws governing scientific and engineering endeavors. I would want to know that the folks pursuing such law are those rarest of birds: attorneys who don't just satisfy their need to understand the topic by reading digests prepared by other humanities majors, and understand not only the technical but esoterically cultural aspects of the science. Someone who speaks authentic Attic Geek, so to speak, and can be trusted to at least see the boundaries between the baby and the bathwater.
If I'm rambling worse than usual, blame the Christmas tree.  cn


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 26, 2012)

What happens when Terminator strains accidently get loose in the wild? We always have tobacco, right?


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 26, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> What happens when Terminator strains accidently get loose in the wild? We always have tobacco, right?


I'm covered. I have a pack of "Sarah Connor" beans. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 26, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> My main concern about pre-emptive lawmaking in this area has to do with who makes laws: legislators advised by attorneys. Both professions are heavily populated by the sorts of person who, in college, would point at my sort and shout Nerd. I forgive them their bigotry, but the lasting lesson is that many many legislators and attorneys add to scientific illiteracy a sort of distaste or contempt for science. This makes it hard to directly assail the illiteracy, which shows in the essential cluelessness in the text of many laws governing scientific and engineering endeavors. I would want to know that the folks pursuing such law are those rarest of birds: attorneys who don't just satisfy their need to understand the topic by reading digests prepared by other humanities majors, and understand not only the technical but esoterically cultural aspects of the science. Someone who speaks authentic Attic Geek, so to speak, and can be trusted to at least see the boundaries between the baby and the bathwater.
> If I'm rambling worse than usual, blame the Christmas tree.  cn


Making perfect sense to me cb so no need to start blaming trees lol.
I have had similar experience and conclusions about legislators and lawyers etc, would only add that such are also (owned for the most part) unduly influenced by corporate interests which they define as 'national security' interests etc.
Though I am not a lawyer, I have had to play one in court many times in my life and in multiple areas of law which has led me to the belief that the laws need to start coming from the people instead of the corporate delivery room, that's why I'm here discussing this law with you.
I think you or people of your heart and mind should be helping to write this law.
In here we are discussing a naturally born idea that is born of necessity, whereas any 'group' that has any 'hand' or leverage at all, be it this issue or any other is then unduly corporately influenced at the end of the day.
So just like redesigning DNA, the corporate reality influence has its effect on the lawmaking process whether it comes from places they own like executive and legislative branches of gov, or even if it comes from what looks like dissent groups or what I would rather call controlled dissent.
The official reason for prop 37 (just an example) not having been a ban GMO's campaign is because there was 'professional' = corporate polling that said the people would not vote for a ban but were in majority support for labeling so the money chose to go with labeling and in the end counting on polling to 'do the right thing' got prop 37 about as far as counting on polling got Mitt Romney.
Bring something like this to the groups before there is equity built up in the grass roots is kind of like begging to be ignored or rejected or even worse, co-opted.
I just as soon do this here with you and with others who are just still people and then if it gets 'traction' people could go to the groups, legislators etc with some leverage...as in put up or get out of the way. 
As for the California part, because 'the people' no longer have influence on the 'elected' officials in congress (as if we the people ever really did) California law becomes key not only for cali, but for the rest of the country in that cali is one of the only states (and certainly the biggest by economy) to have a ballot process that can create a law that cannot be amended by the states legislative or executive branches if passed by a vote of the people. It can however still be challenged in court just like anything else.
So because the corporate powers control both state and federal legislative and executive branches of gov in the USA, it seems to make sense to start where 'the people' have the power = cali ballot initiative process.
and my rambling I will blame on this mornins coffee.


----------



## desert dude (Dec 26, 2012)

"Golden Rice". Genetically engineered to make beta carotene, a vitamin A precursor. Illegal to grow in California under your proposed law.

Salmon that grow at twice the rate as "natural" salmon. Illegal to grow in California.

California is the largest agricultural state in the US. Outlawing GM crops will severely damage California's already politically damaged economy. 

""The world is undergoing dramatic change and it won't be long before people are thinking 'where is my next meal coming from?' Where GM has been proved effective at either increasing yields or else resistant to diseases it should be used in the UK. GM crops need to be looked at one by one. They are not the only solution to world hunger but they are part of it." 


The report entitled _Reaping the Benefits: Towards a Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture_, was commissioned in July 2008 in response to a UN report which predicted that world food production needs to double by 2050 to sustain a global population expected to reach nine billion. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6359130/Britain-will-starve-without-GM-crops-says-major-report.html

"*How important are GM crops in Sub-Saharan **Africa**?*
Most of the traditional food crops we use in Africa are not benefiting from GM interventions yet. The GM crops used are mostly products from developed nations like maize, soybeans, canola, and cotton.

But things are moving. There is a cassava plant virus that is resistant to conventional treatments. GM varieties that can handle this virus are in a field trial stage and might be available in four to five years.
Cowpeas are another example. They are one of the most important crops in West Africa and an important source of protein. But yields suffer a lot from an insect pest called Maruca. Farmers do a lot of spraying to contain this, but still lose out. Field trials with GM cowpeas that are resistant to the Maruca larvae have just started in Ghana, Nigeria, and Burkina Faso. In two to three years, farmers should be able to use these improved varieties."
http://www.knowledge.allianz.com/environment/food_water/?503/will-gm-crops-feed-africa


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 26, 2012)

GMO agriculture is in its infantsy as a science 

i don't think that its moral or ethical to just abuse the genetics code without long term studies on sociological and agricultural as well as economic effects for the future

with great power comes great responsibility . .i know cliche . . buts its true . . everyone thought DDT was the godsend as well


----------



## canndo (Dec 26, 2012)

curious2garden said:


> The question the op essentially asked is should we legislate genetic engineering? What I'm saying is we have a duty to keep legislation off the backs of our scientists. My argument is that with the exception of CN most likely none of us have earned the ticket to an opinion at this level. This is rare air stuff and it's best we trust our scientists and the peer review system to try to keep as much legislation off their backs as possible. So far as I'm aware all of our scientists are human and have as much to fear from an accident as any other of us.
> 
> Frankly I think prohibition is a failure, no matter the venue; gun, drugs, science etc...




Your faulty presumption is that scientists work in a vaccuum and that they are never influenced by big business. When they are, they should be regulated just as harshly as business. They are no longer interested in "pure" sicience but in "profit" science. That is the more dangerous kind.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 26, 2012)

considering that the GMO food labeling initiative flopped like a soggy mattress i gotta wonder how you figure this kind of junk law will pass? 

when you pander to so many groups all at once (and proudly declare it "cross connecting") anyone with two braincells to rub together will easily detect the attempt to pander. 

Corporation Hateration + New Age Religious Word Salad + "Intelligent Design" Word Salad + Eco-Fearmongering + Marxist Rhetoric + Anarcho-Occupier Dogwhistles + Irrational Demands = Law Written by Toucan Sam with his mind on his Froot Loops and his Five Fruity Flavours on his mind.


----------



## canndo (Dec 26, 2012)

desert dude said:


> After reading through this thread, I am left with a simple question: Why ban genetic engineering? I see nothing but good coming from it. The worry that a bacterial gene inserted into a plant, or animal, or human is "unnatural" strikes me as absurd. All life arose from the same soup. We all share the same genetics.
> 
> The knee jerk hatred of Monsanto is occu-tard silliness. The claim that all of this genetic engineering has resulted in nothing useful is laughable; why would anybody buy GM corn seeds if they were not useful?
> 
> And the final bottom line is this: the genie is out of the bottle and she is not going to be put back in the bottle by a bunch of superstitious Luddites.




I don't think you grasp the magnitude of the problem Desert Dude, and your upside down a argument is falacious. There are any number of non-eficacy resons for folks to buy and use gmo seeds.. The end result is the end user. We see very little benefit to that end user, most of the pecieved benifits are from B2B applications and nothing more.

Bacterial genetics being inserted into plants is a monstrosity and it is not covered under nature. The soup you speak of was a long and undifferentiated time, organsisms since then have spent millions of years makeing those differenctiations even more distinct. 

Claiming that one genie is out of the bottle so what the hell, let's let the rest of them out is a rather dangerous bit of side reasoninng that may well come back and bite us in ways we cannot comprehend.


----------



## canndo (Dec 26, 2012)

I encounter a hell of a lot of people who are perfectly willing to trust science when it comes to genetic engineering "why they must know what they are doing" "leave it up to those who are most capable of making those decisions" - and yet when I ask those very same people if they believe in Global warming they are certain that scientists are lying in order to garner their grant money or for the power of the scare placed upon the general public.


So Scientists lie, except when they don't


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 26, 2012)

canndo said:


> I don't think you grasp the magnitude of the problem Desert Dude, and your upside down a argument is falacious. There are any number of non-eficacy resons for folks to buy and use gmo seeds.. The end result is the end user. We see very little benefit to that end user, most of the pecieved benifits are from B2B applications and nothing more.
> 
> Bacterial genetics being inserted into plants is a monstrosity and it is not covered under nature. The soup you speak of was a long and undifferentiated time, organsisms since then have spent millions of years makeing those differenctiations even more distinct.
> 
> Claiming that one genie is out of the bottle so what the hell, let's let the rest of them out is a rather dangerous bit of side reasoninng that may well come back and bite us in ways we cannot comprehend.


genie bottles are single occupancy, by law and custom. 

i believe you would do better reaching for Pandora's Box. 

for the small farmer in india boll weevil resistant cotton has kept them from being forced to sell out to agricorps who can afford the pesticides needed to keep the cotton crop in motion. 
india's court ruling that farmers may save seed does NOT help the big producers since their model is dependent on buying seed rather than collecting and saving the seeds from last year's crops. this has been the big farm model with ALL crops since the advent of mechanized farming. 

big operators need the consistency and certainty that only purchased seed can deliver, even most small farmers buy their seeds in developed nations because it's less risky, even backyard gardeners buy seeds rather than replanting, only a very few save seeds, and even then it's usually to protect some particular cultivar. 

as a pothead im sure you recognize the fundamental difference between purchased seeds from a good seed provider and random bagseed. i doubt theres a stoner in this forum who plants bagseed for any reason other than being too cheap to buy a commercial seed. 

the randomness found in naturally pollinated dope makes it inherently questionable. will it be dirt weed? will it be sickly? will it be hermi'ed out and useless? will it autoflower or will i need to switch the lighting schedule? will it be more pungent than my filtration system will support? will it grow freakishly huge in my closet? will it remain tiny in my backyard? all these questions are far more serious when your mortgage rests on the answers, or you might get the boot from the board if profits drop. 

even so, nobody HAS to buy GMO seeds, and GM seeds are not a threat to the ecosystem, since the GMO plants are domestic plants, not wild foliage on the hillside. 

im a little concerned about the GMO fish, but they are intended for fish ranches, not wild release. honestly i get tired of the anti-corporation rants on every issue imaginable. corporations are not so new that you dont know what to expect, and they are not the evil supervillain behind every plot to destabilize your life. if a particular corporation or industry is out of control, then argue for regulations on the industy, demanding the disbanding of every corporate enterprise because BP spilled some oil or AIG floated some bad bets just makes you sound wacky.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 26, 2012)

canndo said:


> I encounter a hell of a lot of people who are perfectly willing to trust science when it comes to genetic engineering "why they must know what they are doing" "leave it up to those who are most capable of making those decisions" - and yet when I ask those very same people if they believe in Global warming they are certain that scientists are lying in order to garner their grant money or for the power of the scare placed upon the general public.
> 
> 
> So Scientists lie, except when they don't


scientiusts arent the ones selling global warming/climate change,, the hucksters are doing that. 

the hucksters are selling a bill of goods, and driving a campaign of terror through washington (and london, and berlin, and paris....) whereby the political morons think that theres a crisis and they start throwing our money around. 

the british squirrel researcher i've mentioned before didt add "global warming" to his squirrel study application for greed, he actually believes studyying the mating habits o british ground squirrels is important. thats why he dedicated his life to the study of fucking squirrels. he has a squirrel-centric world view, and as such he sees a little fib to get his important squirrel research started as a positive step, since it advances the agenda of the rodent research society. 

he used the fear campaign to get his squirrel study going, but he didnt start it, the assholes who started it, like al gore, greenpeace, and that asshole who claimed we were gonna have an iceage in the 70s, and now says the opposite did. THEY are the liars. 

the national academy of sciences says on global warming/climate change: "needs more study" which is exactly what they say about EVERYTHING except ghosts, demonic possession and bigfoot. at best you can infer that the national academy of sciences doesnt believe global warming is the result of delusions, bad acid, or rednecks in gorilla suits. 

read this if you dare. 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-or-the-new-ice-age-fear-of-the-big-freeze/30336


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 26, 2012)

canndo said:


> I don't think you grasp the magnitude of the problem Desert Dude, and your upside down a argument is falacious. There are any number of non-eficacy resons for folks to buy and use gmo seeds.. The end result is the end user. We see very little benefit to that end user, most of the pecieved benifits are from B2B applications and nothing more.
> *
> Bacterial genetics being inserted into plants is a monstrosity and it is not covered under nature.* The soup you speak of was a long and undifferentiated time, organsisms since then have spent millions of years makeing those differenctiations even more distinct.
> 
> Claiming that one genie is out of the bottle so what the hell, let's let the rest of them out is a rather dangerous bit of side reasoninng that may well come back and bite us in ways we cannot comprehend.


Canndo, I am startled to see such naked moralizing from one of our more levelheaded forum participants. The introduction of bacterial genetics and their associated useful machinery is not only part of nature, but a hinge in the evolutionary story. Animals require the mitochondrion, and plants add the chloroplast to this ... a domesticated cyanobacterium without which the land would not be green. 

So I must ask: by what doctrine, on whose moral authority do you declare interphyletic gene splicing to be monstrous? 

I do think however that you have, for better or worse, highlighted a main engine of the anti-GM movement. GM organisms occupy the exact spot on the stage of moral consciousness once held by Mary Shelley's monster. People recoiled in unnecessary horror from that quiltwork human, and they do now in the presence of Wundergrain. All that's missing from this heady stew of base drives is an Ursula Andress lookalike in scanty wraps and bondage gear. cn


----------



## curious2garden (Dec 26, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> ........snip........polymerase chain reaction we can Xerox a few trillion copies.......snip......


Seriously, you thought I didn't understand PCR amplification? Thank you. The place I lose it is at the selection of the different scission agents.



canndo said:


> ........snip....... non-eficacy resons........snip.......


canndo your arguments overall are good. But you ruin them by the misspellings. 

-------------------------------------
Back to the legislation argument.

My problem is who will watch? The FDA has done such a stellar job that by now many seniors in the US have to choose whether to eat or take their prescription medicine. We are still fighting over Cannabis being Schedule 1. This fight began in 1972 and we are STILL AT IT! This group more than any other has been hurt by 'feel good' legislation. So I find it frightening that anyone in the affected class would request more of the same.

Yes mixing bacterial DNA and human DNA has risks, large risks. So did vaccinations and space travel and every step along the way of progress there has been grave risk and loss of life. Possibly we shouldn't have harnessed fire. That has caused serious loss of life since it's 'discovery'. 

This will be no different but with 7 billion people resident on this planet I think we have a bit of a buffer there. Worse I think unless we ramp up faster and play a little less safe we may all simply suffocate here. 

So we want to hamstring the scientists with our emotional reactions thinking this will stop the businesses? The big businesses, will buy their way out of ANY legislation we make as they historically have done. So we better hope the university scientists are sort of keeping up to save us. I could go on and on but it doesn't matter. Oh and if you think there is any other way to understand the human epigenome than reverse engineering of it well I despair.

Finally if you don't like direct genetic engineering then you really aren't going to like the melding of man and machine that's going on. LOL we should probably quickly legislate against that too.

Anyway it's time for me to leave Politics. I just can't bear watching the trainwreck. Enjoy.


----------



## desert dude (Dec 26, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> genie bottles are single occupancy, by law and custom.
> 
> i believe you would do better reaching for Pandora's Box.
> 
> ...


If you are referring to the salmon that grow twice as big, then there is no worry about them mating with wild fish. They are intentionally created "triploid", i.e. three chromosomes instead of the natural diploid, and sterile.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Dec 26, 2012)

desert dude said:


> If you are referring to the salmon that grow twice as big, then there is no worry about them mating with wild fish. They are intentionally created "triploid", i.e. three chromosomes instead of the natural diploid, and sterile.


That worked out so well for the people in Jurassic Park....


----------



## NLXSK1 (Dec 26, 2012)

I am not going to try to say that I am knowledgeable about genetic engineering or modification but I certainly have some concerns.

Accidents happen. People died while scientists created the Atomic bomb. They were accidents....

What I fear is that through accidental or purposeful action, some of the genetic modifications get into the *wild* and cause unintended consequences that were not forseen by the scientists. These consequences might or might not turn out to be financially profitable as the companies provide the *cure* for whatever happened.


----------



## desert dude (Dec 26, 2012)

canndo said:


> I don't think you grasp the magnitude of the problem Desert Dude, and your upside down a argument is falacious. There are any number of non-eficacy resons for folks to buy and use gmo seeds.. The end result is the end user. *We see very little benefit to that end user, most of the pecieved benifits are from B2B applications and nothing more.
> *
> Bacterial genetics being inserted into plants is a monstrosity and it is not covered under nature. The soup you speak of was a long and undifferentiated time, organsisms since then have spent millions of years makeing those differenctiations even more distinct.
> 
> Claiming that one genie is out of the bottle so what the hell, let's let the rest of them out is a rather dangerous bit of side reasoninng that may well come back and bite us in ways we cannot comprehend.




"*Critics say that GM-crops only benefit the big seed manufacturers. What is your experience?*
Well if you look at pest resistant GM cotton in Burkina Faso, the experience is quite positive. If you compare the local, non-modified cotton to the genetically modified variety you see a yield increase of about 30 percent. The increase changes with the pest challenge, the more insects the greater the difference you will see.
The use of insecticides, and therefore costs for the farmers, decreases as well. Normally you have to spray six times, with the GM cotton you have to spray about two times. This also benefits the health of the farmers handling the insecticides."
http://www.knowledge.allianz.com/environment/food_water/?503/will-gm-crops-feed-africa


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 26, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> considering that the GMO food labeling initiative flopped like a soggy mattress i gotta wonder how you figure this kind of junk law will pass?
> 
> when you pander to so many groups all at once (and proudly declare it "cross connecting") anyone with two braincells to rub together will easily detect the attempt to pander.
> 
> Corporation Hateration + New Age Religious Word Salad + "Intelligent Design" Word Salad + Eco-Fearmongering + Marxist Rhetoric + Anarcho-Occupier Dogwhistles + Irrational Demands = Law Written by Toucan Sam with his mind on his Froot Loops and his Five Fruity Flavours on his mind.


Why I wrote the DNA Protection Act of 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWGAdzn5_KU

1minute 23seconds

I guess one could say that I'm just a scout doing recon and then reporting back to those I serve.
For me its all just simply about duty and responsibility to the 'herd' if you will.
As long as I do my part and report back and do all I can with objectivity to 'do the right thing', then I can pass on/over with a clean conscience, or as clean as possible lol...


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 26, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/
> 
> forbes magazine does a fine job of tearing the cancermouse study to shreds.
> 
> trenchant criticism is trenchant


The sample size is a legit criticism with that species. The results still shouldn't be ignored, they should attempt repeating in a better model.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 26, 2012)

desert dude said:


> "Golden Rice". Genetically engineered to make beta carotene, a vitamin A precursor. Illegal to grow in California under your proposed law.
> 
> Salmon that grow at twice the rate as "natural" salmon. Illegal to grow in California.
> 
> ...


Meanwhile farmers in India who made the switch found reduced yields, less resistance to pests and are now committing suicide in record numbers. Do you work for Monsanto? Because this is a company found guilty many times over of blatant deception, lies and has a chemical history that is unbelievably horrible. Their own studies have been found deceptive on GMOs.

I'd also love to see at what cost these Salmon grow at a 50% increased rate. Nutrition? Depletion of environment? I wonder what it is. Unknown protein creation (toxic potentially)? 

Kirk Azevedo (former employee with a conscience) came out and told him a scientist had said to him that their Cotton produced unknown and untested proteins, not a surprise given the complexity of the systems they mess with. It doesn't take much to suspect other crops could be doing the same.

And why does Monsanto refuse to serve their own creations in their cafeteria's?

Do you think life should be patented? Even if all of this is safe (and there's plenty of reason to believe otherwise given the lack of study and the deliberate attempts to mislead about what has been done), should life be patented? The answer is no, of course. Any other answer is going to lead me to believe you own stock in Monsanto or you're incredibly naive.

And why do you suppose Europe has roundly banned GMOs? Because the studies that supposedly illustrated safety, upon review, indicated the opposite.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 26, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> GMO agriculture is in its infantsy as a science
> 
> i don't think that its moral or ethical to just abuse the genetics code without long term studies on sociological and agricultural as well as economic effects for the future
> 
> with great power comes great responsibility . .i know cliche . . buts its true . . everyone thought DDT was the godsend as well


And they thought DDT was a godsend because Monsanto put out deliberately misleading studies indicating it's safety. Kind of just like what's happening today.

In 99 they were convicted of negligence, outrage, wantonness, nuisance, and trespass as well as ordered to pay 700,000,000 to the residents of Anniston Alabama because they had poisoned the hell out of them with PCBs. 

What exactly is outrage in Alabama law? It describes actions so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.

Definitely a trustworthy company. Let's take their studies at face value as they have an honest history. I'm even more pleased that their representatives embody the most powerful positions at the FDA as well.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 26, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> ...
> 
> for the small farmer in india boll weevil resistant cotton has kept them from being forced to sell out to agricorps who can afford the pesticides needed to keep the cotton crop in motion.
> india's court ruling that farmers may save seed does NOT help the big producers since their model is dependent on buying seed rather than collecting and saving the seeds from last year's crops. this has been the big farm model with ALL crops since the advent of mechanized farming.
> ...


[h=1]'Bitter Seeds' Film Tells of Suicide and GMO Effects on India's Farmers[/h]
"Every 30 minutes a farmer in India kills himself ..." This frightening fact is pointed out in "Bitter Seeds," the third documentary in "The Globalization Trilogy" directed by Micha Peled. The 12-year project aims to generate debate about public policy and consumer choices in some complex issues relevant to all of us. Peled is the founder of the nonprofit Teddy Bear Films, which he created to make issue-oriented films such as "Will My Mother Go Back to Berlin?" and "Store Wars: When Wal-Mart Comes to Town."





"Bitter Seeds" follows a season in a village in India from planting to harvest. There are three important stories in this film, each revolving around the multinational corporate takeover of India's seed market and the effect it has on farmers and farming all over India and the world.
Like most of his neighbors, the protagonist in the film, Ram Krishna, must engage a money-lender to pay for the mounting costs of modern farming; he puts his land up as collateral."

The article goes on...but hopefully you get the point.


----------



## desert dude (Dec 26, 2012)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Meanwhile farmers in India who made the switch found reduced yields, less resistance to pests and are now committing suicide in record numbers. Do you work for Monsanto? Because this is a company found guilty many times over of blatant deception, lies and has a chemical history that is unbelievably horrible. Their own studies have been found deceptive on GMOs.
> 
> I'd also love to see at what cost these Salmon grow at a 50% increased rate. Nutrition? Depletion of environment? I wonder what it is. Unknown protein creation (toxic potentially)?
> 
> ...


Should "Golden Rice" be patentable? Yes, I think it should be. Otherwise, why would anybody create it? 

Should a strain of cotton that gives a 30% increase in yield be patentable? Yes, it should be. 

Should an author of a best selling book be allowed a copy right?

Suppose cannabis is completely legalized and Monsanto creates a strain that produces 20 pounds of high quality bud per plant. Should Monsanto be allowed a patent on that?


----------



## desert dude (Dec 26, 2012)

OGEvilgenius said:


> And they thought DDT was a godsend because Monsanto put out deliberately misleading studies indicating it's safety. Kind of just like what's happening today.
> 
> In 99 they were convicted of negligence, outrage, wantonness, nuisance, and trespass as well as ordered to pay 700,000,000 to the residents of Anniston Alabama because they had poisoned the hell out of them with PCBs.
> 
> ...


What the heck are you yammering about? Monsanto did not invent DDT.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 26, 2012)

curious2garden said:


> Seriously, you thought I didn't understand PCR amplification? Thank you. The place I lose it is at the selection of the different scission agents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Annie, I hope you know I wasn't targeting you or anyone specific with the expository bits. I didn't mean to offend. 

And I viscerally agree with your feeling that we are better off removing the safeties and making a dash to secure our future as a technical civilization. We (some of us, to be more honest) _need _to get off this rock, and there is simply no way we as a species can acquire the necessary physiological adaptations in time without installing them. Spun habitats will be useful in the interim, but eventually ... Jmo. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 26, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Annie, I hope you know I wasn't targeting you or anyone specific with the expository bits. I didn't mean to offend.
> 
> And I viscerally agree with your feeling that we are better off removing the safeties and making a dash to secure our future as a technical civilization. We (some of us, to be more honest) _need _to get off this rock, and there is simply no way we as a species can acquire the necessary physiological adaptations in time without installing them. Spun habitats will be useful in the interim, but eventually ... Jmo. cn


cb I don't at all deny that one top priority goal of our species must be to "get off this rock" as you wrote, but without learning the lessons, the hard lessons of the 'working for a living' bird and naturally evolving ourselves beyond all the traits you mentioned earlier in this thread, we would just be a 'bad seed' sprouting from earths womb. A bad seed is what came and infected this place they call 'north America' where it then spread just like the diseases it brought with it and causing the people who were already here to be either exterminated or the about 250,000 surviving natives who then were forced to devolve in order to adapt and survive in the 'new world'. Nature will not allow us to be born off 'this rock' until we are ready, and there are no short cuts cb, we haven't even evolved back to where people native to this land were before the 'new world'. For goodness sake everyone native to this land new the earth was round way back when Europeans were still insisting and legislating that the earth was flat. Natives needed only to 'stand in the place where they lived' and look to the sky observing the changes etc and common logic gets you the rest of the way.
The question should be, are we a good and ready seed yet to be born off 'this rock', and my answer would be no.
We can't cheat on this test cb, cheating will result in 'instant karma' lol putting us more backward and further to crawl before we can walk and then fly<3
We must fly to survive, but its not your generation who has earned the wings, but it is all of us that might help a future generation to take flight if we act responsibly and with conscience and with ultimate motives that are free off money material and self...being more concerned of what harm might be done than what is to be possibly 'gained' is one of the traits we must evolve beyond before we are 'good seed'.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Dec 26, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> cb I don't at all deny that one top priority goal of our species must be to "get off this rock" as you wrote, but without learning the lessons, the hard lessons of the 'working for a living' bird and naturally evolving ourselves beyond all the traits you mentioned earlier in this thread, we would just be a 'bad seed' sprouting from earths womb. A bad seed is what came and infected this place they call 'north America' where it then spread just like the diseases it brought with it and causing the people who were already here to be either exterminated or the about 250,000 surviving natives who then were forced to devolve in order to adapt and survive in the 'new world'. Nature will not allow us to be born off 'this rock' until we are ready, and there are no short cuts cb, we haven't even evolved back to where people native to this land were before the 'new world'. For goodness sake everyone native to this land new the earth was round way back when Europeans were still insisting and legislating that the earth was flat. Natives needed only to 'stand in the place where they lived' and look to the sky observing the changes etc and common logic gets you the rest of the way.
> The question should be, are we a good and ready seed yet to be born off 'this rock', and my answer would be no.
> We can't cheat on this test cb, cheating will result in 'instant karma' lol putting us more backward and further to crawl before we can walk and then fly<3
> We must fly to survive, but its not your generation who has earned the wings, but it is all of us that might help a future generation to take flight if we act responsibly and with conscience and with ultimate motives that are free off money material and self...being more concerned of what harm might be done to than what is to be possibly 'gained' is one of the traits we must evolve beyond before we are 'good seed'.


You are assuming that humans are going to *evolve* in a certain direction.

There is no data to indicate that humans will change given our current environment of limited resources and space.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 26, 2012)

NLXSK1 said:


> You are assuming that humans are going to *evolve* in a certain direction.
> 
> There is no data to indicate that humans will change given our current environment of limited resources and space.


No species is exempt from extinction in nature.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Dec 26, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> No species is exempt from extinction in nature.


Nature is not exempt from extinction.

What was your point?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 26, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> *'Bitter Seeds' Film Tells of Suicide and GMO Effects on India's Farmers*
> 
> 
> "Every 30 minutes a farmer in India kills himself ..." This frightening fact is pointed out in "Bitter Seeds," the third documentary in "The Globalization Trilogy" directed by Micha Peled. The 12-year project aims to generate debate about public policy and consumer choices in some complex issues relevant to all of us. Peled is the founder of the nonprofit Teddy Bear Films, which he created to make issue-oriented films such as "Will My Mother Go Back to Berlin?" and "Store Wars: When Wal-Mart Comes to Town."
> ...


every 30 minutes in india a pedicab driver kills himself, and it's schwinn's fault. they dont sell their bicycles cheap enough so the pedicab drivers get depressed and commit suicide...

i can make up shit too. 

india still has the largest % of it's farm land held by small family operations in the world. their family farms are doing well as a class, but you can always find one or two who fail in any group. if you want to see some troubles look at small farms in america britain and other western liberal progressive nations. 

the film company you cite,, and call "issue oriented" is a propaganda production company. the make and sell manufactured outrage to the gullible leftist public who need something to shake their fists at. they are less credible than Fox News.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 26, 2012)

desert dude said:


> Should "Golden Rice" be patentable? Yes, I think it should be. Otherwise, why would anybody create it?


According to you, because the yields will be better and so will the nutrition. Of course, that's not true at all. So the only incentive is to monopolize. Exactly why patent law should be abolished. It would kill two birds with one stone - stifling innovation and almost the entirety of the GMO industry.



> Should a strain of cotton that gives a 30% increase in yield be patentable? Yes, it should be.
> 
> Should an author of a best selling book be allowed a copy right?
> 
> Suppose cannabis is completely legalized and Monsanto creates a strain that produces 20 pounds of high quality bud per plant. Should Monsanto be allowed a patent on that?


Nope. Copyright and patent law only stifle innovation and/or lead to monopolization of resources.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 26, 2012)

desert dude said:


> What the heck are you yammering about? Monsanto did not invent DDT.


Sorry, PCBs, dioxins, agent orange. All approved thanks to misleading studies courtesy a company that specializes in them.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 26, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Annie, I hope you know I wasn't targeting you or anyone specific with the expository bits. I didn't mean to offend.
> 
> And I viscerally agree with your feeling that we are better off removing the safeties and making a dash to secure our future as a technical civilization. We (some of us, to be more honest) _need _to get off this rock, and there is simply no way we as a species can acquire the necessary physiological adaptations in time without installing them. Spun habitats will be useful in the interim, but eventually ... Jmo. cn


Your ego needs to shrink about 10 sizes. Religious thought, not just for Christians.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 26, 2012)

NLXSK1 said:


> Nature is not exempt from extinction.
> 
> What was your point?


Well I guess my first point would be to pose that your statement before your question here is probably impossible to ever verify lol and from there we would need a definition of the word 'Nature' because to me nature is not limited to planet 'earth' lol...but earth does exist in nature.
Even 'dark mater' is nature, and your stating as fact that 'Nature' can go extinct?
Whatever would be left anywhere in the possible infinity of nature to be able to make such a conclusion if nature could go extinct?
So back to your question, my point is that there is no 'short cuts' (pun intended lol) in this deal of being born off the planet, we either earn it the hard way or die banging our beaks against the glass.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 26, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> i can make up shit too.


Indeed, or you can parrot stuff that's been fabricated by the biotech companies you apparently invest in.



> _Failure to Yield_ is the first report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concludes that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report finds, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.
> 
> 
> The UCS report comes at a time when food price spikes and localized shortages worldwide have prompted calls to boost agricultural productivity, or yield -- the amount of a crop produced per unit of land over a specified amount of time. Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is essential to meeting this goal. Monsanto, for example, was running an advertising campaign at the time of the report release warning of an exploding world population and claiming that its &#8220;advanced seeds&#8230; significantly increase crop yields&#8230;&#8221; The report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future.
> ...


http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 26, 2012)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Your ego needs to shrink about 10 sizes. Religious thought, not just for Christians.


OK I'll nibble. How am I being egomanic here? cn


----------



## NLXSK1 (Dec 26, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Well I guess my first point would be to pose that your statement before your question here is probably impossible to ever verify lol and from there we would need a definition of the word 'Nature' because to me nature is not limited to planet 'earth' lol...but earth does exist in nature.
> Even 'dark mater' is nature, and your stating as fact that 'Nature' can go extinct?
> Whatever would be left anywhere in the possible infinity of nature to be able to make such a conclusion if nature could go extinct?
> So back to your question, my point is that there is no 'short cuts' (pun intended lol) in this deal of being born off the planet, we either earn it the hard way or die banging our beaks against the glass.


Your point seems to be that humans must evolve in some way to become *good* and thus able to go into space or wherever.

My point is that over the documented course of human history we havent changed a bit... To expect us to change our nature at this time seems wishful thinking...


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 26, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> cb I don't at all deny that one top priority goal of our species must be to "get off this rock" as you wrote, but without learning the lessons, the hard lessons of the 'working for a living' bird and naturally evolving ourselves beyond all the traits you mentioned earlier in this thread, we would just be a 'bad seed' sprouting from earths womb. A bad seed is what came and infected this place they call 'north America' where it then spread just like the diseases it brought with it and causing the people who were already here to be either exterminated or the about 250,000 surviving natives who then were forced to devolve in order to adapt and survive in the 'new world'. Nature will not allow us to be born off 'this rock' until we are ready, and there are no short cuts cb, we haven't even evolved back to where people native to this land were before the 'new world'. For goodness sake everyone native to this land new the earth was round way back when Europeans were still insisting and legislating that the earth was flat. Natives needed only to 'stand in the place where they lived' and look to the sky observing the changes etc and common logic gets you the rest of the way.
> The question should be, are we a good and ready seed yet to be born off 'this rock', and my answer would be no.
> We can't cheat on this test cb, cheating will result in 'instant karma' lol putting us more backward and further to crawl before we can walk and then fly<3
> We must fly to survive, but its not your generation who has earned the wings, but it is all of us that might help a future generation to take flight if we act responsibly and with conscience and with ultimate motives that are free off money material and self...being more concerned of what harm might be done than what is to be possibly 'gained' is one of the traits we must evolve beyond before we are 'good seed'.



I see two distinct issues here, DNAp ... one practical, one philosophical. They are of course inextricable, but i will still try to treat them in order.

The practical (strategy, logistics, economics and engineering) has to do with our "window" for high-energy pursuits like planetary spaceflight. Our technology has come far and fast because we harnessed an outstanding source of possil energy: crude oil. We've slurped up the best bits and are now scrambling after or own leftovers. And the spectre of global warming will probably make the indiscriminate burning of coal, the other great source of fossil energy, casus belli. 
I currently believe that we have two options. We can make sustainability job 1, and descend for the foreseeable future below the level needed for advance to spacefaring status.
Or we can do our damndest to use this impressive boost cheap oil has given us and leverage it into the Next Step. Because unless/until a better hotter energy source comes along that can propel us into and beyond orbit (and fission nuclear won't do. Nuclear thermal is good in deep space but still isn't energetic enough to make for, say, a practical Mars mission.) Fusion is the best candidate here, and i am frankly appalled there isn't a more urgent national or international push to bring fusion practically on line for our electric needs at least. 
But I would rather make the attempt at a leap and fail ... than recoil and then spend centuries teaching our children the grapes were sour. That would be neo-Medieval in attitude and practice imo.

The other question I have is philosophical. I notice essentially animistic attitude "between the lines", e.g. when you personify Nature to the extent that you'd suggest she'd frown upon our doing it in an unspiritual way (I paraphrase). You bring up the example of first nations in the USA. While I have great sympathy for their plight, it is not unique or unprecedented. While my inner human is horrified at what happened to them as individuals and peoples, theirs is the universal lot of the conquered. And we all know who gets to write history, obscuring the thousands of similar instances since the great ice sheets receded. It's nature in action ... human nature.

So here we arrive at a probable point of disagreement. I have never seen an instance of nature acting like an engaged entity. I cannot imagine that she would approve, disapprove or give a moldy hoot how we comport ourselves, because even with all our artifice we are still nature. I see no penalty to going for the fast lane, and tremendous possible benefit. 
I contend that nature red in tooth and claw respects nothing so much as a winner. Even a dirty win is still a win. Questions of its morality are not natural at all imo but a thoroughly anthropic overlay. We are predisposed to anthropomorphizing, personifying nature and imbuing it with _purpose_, a completely artificial and unnecessary deed.

But to synthesize these two views, the thing with which i most deeply disagree is your claim that we must first evolve, then reach beyond the cradle. This places the cart before the horse and imposes an intolerable burden on us. Without gen.eng. turned vigorously toward the task of improving our natures, we simply will not have time. And of course the evolutionary pressures on a planetary surface (with or without the selective breeding championed by eugenicists not even a century ago) won't be of any use in preparing us for space. As I believe that ultimately there are no crimes against nature because nature isn't conscious in any way that makes sense to us ... I also believe that the penalties for doing or not doing are not karmic in nature(!), but logistical. I don't want to _completely _squander the gift of cheap energy as long as it's still ours to squander. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 26, 2012)

NLXSK1 said:


> Your point seems to be that humans must evolve in some way to become *good* and thus able to go into space or wherever.
> 
> My point is that over the documented course of human history we havent changed a bit... To expect us to change our nature at this time seems wishful thinking...


Firstly that would depend on your definition of the word 'good' and secondly, no my point was that running blind into a perceived shortcut chasing 'gold' (be that money or genetic traits) is not the responsible way to get your children to a place of survival, as well exampled in this bit:

*Donner Party*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 
Page 28 of Patrick Breen's diary, recording his observations in late February 1847, including "Mrs Murphy said here yesterday that thought she would Commence on Milt. & eat him. I dont that she has done so yet, it is distressing."


The *Donner Party* was a group of 87 American pioneers who in 1846 set off from Missouri in a wagon train headed west for California, only to find themselves trapped by snow in the Sierra Nevada. The subsequent casualties resulting from starvation, exposure, disease, and trauma were extremely high, and many of the survivors resorted to cannibalism.
The wagons left in May 1846. Encouraged to try a new, faster route across Utah and Nevada, they opted to take the Hastings Cutoff proposed by Lansford Hastings, who had never taken the journey with wagons. The Cutoff required the wagons to traverse Utah's Wasatch Mountains and the Great Salt Lake Desert, and slowed the party considerably, leading to the loss of wagons, horses, and cattle. It also forced them to engage in heavy labor by clearing the path ahead of them, and created deep divisions between members of the party. They had planned to be in California by September, but found themselves trapped in the Sierra Nevada by early November.
Most of the party took shelter in three cabins that had been constructed two years earlier at Truckee Lake (now Donner Lake), while a smaller group camped several miles away. Food stores quickly ran out, and a group of 15 men and women attempted to reach California on snowshoes in December, but became disoriented in the mountains before succumbing to starvation and cold. Only seven members of the snowshoe party survived, by eating the flesh of their dead companions. Meanwhile, the Mexican American War delayed rescue attempts from California, although family members and authorities in California tried to reach the stranded pioneers but were turned back by harsh weather.
The first rescue group reached the remaining members, who were starving and feeble, in February 1847. Weather conditions were so bad that three rescue groups were required to lead the rest to California, the last arriving in March. Most of these survivors also had resorted to cannibalism. Forty-eight members of the Donner Party survived to live in California. Although a minor incident in the record of westward migration in North America, the Donner Party became notorious for the reported claims of cannibalism. Efforts to memorialize the Donner Party were underway within a few years; historians have described the episode as one of the most spectacular tragedies in California history and in the record of western migration.[SUP][1][/SUP]


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 26, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I see two distinct issues here, DNAp ... one practical, one philosophical. They are of course inextricable, but i will still try to treat them in order.
> 
> The practical (strategy, logistics, economics and engineering) has to do with our "window" for high-energy pursuits like planetary spaceflight. Our technology has come far and fast because we harnessed an outstanding source of possil energy: crude oil. We've slurped up the best bits and are now scrambling after or own leftovers. And the spectre of global warming will probably make the indiscriminate burning of coal, the other great source of fossil energy, casus belli.
> I currently believe that we have two options. We can make sustainability job 1, and descend for the foreseeable future below the level needed for advance to spacefaring status.
> ...


cb, while I can appreciate (not necessarily agree) with what you have written here, I think maybe you have a missperception of my perception of 'how things are'.
I see everything in numbers you might say, like a gigantic endless in all directions equation where the numbers are continually adding up every second and when I write about 'nature not letting us be born until we are ready' (which I figured you would go to lol) I'm simply speaking of numbers adding to their sum totals at any given moment in time.
I'm just saying that if it is our nature to act like a threat within nature then the numbers of nature will add up to treating us as a threat, just as a human body has an immune system etc.
'Survival of the fittest' also depends on ones definition of the word 'fittest' because it doesn't always mean who can kill the most or the most efficiently, especially at the level of evolution that your implying we need to suddenly leap to.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 26, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> cb, while I can appreciate (not necessarily agree) with what you have written here, I think maybe you have a missperception of my perception of 'how things are'.
> I see everything in numbers you might say, like a gigantic endless in all directions equation where the numbers are continually adding up every second and when I write about 'nature not letting us be born until we are ready' (which I figured you would go to lol) I'm simply speaking of numbers adding to their sum totals at any given moment in time.
> I'm just saying that if it is our nature to act like a threat within nature then the numbers of nature will add up to treating us as a threat, just as a human body has an immune system etc.
> 'Survival of the fittest' also depends on ones definition of the word 'fittest' because it doesn't always mean who can kill the most or the most efficiently, especially at the level of evolution that your implying we need to suddenly leap to.


My assigning spirit or a discernible moral center to your view of nature may indeed be my own internal straw man. Even so I would invite you to expand on that bit of it. I don't see nature punishing us for bad acts or rewarding us for good ones. Heck; she blindly helped the cause of the conquerors with the nasty diseases we brought to this land under our square sails. I grew up near a river called Patuxent. I found out that it means "place of death' or something similarly holocaustic. Seems the early settlers caused the local tribe to be almost wiped out with measles or a flu; not sure which any more. 

So i cannot imagine nature or any extrahuman agency "taking sides". Worse, I can imagine squandering opportunities in this possible twilight of our high-energy lifestyle out of a sincere but misguided reverence for the natural. I love wild nature as much as the next guy, and would look approvingly on our getting our collective ass (and the heavy industry needed to keep that ass fat&happy) entirely off the planet and restoring it (or allowing it to restore itself) to a wild state. Wouldn't it be a trip if we met previous tenants, such as the distant offspring of _Velociraptor sapiens_, once we learned how to reach the cosmic doorbell? cn


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Dec 26, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> OK I'll nibble. How am I being egomanic here? cn


We MUST genetically engineer for the greater good. We MUST do it to advance ourselves beyond this planet. You believe we can do it safely too. More likely? Extinction. Because we're not that intelligent and we do not understand the things we dabble in, but we just do it anyway.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 26, 2012)

OGEvilgenius said:


> We MUST genetically engineer for the greater good. We MUST do it to advance ourselves beyond this planet. You believe we can do it safely too. More likely? Extinction. Because we're not that intelligent and we do not understand the things we dabble in, but we just do it anyway.


I am not saying a declarative MUST. I do think it is worth thinking about however.
And I do not believe that we can necessarily do it safely. I see tremendous risk alongside tremendous opportunity. 
And yes, I think extinction is the enemy here. I consider it more likely achieved by embracing stasis than by boldly, even recklessly, seeking the way up and out. Have I somehow failed to qualify these visions as my opinion, that you are correct in assigning "mustness" to them? cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 26, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> My assigning spirit or a discernible moral center to your view of nature may indeed be my own internal straw man. Even so I would invite you to expand on that bit of it. I don't see nature punishing us for bad acts or rewarding us for good ones. Heck; she blindly helped the cause of the conquerors with the nasty diseases we brought to this land under our square sails. I grew up near a river called Patuxent. I found out that it means "place of death' or something similarly holocaustic. Seems the early settlers caused the local tribe to be almost wiped out with measles or a flu; not sure which any more.
> 
> So i cannot imagine nature or any extrahuman agency "taking sides". Worse, I can imagine squandering opportunities in this possible twilight of our high-energy lifestyle out of a sincere but misguided reverence for the natural. I love wild nature as much as the next guy, and would look approvingly on our getting our collective ass (and the heavy industry needed to keep that ass fat&happy) entirely off the planet and restoring it (or allowing it to restore itself) to a wild state. Wouldn't it be a trip if we met previous tenants, such as the distant offspring of _Velociraptor sapiens_, once we learned how to reach the cosmic doorbell? cn


I feel that there is still a bit of missperception of my perception cb, I don't in any way shape or form see nature as punishing or rewarding in that sense, its all just numbers to me.
For example some see the 'conquering' of this continent by Europeans in over all outcome to be just an advantage that one 'variety' of human had over another and therefor to the victor go the spoils, but from my view the traditionally perceived 'victor' usually spoils the true 'spoils' = knowledge and understanding of the culture they just destroyed.
Natives of this land once welcomed all who appeared because in that past culture we are all relatives just as science now has verified (means H is dr kynes distant or not so distant cousin  lol) and if Europeans had reciprocated, the best of both cultures could have resulted...a lost opportunity and possibly fatal because that which existed genetically in the behaviors and cultures of the first peoples of this land are exactly the traits that are needed when taking steps like genetic engineering but are completely void from this culture like a missing gene, otherwise you are just another conqueror that most often by the numbers in the end dies by the same sword he kills with.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Dec 27, 2012)

> *
> 
> but from my view the traditionally perceived 'victor' usually spoils the true 'spoils' = knowledge and understanding of the culture they just destroyed.​
> 
> ...


You talk about numbers but your rhetoric is full of value judgements. Your example indicates that understanding destroyed cultures is always the "spoils" so to speak.

Look at nature from the smallest microbe to the largest animal. You will see those creatures compete with their peers and nature to excel and multiply. The earth is replete with millions of species that have succumbed to other species. If only those conquering species had taken the time to know and understand the species they just destroyed.... LOL!

All nature follows the same path. Competition for limited resources. Species win, species lose, species become extinct. 

There is no morality involved in any of it. You talk about numbers and then start in about value judgement that are based on emotions and not logic. Therefore, your verbose posts are interesting but illogical.



> *
> 
> because that which existed genetically in the behaviors and cultures of the first peoples of this land are exactly the traits that are needed when taking steps like genetic engineering but are completely void from this culture like a missing gene,​
> 
> ...


Really? Indians were not the peaceful hunter gatherers you picture them as for the most part. They raided and killed other indian tribes on a regular basis. I think you are romanticizing dead cultures and that isnt a numbers game.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

NLXSK1 said:


> You talk about numbers but your rhetoric is full of value judgements. Your example indicates that understanding destroyed cultures is always the "spoils" so to speak.
> 
> Look at nature from the smallest microbe to the largest animal. You will see those creatures compete with their peers and nature to excel and multiply. The earth is replete with millions of species that have succumbed to other species. If only those conquering species had taken the time to know and understand the species they just destroyed.... LOL!
> 
> ...


Well apparently your reading level leaves something to be desired.(thats ok me2 lol)
Morals?
Who ever said anything about morals accept you?
The reason some don't understand the 'numbers' concept is usually ego...'morals' mean nothing in nature, numbers mean everything and if you can't even understand the failures of a conqueror compared to success of lets say bonobo's for example then for sure we should not be gene splicing yet if ever. 
You and others want to bake a cake, yet in your rushing and even slaughtering your way to get to the stove you neglected to pick up some of the main ingredients along the way and therefor your cake will flop no matter how fast you made it to the stove...at this point in our evolution (unless you are still a 'caveman' and I'm not saying your not) the competition you speak to is not a component of the equation. 
Also anything seen through your eyes and then spued out your mouth or fingtips in the form of representing a knowing or a proper interpretation of the behavior of Indians before the European invasion is about as accurate as your cultures reading and understanding of the Mayan calender etc...you probably thought it was the 'end of the world' as well lol


----------



## NLXSK1 (Dec 27, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Well apparently your reading level leaves something to be desired.(thats ok me2 lol)
> Morals?
> Who ever said anything about morals accept you?
> The reason some don't understand the 'numbers' concept is usually ego...'morals' mean nothing in nature, numbers mean everything and if you can't even understand the failures of a conqueror compared to success of lets say bonobo's for example then for sure we should not be gene splicing yet if ever.
> ...


Let me try one more time...

Nature does not care about good or evil or the means to an end. Nature is simply the reaction of physics and science and represents the most stable state of the universe at this time.

You were the one talking about *good* seeds, etc. I dont know how that comes down to numbers and I dont know how in a universe without morals and based on physics that you decide we are not *ready* for anything.

Mix that into your interpretation that man does not absorb enough of the culture of his victims and thus somehow falls short and your numbers example is bizarre.

You are either failing in your logic, perception and/or your ability to convey these ideas into a forum for easy understanding and your defense is that people who are reading it have ego issues...

I have to admit it is rather entertaining.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

NLXSK1 said:


> Let me try one more time...
> 
> Nature does not care about good or evil or the means to an end. Nature is simply the reaction of physics and science and represents the most stable state of the universe at this time.
> 
> ...


Well at least your entertained, laughter helps make 'good' seed lol...
The word 'good' as I use it only means viable-
As for my ability to explain in terms that you can understand, well I can't argue with ya there.
I do for the most part agree with this that I've been saying one way and that you state like this:
"Nature is simply the reaction of physics and science and represents the most stable state of the universe at this time."
= by the numbers.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Dec 27, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Well at least your entertained, laughter helps make 'good' seed lol...
> The word 'good' as I use it only means viable-
> As for my ability to explain in terms that you can understand, well I can't argue with ya there.
> I do for the most part agree with this that I've been saying one way and that you state like this:
> ...


How do the numbers tell you we are not ready and when will the numbers tell you when we are ready?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

NLXSK1 said:


> How do the numbers tell you we are not ready and when will the numbers tell you when we are ready?


Actually its elementary, we wouldn't be having this type of discussion if 'we' were ready.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

NLXSK1 said:


> How do the numbers tell you we are not ready and when will the numbers tell you when we are ready?


I can only estimate that we are not ready.
Human culture is still struggling from lack of depth in vision and thinking when interpreting itself and the nature it is born of and its an affliction rooted directly in that which you have accused me of.

Human culture still see's life/nature in terms of 'good or bad' as perfectly exampled in terms of the prohibition of any particular plant.
If we cannot even see beyond our own ego's far enough to know that plants aren't 'good or bad' (like still being in diapers) then how do you expect to have the evolutionary traits and or understanding of other species (let alone your own) to understand what you are doing when you go a gene splicing?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 27, 2012)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Indeed, or you can parrot stuff that's been fabricated by the biotech companies you apparently invest in.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html


impassioned reports from the union of concerned scientists are NOT FACTS. facts are found through observation in peer reviewed journals, not shabby impassioned pleas from a group primarily concerned with "social justice" which really means "social engineering".

the UCS and Oxfam have a stated agenda, that agenda results in their reports, while a rational agenda RESULTS from reports. 

are you a farmer? do you work in agriculture? do you understand that GMO does not mean "higher yeilds"? are you aware that any of a number of functions can be desired in the genetic modification? are you aware that all GMO's are not "transgenic"? 

BT corn has been only a moderate success, boll weevil resistant cotton has been madly successful in areas with huge boll weevil problems, but flops in regions not subject to that particular critter. "roundup ready" crops are largely a disappointment, and fail at their stated aim of allowing the use of that particular herbicide in crops. roundup is great as a defoliant, but defoliants suck balls on your crops even if you plant a crop thats not vulnerable to roundup, since the roundup ready varieties just dont deliver except as forage and pasturage where spurge is a problem. 

this does not men genetic research is useless, any more than traditional cross breeding is useless based on the general lack of acceptance for triticale.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

NLXSK1 said:


> How do the numbers tell you we are not ready and when will the numbers tell you when we are ready?


That which your language translates from native languages as the 'great spirit' is to me better translated to mean 'the great equation'.
From my view you could say that everything that exists represents a number in that great equation.
Further, every moment in 'time' and or every action of everything in every moment also represents numbers in that equation.
Human culture, by way of the 'conquering' and 'good v bad' (and current perception of what 'survival of the fittest' means) mentalities of linear thinking brought by Europeans, has devolved.
The notion of written laws was unnecessary to natives because the laws are everywhere you look and in fact you are made of the 'laws' etc, whereas in current human culture written law is all you understand = complete mental disconnect from who and what you really are.
When humans understand what they see when looking in the mirror, they might then understand what they are seeing when they look everywhere else, and until then in my opinion/estimation we are not ready for gene splicing or being born off the planet etc.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 27, 2012)




----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 27, 2012)

The real, "present tense" loss, is that the next generation wont be able to complain about the flavor, because they wont know any better.
When was the last time you bought fruit's or veg's at the supermarket and said "Wow, I really got my moneys worth!"
Look at Fl. laws, regarding tomatoes, I know it wasn't written with the consumer in mind, There is no standard of flavor, I've wasted time & money, only to have to lower my standards and tell my children how wonderful fruits and veg's once tasted. But it's for the greater good.

http://www.floridatomatoes.org/Regulations/Domestic-Markets.aspx Making Corporations profitable when they just cant do it on their own. http://www.odenberg.com/
It simply became cheaper to control the fruit then improve the process.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 27, 2012)

Grandpapy said:


> The real, "present tense" loss, is that the next generation wont be able to complain about the flavor, because they wont know any better.
> When was the last time you bought fruit's or veg's at the supermarket and said "Wow, I really got my moneys worth!"
> Look at Fl. laws, regarding tomatoes, I know it wasn't written with the consumer in mind, There is no standard of flavor, I've wasted time & money, only to have to lower my standards and tell my children how wonderful fruits and veg's once tasted. But it's for the greater good.
> 
> ...


dont like store bought tomatoes? grow your own. 

the topsy turvy really works, and in florida theres really no reason not to. 

even the existence of this forum is proof of fact that if you are unsatisfied with the commercial options (dirt weed, ripoffs, getting busted by narcs...) you can Grow Your Own.


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 27, 2012)

Yea, I just cant sell them in the market.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


>



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRs2TnP9H8

*Jack Crabb*: Do you hate them? Do you hate the White man now? 
*Old Lodge Skins*: Do you see this fine thing? Do you admire the humanity of it? Because the human beings, my son, they believe everything is alive. Not only man and animals. But also water, earth, stone. And also the things from them... like that hair. The man from whom this hair came, he's bald on the other side, because I now own his scalp! That is the way things are. But the white man, they believe EVERYTHING is dead. Stone, earth, animals. And people! Even their own people! If things keep trying to live, white man will rub them out. That is the difference.


----------



## desert dude (Dec 27, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> That which your language translates from native languages as the 'great spirit' is to me better translated to mean 'the great equation'.
> From my view you could say that everything that exists represents a number in that great equation.
> Further, every moment in 'time' and or every action of everything in every moment also represents numbers in that equation.
> Human culture, by way of the 'conquering' and 'good v bad' (and current perception of what 'survival of the fittest' means) mentalities of linear thinking brought by Europeans, has devolved.
> ...


The native Americans collided with a superior culture in terms of technology and military. The outcome was predictable. Native Americans are no better than Europeans, or Asians or Africans. Let's not deify them with a bunch of mystical gibberish, they were just ordinary humans.


----------



## desert dude (Dec 27, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRs2TnP9H8
> 
> *Jack Crabb*: Do you hate them? Do you hate the White man now?
> *Old Lodge Skins*: Do you see this fine thing? Do you admire the humanity of it? Because the human beings, my son, they believe everything is alive. Not only man and animals. But also water, earth, stone. And also the things from them... like that hair. The man from whom this hair came, he's bald on the other side, because I now own his scalp! That is the way things are. But the white man, they believe EVERYTHING is dead. Stone, earth, animals. And people! Even their own people! If things keep trying to live, white man will rub them out. That is the difference.


Rolls eyes. More gibberish.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

desert dude said:


> The native Americans collided with a superior culture in terms of technology and military. The outcome was predictable. Native Americans are no better than Europeans, or Asians or Africans. Let's not deify them with a bunch of mystical gibberish, they were just ordinary humans.


Actually they must of have been doing something right because they existed for at least 10's of thousands of years without any of the traits that have plagued Europeans for at least the last 2-3 thousand years.
Just an example, I live about a mile from "one of" (in "" edited controversial mistake lol)the largest natural and one of the oldest known lakes in the northern hemisphere of this continent and 'the first people' here (named "Pomo" by the invaders) lived here for at least (also amended for discussions sake)"12" thousand years (that we can verify and could be longer) before Europeans arrived and were not 'nomadic'. We are now fairly sure that the population they had living around this lake at that time must have fluctuated up to possibly 100,000 or more humans and up until Europeans arrived the lake was actually clear, that's why the invaders renamed it to be 'Clearlake'. Now the invaders have only been here for a couple hundred years and now have a max population of about 64 thousand and the lake has turned to water that you wouldn't want your kid's or your dog swimming in.
Your mentality can't even figure out how to live around a lake without polluting and destroying the ecosystems, and now you want to piss in the entire gene pool?

The point is, you are incorrect as usual dd.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 27, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Actually they must of have been doing something right because they existed for at least 10's of thousands of years without any of the traits that have plagued Europeans for at least the last 2-3 thousand years.
> Just an example, I live about a mile from the largest natural and one of the oldest known lakes in the northern hemisphere of this continent and 'the first people' here (named "Pomo" by the invaders) lived here for at least 21-23 thousand years (that we can verify and could be longer) before Europeans arrived and were not 'nomadic'. We are now fairly sure that the population they had living around this lake at that time must have fluctuated up to possibly 100,000 or more humans and up until Europeans arrived the lake was actually clear, that's why the invaders renamed it to be 'Clearlake'. Now the invaders have only been here for a couple hundred years and now have a max population of about 64 thousand and the lake has turned to water that you wouldn't wan't your kid's or your dog swimming in.
> 
> The point is, you are incorrect as usual dd.


I am unable to find any mention of Pomo people living near Lake Superior. 
I can only find mention of a Pomo tribe in California, which is far from large freshwater bodies except Lake Tahoe. 
I also cannot find any mention of humans in the Americas prior to an estimated 15 thousand years ago, in Alaska, with younger earliest settlement dates heading south. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I am unable to find any mention of Pomo people living near Lake Superior.
> I can only find mention of a Pomo tribe in California, which is far from large freshwater bodies except Lake Tahoe.
> I also cannot find any mention of humans in the Americas prior to an estimated 15 thousand years ago, in Alaska, with younger earliest settlement dates heading south. cn


Lake Superior? I said one of the oldest, and yes I am in Cali at 'Clear Lake' and your info on oldest find etc is simply out of date, I'm at ground zero for some of the more recent finds.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 27, 2012)

You said "the largest (natural) lake in the Western hemisphere". That's unambiguous.  

Can you provide a link for these finds of great age? I confess I've not been on top of the lit. cn


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 27, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> You said "the largest (natural) lake in the Western hemisphere". That's unambiguous.
> 
> Can you provide a link for these finds of great age? I confess I've not been on top of the lit. cn


 "The largest (natural) lake in the Western hemisphere," is Lake Titicaca. Unless you define depth, surface area or volume as your defining criterium, it's ambiguous.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> You said "the largest (natural) lake in the Western hemisphere". That's unambiguous.
> 
> Can you provide a link for these finds of great age? I confess I've not been on top of the lit. cn


...please forgive me cb and all, I meant to write 'one' of the largest and oldest...lucky I wasn't splicing a gene.


----------



## abandonconflict (Dec 27, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I am unable to find any mention of Pomo people living near Lake Superior.
> I can only find mention of a Pomo tribe in California, which is far from large freshwater bodies except Lake Tahoe.
> I also cannot find any mention of humans in the Americas prior to an estimated 15 thousand years ago, in Alaska, with younger earliest settlement dates heading south. cn


Goose Lake is "one of the largest" if you were to make a list of maybe the top 15 by surface area. 

Furthermore, it is not a matter of pseudo scientific paleontology to argue that the area has been inhabited by humans thousands of years before the Clovis culture. It is political. Some evidence has been found and indeed in the area of Northern California but had to be turned over to tribal authorities who have also impeded archaeological efforts through legal means on the basis that such burial sites were sacred and that they would not suffer them studied. This has allowed a fringe of anthropologists to maintain that the continents were not peopled prior to the Clovis culture, while even the Bering Strait (as has more recently been shown by mainstream geologists) was a land bridge deeper into antiquity. Atlantis and ancient alien theorists do not own that controversy. There is some evidence.

*edit* I see the lake in question has been identified.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 27, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> "The largest (natural) lake in the Western hemisphere," is Lake Titicaca. Unless you define depth, surface area or volume as your defining criterium, it's ambiguous.


Surface area is the default criterion. Superior has almost tenfold the area of Titicaca. When not area, the measure has to be specified. 

Lakes Baikal and Tanganyika are the most voluminous but are in the Eastern hemisphere. They're also the two deepest, as befits lakes in grabens. cn


----------



## ElfoodStampo (Dec 27, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Just to be clear, this is not 'spam' nor is it an 'advertizement' or anything of the sort.
> This is a honest outreach for needed discussion on this urgent topic and we are counting on feedback as to how folks would amend the text of the act if they thought it should be etc.
> 
> The DNA Protection Act would ban all genetically engineered cannabis from California before it 'legally' (as in federally mandated) starts and stop whatever may have already begun.
> ...


If anything make sure the shit is labeled. If someone wants it, let them have it. I have a problem with deception for profit.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 27, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> Goose Lake is "one of the largest" if you were to make a list of maybe the top 15 by surface area.
> 
> Furthermore, it is not a matter of pseudo scientific paleontology to argue that the area has been inhabited by humans thousands of years before the Clovis culture. It is political. Some evidence has been found and indeed in the area of Northern California but had to be turned over to tribal authorities who have also impeded archaeological efforts through legal means on the basis that such burial sites were sacred and that they would not suffer them studied. This has allowed a fringe of anthropologists to maintain that the continents were not peopled prior to the Clovis culture, while even the Bering Strait (as has more recently been shown by mainstream geologists) was a land bridge deeper into antiquity. Atlantis and ancient alien theorists do not own that controversy. There is some evidence.
> 
> *edit* I see the lake in question has been identified.


At 147 square miles, it's not even in the top 100 (worldwide), I am almost sure. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Can you provide a link for these finds of great age? I confess I've not been on top of the lit. cn


Our county's web site gives a description of the general area, but its about as efficient as our county's politicians. 
http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Water_Resources/Clear_Lake_Information/History_of_Clear_Lake.htm

As for the age discoveries, talk to UC Davis and Berkly because its kind of like the 'food pyramid' that guides our school lunches, something keeps science from updating the official policy. In other words a great deal of what one can find on the web or in the library about 'Pomo' Indians is now known to be untrue, but that doesn't change the story.
The word 'Pomo' for example, on the web just now I found a site that claimed the word means 'the people', yet 'Pomo' actually meant 'hole in the ground' or something similar in the native language and was not at all what these first peoples called themselves.
All I can tell you is that those of us who live here and know the UC Davis folks etc know that (in fact its fairly 100th monkey stuff around here) recent finds show us 21-23 thousand years of occupancy by the same line of people.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 27, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Our county's web site gives a description of the general area, but its about as efficient as our county's politicians.
> http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Water_Resources/Clear_Lake_Information/History_of_Clear_Lake.htm
> 
> As for the age discoveries, talk to UC Davis and Berkly because its kind of like the 'food pyramid' that guides our school lunches, something keeps science from updating the official policy. In other words a great deal of what one can find on the web or in the library about 'Pomo' Indians is now known to be untrue, but that doesn't change the story.
> ...


But they _must _have published. That's the joy of science ... no need to rely on anecdote. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> But they _must _have published. That's the joy of science ... no need to rely on anecdote. cn


Well cb if you need published data, then I respectfully withdraw the previous number and we can just use the standard accepted number for this area (like the food pyramid) which is about 12,000 years ago...frankly though I don't see how it makes a whole lot of difference because either way the point remains the same.


----------



## abandonconflict (Dec 27, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> At 147 square miles, it's not even in the top 100 (worldwide), I am almost sure. cn


You're right about that lake, but it used to be bigger.


----------



## abandonconflict (Dec 27, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Howdy and thanks for responding.
> Actually as I read your *seemingly educated yet somewhat misleading* posts here I realized once again why we need "retarded" laws like this one.


+rep 

You just described his approach in every thread I have seen him post in.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 27, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Well cb if you need published data, then I respectfully withdraw the previous number and we can just use the standard accepted number for this area (like the food pyramid) which is about 12,000 years ago...frankly though I don't see how it makes a whole lot of difference because either way the point remains the same.


It makes a colossal diff to me because the way i understand it, the currently-known wave of human settlers in the Americas came by way of the Bering land bridge as the last ice sheet began to recede, which would make 15 kYa the earliest likely time for the immigration. However I just found today that they found skulls in Brazil that have more of a Melanesian (e.g. Aussie aborigines) bone structure. This suggests that the Asiatics encountered and displaced more Africanoid settlers whose likely way in was by boat. That has some odd parallels to a much later bit of history ... cn

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_humans_americas.html

_ceterum censeo_ publication is the test of an idea in science. This establishes the researcher's priority, and opens the findings to debate by (his) scientific peers. Unpublished data need to be uncontroversial in order to be accepted, and suggesting human presence before the land bridge became passable is much too big to get that pass.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> It makes a colossal diff to me because the way i understand it, the currently-known wave of human settlers in the Americas came by way of the Bering land bridge as the last ice sheet began to recede, which would make 15 kYa the earliest likely time for the immigration. However I just found today that they found skulls in Brazil that have more of a Melanesian (e.g. Aussie aborigines) bone structure. This suggests that the Asiatics encountered and displaced more Africanoid settlers whose likely way in was by boat. That has some odd parallels to a much later bit of history ... cn
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_humans_americas.html
> 
> _ceterum censeo_ publication is the test of an idea in science. This establishes the researcher's priority, and opens the findings to debate by (his) scientific peers. Unpublished data need to be uncontroversial in order to be accepted, and suggesting human presence before the land bridge became passable is much too big to get that pass.


Sorry cb, I went'a lookin lol, best I could find for you is my neighbor (the local archeologist) Dr John Parker's web site and I don't know for sure if he has been involved with some of the UC Davis/mount Konocti stuff or not...
http://wolfcreekarcheology.com/
"*This web site contains the latest information on the activities of many Lake County and Northern California archaeological projects. It also provides links to various archaeological and historical organization web sites as well as information on endangered historical and archaeological resources."
*


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 27, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Sorry cb, I went'a lookin lol, best I could find for you is my neighbor (the local archeologist) Dr John Parker's web site and I don't know for sure if he has been involved with some of the UC Davis/mount Konocti stuff or not...
> http://wolfcreekarcheology.com/
> "*This web site contains the latest information on the activities of many Lake County and Northern California archaeological projects. It also provides links to various archaeological and historical organization web sites as well as information on endangered historical and archaeological resources."
> *


No worries. If it stands scrutiny, we'll hear about it in time. This would be a dramatic finding and (if confirmed or ruled likely) will end up in popular media, e.g. newspapers and the weekly newsmags. I went a'Googlin' on that premise, but I'm wagering it hasn't been published so far. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> No worries. If it stands scrutiny, we'll hear about it in time. This would be a dramatic finding and (if confirmed or ruled likely) will end up in popular media, e.g. newspapers and the weekly newsmags. I went a'Googlin' on that premise, but I'm wagering it hasn't been published so far. cn


My friend who is 'Pomo' and has a local radio show goes on and on about it every Saturday at 1pm lol...you should call in and ask him...omg that would be sweeet! lol...his name is Clayton Duncan and if you call 707-263-3435 on a Saturday at 1pm-2pm you will automatically be on live with Clayton lol and he will talk your ear off about it.
He is still a little bothered by what we call 'bloody island' so beware...

edit ps...I only lol because Claytons way is much like that of a grand mother...




Call
ok not sure whats up but whenever i edit this and save it has what you see below, if its still there. I did not put it there?










Call
Send SMS
Add to Skype
You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 27, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> My friend who is 'Pomo' and has a local radio show goes on and on about it every Saturday at 1pm lol...you should call in and ask him...omg that would be sweeet! lol...his name is Clayton Duncan and if you call 707-263-3435 on a Saturday at 1pm-2pm you will automatically be on live with Clayton lol and he will talk your ear off about it.
> He is still a little bothered by what we call 'bloody island' so beware...


I'm guessing that was a low point for first nations/next nations relations ... cn

(for some reason, Skype shyte auto-adds ...)
(wait; I think I got it)
(Keep it down over there!)
Aiee, the voices. Who awoke them?
(NOT me Boss ...)
(not me either)
(~stifled giggle~)

Call
Send SMS
Add to Skype
You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 27, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I'm guessing that was a low point for first nations/next nations relations ... cn


Very low indeed...
"California's policy at the time of statehood was best exemplified by Gov. Peter H. Burnett, who stated in 1851, "that the war of extermination will continue to be waged until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected." This was one year after California entered the Union as a non-slave state, but the state Legislature enslaved Indians under the "Act for the Government and Protection of Indians," which permitted Indians to be kidnapped and sold as de facto slaves and forced to work as indentured servants. Male children could be indentured until 18 years of age, and females until age 15. The California law also declared, "in no case shall a white man be convicted of any illegal act or offense upon the testimony of an Indian." In 1851 and 1852, the California Legislature authorized payment of claims exceeding $1 million, and in 1857 issued bonds for more than $400,000 to pay the expenses of the voluntary militia engaged in "Indian extermination." 

Atrocities against Indians in California were the norm. The New York Century, a newspaper of the time, wrote of this period, "In the Atlantic and Western states, Indians have suffered wrongs and cruelties at the hands of the stronger race. But history has no parallel to the atrocities perpetrated in California."


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Very low indeed...
> "California's policy at the time of statehood was best exemplified by Gov. Peter H. Burnett, who stated in 1851, "that the war of extermination will continue to be waged until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected." This was one year after California entered the Union as a non-slave state, but the state Legislature enslaved Indians under the "Act for the Government and Protection of Indians," which permitted Indians to be kidnapped and sold as de facto slaves and forced to work as indentured servants. Male children could be indentured until 18 years of age, and females until age 15. The California law also declared, "in no case shall a white man be convicted of any illegal act or offense upon the testimony of an Indian." In 1851 and 1852, the California Legislature authorized payment of claims exceeding $1 million, and in 1857 issued bonds for more than $400,000 to pay the expenses of the voluntary militia engaged in "Indian extermination."
> 
> Atrocities against Indians in California were the norm. The New York Century, a newspaper of the time, wrote of this period, "In the Atlantic and Western states, Indians have suffered wrongs and cruelties at the hands of the stronger race. But history has no parallel to the atrocities perpetrated in California."


dd I noticed you haven't added your standard typical comment to this one (I hope you are not ill?) so I will do it for you because I just don't feel as though I 'did my job' unless your shinning brilliance brightens my posts...


desert dude said:


> Rolls eyes. More gibberish.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

[h=1]New chance to comment on genetically modified salmon[/h] Posted 12/28/2012
by - Margaret Bauman 
The countdown is on to offer public comment to the federal Food and Drug Administration on its environmental assessment conclusion that a fast-growing genetically modified salmon will likely cause no harm to the environment.
The FDA planned to public a notice in the Federal Register on Dec. 26 and said it would accept comment on the agency's draft environmental assessment and preliminary finding of no significant impact through Feb. 24, 2013.
United Fishermen of Alaska, an umbrella group representing 37 commercial fishing organizations, is urging those in the seafood industry to file their views electronically or in written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Docket number FDA-2011-N-0899, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, ND 20852.
Electronic submissions were also being accepted at http://www.regulations.gov once the notice was published in the Federal Register.
The pre-release of the Federal Register notice is online at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-31118.pdf 
Many Alaskans engaged commercial, sport and subsistence fisheries view the genetically modified product proposed by Massachusetts-based Aquabounty as a threat to wild fisheries. The FDA document states that the genetically modified fish appears to be safe to eat and that it is unlikely to harm wild salmon.
AquaAdvantage salmon, as the genetically modified fish is known, is an Atlantic salmon with an extra growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon.
Alaska's congressional delegation is united in its opposition to the FDA's draft environmental assessment, which is clearing the way for approval of the genetically modified fish for human consumption. 
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, introduced legislation in November 2010 to stop the FDA from approving genetically modified fish. Last November, Begich celebrated Halloween by handing on "no Frankenfish" buttons to fellow senators.
"I've said from the beginning that Frankenfish pose a gravel threat to Alaska's wild salmon stocks, and today's decision by the FDA is foolish and disturbing," Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said on Dec. 21. "As the final process moves forward, I will continue the fight with the Alaska congressional delegation to ensure that this product never hits the market."
Young said he planned to reintroduce legislation that will at a bare minimum require genetically engineered salmon to be labeled to ensure that the public knows what they are purchasing at the grocery store and feeding their families.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski said in a video released by her office that she does not believe the FDA should approve these fish.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> *New chance to comment on genetically modified salmon*
> 
> Posted 12/28/2012
> by - Margaret Bauman
> ...


Jesus, they've genetically modified them to be made from STONE?!


----------



## desert dude (Dec 28, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Jesus, they've genetically modified them to be made from STONE?!


Those are organic stones, though. It's wholesome.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

The comment spot for the GMO salmon at the FDA link above is a little tricky so here is a more direct link.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=Docket%2Bnumber%2BFDA-2011-N-0899;fp=true;ns=true


----------



## VTMi'kmaq (Dec 28, 2012)

i dont care what report study or "findings" anyone posts here about pro gmo's or monsanto, fucking evil, let nature do its thing! CURE CANCER! instead of waste money on gmo bullshit.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

VTMi'kmaq said:


> i dont care what report study or "findings" anyone posts here about pro gmo's or monsanto, fucking evil, let nature do its thing! CURE CANCER! instead of waste money on gmo bullshit.


Yeah, and thanks for that.
I am in the underground of the county where I live and we have been helping each other 'cure' cancer outside of the system and quietly.
Gov knew back in the early 70's what we now know, that concentrated cannabis oil (not available in dispensaries) attacks and renders gone any growth.
I've never seen a time it didn't work to this point.
In San Francisco they are now finally beginning in the direction of 'curing' breast cancer with these concentrates and Dr. Courtney here in norcal has just helped to do this:
[h=1]Cannabis For Infant's Brain Tumor, Doctor Calls Child "A Miracle Baby"[/h]
Medical marijuana is gaining acceptance, but could it even help kids? Dr. William Courtney has seen it happen, and on Friday, told HuffPost Live host Alyona Minkovski about it. Saying he was "quite a skeptic 5 or 6 years ago", Dr. Courtney continued that "my youngest patient is 8 months old, and had a very massive centrally located inoperable brain tumor." The child's father pushed for non-traditional treatment utilizing cannabis.
"They were putting cannabinoid oil on the baby's pacifier twice a day, increasing the dose... And within two months there was a dramatic reduction, enough that the pediatric oncologist allowed them to go ahead with not pursuing traditional therapy."
The tumor was remarkably reduced after eight months of treatment. Dr. Courtney pointed out that the success of the cannabis approach means that "this child, because of that, is not going to have the long-term side effects that would come from a very high dose of chemotherapy or radiation... currently the child's being called a miracle baby, and I would have to agree that this is the perfect response that we should be insisting is frontline therapy for all children before they launch off on all medications that have horrific long term side effects."

*Watch the full segment at HuffPost Live.*


----------



## canndo (Dec 28, 2012)

Grandpapy said:


> The real, "present tense" loss, is that the next generation wont be able to complain about the flavor, because they wont know any better.
> When was the last time you bought fruit's or veg's at the supermarket and said "Wow, I really got my moneys worth!"
> Look at Fl. laws, regarding tomatoes, I know it wasn't written with the consumer in mind, There is no standard of flavor, I've wasted time & money, only to have to lower my standards and tell my children how wonderful fruits and veg's once tasted. But it's for the greater good.
> 
> ...


Except that there is an ongoing argument about that. There is a counter argument that it isn't the taste of the fruit for vegies that has changed but your tastebuds that have been dulled. Or it could be that your memory of a time long ago brings the taste of that strawberry into bold relief. Of course this does not apply to tomatoes. The stuff at your grocery store may be just as tasty as those old time watermelons and corn - you just remember them as being better tasting than they really are and of course your tongue has suffered through volumes of pot smoke and bad beer so it won't register the pristine taste notes of that apple it once was able to.


Or at least - so says big Ag.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 28, 2012)

VTMi'kmaq said:


> i dont care what report study or "findings" anyone posts here about pro gmo's or monsanto, fucking evil, let nature do its thing! CURE CANCER! instead of waste money on gmo bullshit.


hmmm cancer is nature doing its thing...

as to curing it i guess you wouldnt support the chimeric cancer treatments my dads been receiving??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibodies


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Yeah, and thanks for that.
> I am in the underground of the county where I live and we have been helping each other 'cure' cancer outside of the system and quietly.
> Gov knew back in the early 70's what we now know, that concentrated cannabis oil (not available in dispensaries) attacks and renders gone any growth.
> I've never seen a time it didn't work to this point.
> ...


Bet mama had some major-league sore nipples. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 28, 2012)

canndo said:


> Except that there is an ongoing argument about that. There is a counter argument that it isn't the taste of the fruit for vegies that has changed but your tastebuds that have been dulled. Or it could be that your memory of a time long ago brings the taste of that strawberry into bold relief. Of course this does not apply to tomatoes. The stuff at your grocery store may be just as tasty as those old time watermelons and corn - you just remember them as being better tasting than they really are and of course your tongue has suffered through volumes of pot smoke and bad beer so it won't register the pristine taste notes of that apple it once was able to.
> 
> 
> Or at least - so says big Ag.


Wouldn't the growers and keepers of heirloom varietals be maintaining a ready set of control samples? I think that premise can be tested. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Bet mama had some major-league sore nipples. cn


Actually c'b'n  (splicing can reveal shocking results lol) concentrated cannabis oil is good for sore nipples as well and is my fave form of delivery, even better when comes with milf lol


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Actually they must of have been doing something right because they existed for at least 10's of thousands of years without any of the traits that have plagued Europeans for at least the last 2-3 thousand years.
> Just an example, I live about a mile from "one of" (in "" edited controversial mistake lol)the largest natural and one of the oldest known lakes in the northern hemisphere of this continent and 'the first people' here (named "Pomo" by the invaders) lived here for at least (also amended for discussions sake)"12" thousand years (that we can verify and could be longer) before Europeans arrived and were not 'nomadic'. We are now fairly sure that the population they had living around this lake at that time must have fluctuated up to possibly 100,000 or more humans and up until Europeans arrived the lake was actually clear, that's why the invaders renamed it to be 'Clearlake'. Now the invaders have only been here for a couple hundred years and now have a max population of about 64 thousand and the lake has turned to water that you wouldn't want your kid's or your dog swimming in.
> Your mentality can't even figure out how to live around a lake without polluting and destroying the ecosystems, and now you want to piss in the entire gene pool?
> 
> The point is, you are incorrect as usual dd.


that is the biggest pile of crap i ever read. the pomos did not number in the 100,000 range EVER, they were several small tribes lumped together by societal structure and geography. 

clear lake became less clear as a result of agricultural runoff, erosion of the land due to european style settlements, and increasd demand on the water source. living by clear lake, and bemoaning it's fate while simultaneously implying that its "all them other assholes what did it..." is just ridiculous. 

every word out of your mouth is an exaggeration, a lie or a fallacy. your proposed initiative is DOA, i will vote against it, council against it, campaign against it and write letters to the newspaper opionon collumns should your silly little brainfart ever bubble to the surface on the ballot. 

it is rejected, you are rejected, and i am done with your hyperbole and lies. 

good day sir.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> that is the biggest pile of crap i ever read. the pomos did not number in the 100,000 range EVER, they were several small tribes lumped together by societal structure and geography.
> 
> clear lake became less clear as a result of agricultural runoff, erosion of the land due to european style settlements, and increasd demand on the water source. living by clear lake, and bemoaning it's fate while simultaneously implying that its "all them other assholes what did it..." is just ridiculous.


I guess if you were there than you would know better than I.
I only go by what I've been told by 'Pomo' people...I know its hard for some folks to trust people rather than books.
For me there must be some balance between the two, but I always give the benefit of doubt to the voice of the 'destroyed' rather than the destroyer.

For cn, I have been tracking the old bones find and it was Dr. Parker who age dated a find at the Elem community at about 10-14 thousand years I guess but then he withdrew that estimation and held that they were far older (20 thousand or more years), still trying to get anything he wrote on it.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

Genetic Roulette, the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv96D_ZURzs
A recent review in rollitup said...


Dr Kynes said:


> that is the biggest pile of crap i ever...
> it is rejected, you are rejected, and i am done with your hyperbole and lies.
> good day sir.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Genetic Roulette, the movie:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv96D_ZURzs
> A recent review in rollitup said...


a movie trailer on youtube is your goto evidence?

this is one of the few occasions i agree whole heartedly with dr kynes


----------



## canndo (Dec 28, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Wouldn't the growers and keepers of heirloom varietals be maintaining a ready set of control samples? I think that premise can be tested. cn



I exepted tomatoes. I think it is probably all false but I have problems with berries. Black berries and blue berries tend to taste bland to me now even though I recall vividly the taste when I was a boy. Now I don't think that these berries are altered and I don't think they are grown any differently now than they ever were but it may be that the sunlight, the can in my hand, the stain on my fingers and lips, the joy of reaching that one plump berry just beyond my grasp over a sea of inch long stickers had something to do with the difference in flavor with the ones I got at Whole foods in the two ounce plastic basket for $3.99.


----------



## canndo (Dec 28, 2012)

I recently saw a documentary "Knives over forks" with my wife. She is usually very reasonable and skeptical but she fell for all of the "information" in the movie. The premise is that animal protein is bad in all cases. I held out for an explaination of the mechanism. WHY is it bad, what does it do, how is it different. These explainations were not forthcoming in the movie and subsequent research was no better in my search for answers. This holds true for GMO items as well, WHAT is it about them that is dangerous. The problem is that I can see no real advantage in GMO foods except for businesses. As I have said before, these items were not designed with the end consumer in mind. It is pretty well proven that most GMO products give us little if any advantage. The common refrain is that they will help feed the world, that they produce enhanced yield but I have yet to see such things proven.


It is the unknown that concerns me with these items. We cannot project the effects on nature at large and we have a long history of being short sighted about such things.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 28, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> a movie trailer on youtube is your goto evidence?
> 
> this is one of the few occasions i agree whole heartedly with dr kynes


but let us agree, we should not make eye contact during this Devil's Threeway.

shit could get weird.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 28, 2012)

canndo said:


> I exepted tomatoes. I think it is probably all false but I have problems with berries. Black berries and blue berries tend to taste bland to me now even though I recall vividly the taste when I was a boy. Now I don't think that these berries are altered and I don't think they are grown any differently now than they ever were but it may be that the sunlight, the can in my hand, the stain on my fingers and lips, the joy of reaching that one plump berry just beyond my grasp over a sea of inch long stickers had something to do with the difference in flavor with the ones I got at Whole foods in the two ounce plastic basket for $3.99.


growing for volume over growing for taste (strength/cbd content(this is a growers site )) is always going to be in the mind of the producers quantity sells better than quality while i can get vine ripened tomatoes at my local supermarket i'll more often go for the cheaper salad varieties

breed has alot to do with all of this


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 28, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> but let us agree, we should not make eye contact during this Devil's Threeway.
> 
> shit could get weird.


ok but i might stroke one of your buttocks in encouragement


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 28, 2012)

canndo said:


> I exepted tomatoes. I think it is probably all false but I have problems with berries. Black berries and blue berries tend to taste bland to me now even though I recall vividly the taste when I was a boy. Now I don't think that these berries are altered and I don't think they are grown any differently now than they ever were but it may be that the sunlight, the can in my hand, the stain on my fingers and lips, the joy of reaching that one plump berry just beyond my grasp over a sea of inch long stickers had something to do with the difference in flavor with the ones I got at Whole foods in the two ounce plastic basket for $3.99.



it;s not genetic modification that makes strebought berries taste like shit, it's shitty growers growing shitty varieties for an early bloom, fast fruiting but SLOW ripening. 

store bought berries are picked green, shipped refigerated, ripened by alene gas infusion, and taste like sour watery blandness as a result. 

come by northern california in summer and autumn and you get that taste you remember from any roadside ditch. we got tons of blackberries everyhwere, and stores dont even bother stocking them between july and october since they are free. 

thats why i *Grow My Own* strawberries, had i the space i would grow raspberries and blueberries too.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 28, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> ok but i might stroke one of your buttocks in encouragement


see now it's just weird. 

kinda like this boner i got....


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> a movie trailer on youtube is your goto evidence?
> 
> this is one of the few occasions i agree whole heartedly with dr kynes


Go to evidence? You presume a lot.
Who ever said it was "go to evidence" accept you?
This is one time I also agree with dr keen lol...


----------



## canndo (Dec 28, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> see now it's just weird.
> 
> kinda like this boner i got....



Gee, I seem to have gotten one from the prospect of ripe black berries growing in a roadside ditch. What has become of us all?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 28, 2012)

canndo said:


> Gee, I seem to have gotten one from the prospect of ripe black berries growing in a roadside ditch. What has become of us all?


im just remembering two months ago when my face was stained purple as i lay in the sun smeared with the juice of a thousand tiny fruitlets next to a basket full of deliciousness destined for my freezer and a few carefully prepared pies. 

some mexicans beat me to the prickly pear fruits or i would have had a perfect september.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Go to evidence? You presume a lot.
> Who ever said it was "go to evidence" accept you?
> This is one time I also agree with dr keen lol...


oh so you have better evidence but decided not to show it here?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> oh so you have better evidence but decided not to show it here?


First I must ask, evidence of what?
What is it I need to prove?
Did you read the Act or are you just all caught up in the discussion here and assuming the Act says GMO's are bad?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> First I must ask, evidence of what?
> What is it I need to prove?
> Did you read the Act or are you just all caught up in the discussion here and assuming the Act says GMO's are bad?


you made this thread you obviously have a point to get across are you now suggesting we just go upon your words and that your words are not evidence supporting what you say?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> you made this thread you obviously have a point to get across are you now suggesting we just go upon your words and that your words are not evidence supporting what you say?


What in the world are you talking about?
The Act is self explanatory and to my knowledge it never says GMO's are 'bad'.


----------



## D3monic (Dec 28, 2012)

I personally would not want Monsanto tampering with my herb any more than I like them tampering with my food. Buy local, grow organic fuck them. Whats scary is half the people that control our food industry (usda ect) sit on the Monsanto board...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> What in the world are you talking about?
> The Act is self explanatory and to my knowledge it never says GMO's are 'bad'.


ok lets take this slowly you posted the youtube trailer for an anti gmo film because....?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> ok lets take this slowly you posted the youtube trailer for an anti gmo film because....?


Ok then slowly I will answer,...because there was a discussion about 'good' or 'bad' GMO's (just as they do with cannabis) and I simply tossed another card on the table for people to examine if they wish, I haven't even seen that movie and frankly I could care less about it or the 'good v bad' debate but that's where you all seem to be so just thought I'd play to...maybe my red nose should bar me from playing all your reindeer games...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Ok then slowly I will answer,...because there was a discussion about 'good' or 'bad' GMO's (just as they do with cannabis) and I simply tossed another card on the table for people to examine if they wish, I haven't even seen that movie and frankly I could care less about it or the 'good v bad' debate but that's where you all seem to be so just thought I'd play to...maybe my red nose should bar me from playing all your reindeer games...


are you that detracted from this debate that you dont care what information you bring to it?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> are you that detracted from this debate that you dont care what information you bring to it?


You have all made the 'debate' what it is, what it is not is the discussion I had hoped for, but no worries I thought I'd play along...but reindeer games are for learning to fly and as you can see I already have my wings...oh sure I had to escape from a Monsanto/UC davis lab to use them, but they are wings all the same.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> You have all made the 'debate' what it is, what it is not is the discussion I had hoped for, but no worries I thought I'd play along...but reindeer games are for learning to fly and as you can see I already have my wings...oh sure I had to escape from a Monsanto/UC davis lab to use them, but they are wings all the same.


^^^^^^^^


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

I'm guessing the above poster has misinterpreted my last post lol


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> You have all made the 'debate' what it is, what it is not is the discussion I had hoped for, but no worries I thought I'd play along...but reindeer games are for learning to fly and as you can see I already have my wings...oh sure I had to escape from a Monsanto/UC davis lab to use them, but they are wings all the same.


when you have such little care for the information you bring to this "debate" i dont think you really can bitch about where it has ended


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> when you have such little care for the information you bring to this "debate" i dont think you really can bitch about where it has ended


Again you are assuming I am complaining or some such, when actually it is you who originally assumed then asked a question based on that assumption and then you assumed smore and complained etc lol...
I don't know that I have complained once during your play time? Nor would I because I have no complaints, it is what it is.
Also fyi, I actually care a great deal about a great many, in fact infinite issues.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Again you are assuming I am complaining or some such, when actually it is you who originally assumed then asked a question based on that assumption and then you assumed smore and complained etc lol...
> I don't know that I have complained once during your play time? Nor would I because I have no complaints, it is what it is.
> *Also fyi, I actually care a great deal about a great many, in fact infinite issues.*


*bolded the part that wasnt plain bullshit*

if you care enough about a subject to argue about it then make damn sure that the information you bring to back it up isnt full of shit 

this is simple shit to grasp really it is


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> *bolded the part that wasnt plain bullshit*
> 
> if you care enough about a subject to argue about it then make damn sure that the information you bring to back it up isnt full of shit
> 
> this is simple shit to grasp really it is


Ok once more, slowly...I wasn't arguing about 'good v bad' GMO's, just simply adding info to your argument.
It seems you are truly afflicted with assumptions...there is a cure...see me after class


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Ok once more, slowly...I wasn't arguing about 'good v bad' GMO's, just simply adding info to your argument.
> It seems you are truly afflicted with assumptions...there is a cure...see me after class


you were adding to our side of the arguement by posting an anti GMO trailer for a movie?

this is starting to get confusing


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> you were adding to our side of the arguement by posting an anti GMO trailer for a movie?
> 
> this is starting to get confusing


omg I don't have a dog in that fight, comprehend?
That is the discussion that was going on and I had heard of that movie and so posted a link to it. r we ccr?


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 28, 2012)

Your initiative is dumb. 

Get a public relations firm to try sell it for you next time, you suck at it.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Your initiative is dumb.
> 
> Get a public relations firm to try sell it for you next time, you suck at it.


Is there some kind of assumption virus plaguing yall?
Not here to sell anything...that's your culture...I'm here just as the intro states, maybe you should read it if you haven't, its only like a paragraph or so...


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Is there some kind of assumption virus plaguing yall?
> Not here to sell anything...that's your culture...I'm here just as the intro states, maybe you should read it if you haven't, its only like a paragraph or so...


Tl;dr. 

Stop looking for attention.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Your initiative is dumb.
> 
> Get a public relations firm to try sell it for you next time, you suck at it.


 
*Poll Results*


*View Poll Results: Genetically Engineered Cannabis yes or no?*

Voters41. 


 yes 

11 26.83%
BBbubblegum, 
ChesusRice, 
Dr Kynes, 
ginjawarrior, 
john5841, 
Kite High, 
loquacious, 
PurpleBuz, 
Stellah, 
Taviddude, 
tibberous 
 
 no 

28 68.29%
abandonconflict, 
ASMALLVOICE, 
brimck325, 
budlover13, 
Canna Sylvan, 
Chemdog1989, 
D3monic, 
deprave, 
desert dude, 
djfrosty, 
echelon1k1, 
ElfoodStampo, 
Grandpapy, 
jigfresh, 
justanotherbozo, 
kelly4, 
kinetic, 
mobP, 
NightOwlBono, 
NoDrama, 
OGEvilgenius, 
pmumbry, 
poind3xter, 
RyanTheRhino, 
Samwell Seed Well, 
sensisensai, 
TroncoChe, 
Winter Woman 
 
 undecided 

2 4.88%
canndo, 
wally smokes 
 
 what is GE cannabis? 

0 0%


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 28, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> *Poll Results*
> 
> 
> *View Poll Results: Genetically Engineered Cannabis yes or no?*
> ...


Dude, if you don't want GM Cannabis then don't buy it. 

You don't have to go all "Eco-warrior" trying to get shit banned. 

Your hippy friends might think you're so progressive and forward thinking, I think you're a lefty tard trying to make a name for themselves/get some attention.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Dude, if you don't want GM Cannabis then don't buy it.
> 
> You don't have to go all "Eco-warrior" trying to get shit banned.
> 
> Your hippy friends might think you're so progressive and forward thinking, I think you're a lefty tard trying to make a name for themselves/get some attention.


Well at least you are 'thinking' things rather than assuming, and while that is progress, still your thoughts are incorrect. 
"make a name" ? Where anywhere do you see my name?
There are easy ways to do what you accuse of, why would I be doing this if that were my motive?
Sorry just curious how your thought process works because now I'm starting to think you might be in assumption denial.(common to the affliction)


----------



## D3monic (Dec 28, 2012)

Honestly, you all or jumping on OP like its some sort of bad thing.... Monsanto is the fucking devil. Please do a bit of research before bashing OP. One of my biggest fears is them genetically engineering and patenting cannabis. No major corporation should have its hands on our entire food supply genetically altering it so it can be patented and profited from.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 28, 2012)

D3monic said:


> Honestly, you all or jumping on OP like its some sort of bad thing.... Monsanto is the fucking devil. Please do a bit of research before bashing OP. One of my biggest fears is them genetically engineering and patenting cannabis. No major corporation should have its hands on our entire food supply genetically altering it so it can be patented and profited from.


Oh and they'll have a 100% monopoly on ALL cannabis genomes?

Cool story bro.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 28, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Oh and they'll have a 100% monopoly on ALL cannabis genomes?
> 
> Cool story bro.


That's one thing they are after, but not naturally occurring varieties, they will still be schedule 1, but GMO patented varieties will be deemed to be safe' by the FDA and will be the only 'legal' cannabis genomes as you say.
The wa, co, = waco laws are setting the stage for such.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 28, 2012)

Do you really want to invoke Waco? The fedses handled that rather summarily. cn


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 28, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Dude, if you don't want GM Cannabis then don't buy it.
> 
> You don't have to go all "Eco-warrior" trying to get shit banned.
> 
> Your hippy friends might think you're so progressive and forward thinking, I think you're a lefty tard trying to make a name for themselves/get some attention.


I can't even find landrace Afghani Kush without some Dutch dick fucking it. Now what happens when Monsanto gets their dick into a cannabis gang bang? I don't have the money to check the DNA, but Monsanto will let me know after the fact. If I don't pay their goombas, I get the prison gang bang.

As you all know, I'm about as lefty as the Kotch brothers.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 28, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> I can't even find landrace Afghani Kush without some Dutch dick fucking it. Now what happens when Monsanto gets their dick into a cannabis gang bang? I don't have the money to check the DNA, but Monsanto will let me know after the fact. If I don't pay their goombas, I get the prison gang bang.
> 
> As you all know, I'm about as lefty as the Kotch brothers.


You're a vegan and thusly are retarded, making your opinion rather meaningless. 

Should you continue to spout your tin-foil paranoid talk, I'll be forced to put up pictures of mutilated animals.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 28, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> You're a vegan and thusly are retarded, making your opinion rather meaningless.
> 
> Should you continue to spout your tin-foil paranoid talk, I'll be forced to put up pictures of mutilated animals.


Let's keep it classy, Ireland. cn


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 28, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> You're a vegan and thusly are retarded, making your opinion rather meaningless.
> 
> Should you continue to spout your tin-foil paranoid talk, I'll be forced to put up pictures of mutilated animals.


Then find me some cheap pure Afghani Kush landrace seeds that hasn't been molested by Dutch assholes.

Also, don't be hatin' cause my body is pure without bullshit xeno specie hormones. Most celebrities eat animal free diets, when they can afford the best. Bubba Clinton eats vegan now because eating healthy bacon was plugging up his arteries. 

Now run along my ginger friend. Maybe one day you'll learn to count as high as potato.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 28, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Then find me some cheap pure Afghani Kush landrace seeds that hasn't been molested by Dutch assholes.
> 
> Also, don't be hatin' cause my body is pure without bullshit xeno specie hormones. Most celebrities eat animal free diets, when they can afford the best. Bubba Clinton eats vegan now because eating healthy bacon was plugging up his arteries.
> 
> Now run along my ginger friend. Maybe one day you'll learn to *count as high as potato*.


You need to put the bong down and let me troll this noob in peace, why do you always put yourself in the firing line. 

You have to bite, every time, it's not a challenge anymore.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 28, 2012)

Lagomorph, have you considered Maple Leaf Indica? That's one i would not mind giving a go. cn


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 28, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Lagomorph, have you considered Maple Leaf Indica? That's one i would not mind giving a go. cn


I have a nice one curing. Last week I harvested it. I put the kief from my fingers in my pipe and melted it on a small piece of sativa. I was soaring for 6 hours of bliss, no paranoia. Which is strange. I tried some OG Kush once and was paranoid for almost a 4 hour trip.

After this stuff fully cures, if I get paranoid smoking it, I'm turning it into bubble hash.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 28, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> You need to put the bong down and let me troll this noob in peace, why do you always put yourself in the firing line.
> 
> You have to bite, every time, it's not a challenge anymore.


Troll cock blocking is what I do best.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Troll cock blocking is what I do best.







Look, he's saying hello!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> I can't even find landrace Afghani Kush without some Dutch dick fucking it. Now what happens when Monsanto gets their dick into a cannabis gang bang? I don't have the money to check the DNA, but Monsanto will let me know after the fact. If I don't pay their goombas, I get the prison gang bang.
> 
> As you all know, I'm about as lefty as the Kotch brothers.


dont buy your seeds from the dutch breeders then? 
its kinda like saying i can't buy a tenderloin steak because macdonalds only sells me cheeseburgers


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Do you really want to invoke Waco? The fedses handled that rather summarily. cn


lol that's the point, the wa.co. laws are setting the table for the feds to summarily decide what cannabis you/we will legally have and will not legally have.
All the strains that I partner with will still be illegal schedule 1 and considered 'dangerous' by the FDA, while Monsanto's special ed designer brand will be approved as safe for enemas (thought Harrekin would want to know that part) and every other use including industrial etc.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> dont buy your seeds from the dutch breeders then?
> its kinda like saying i can't buy a tenderloin steak because macdonalds only sells me cheeseburgers


Actually none of this is like that...its more like we can only get cheeseburgers because they GE'd cows to be a cheeseburger . no mo steaks...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Actually none of this is like that...its more like we can only get cheeseburgers because they GE'd cows to be a cheeseburger . no mo steaks...


and its that hyperbolic nonsense that shows your position is so very weak


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> and its that hyperbolic nonsense that shows your position is so very weak


You reap what you sow ginga = nonsense.
What you don't seem to understand is the nature of the current brand of capitalism.
The model says to not only defeat your competition, but to render it non existent.
Cannabis provides the perfect inroad for Monsanto's ultimate goals in all other areas, in other words cannabis will be the first plant etc that they will achieve the 'only legal variety' status and from there they will proceed just as they have done through case law.
Eventually the case law will establish that any naturally occurring varieties of any plant that they have a GE counterpart for will be considered a genetic contamination threat to their patent protected intellectual properties. 
There is no law/statute that protects the naturally occurring varieties at present and so they have no basis for any 'equal protection' as Monsanto varieties do, such presents the need for an Act such as this.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> You reap what you sow ginga = nonsense.
> What you don't seem to understand is the nature of the current brand of capitalism.
> The model says to not only defeat your competition, but to render it non existent.
> Cannabis provides the perfect inroad for Monsanto's ultimate goals in all other areas, in other words cannabis will be the first plant etc that they will achieve the 'only legal variety' status and from there they will proceed just as they have done through case law.
> ...


lol this hysterical ranting by you is hilarious it has such a chicken little feel to it all

you have no evidence to back any of it up apart from a deep down fear of monsanto (having personally read up on the monsanto debacle im bettering yhour fear is based on lies)

so you take this scary company imagine the worst thing your tiny imagination can muster then come here all hysterical wanting us to belive this bullshit:
Because you know monsanto = bad


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> lol this hysterical ranting by you is hilarious it has such a chicken little feel to it all
> 
> you have no evidence to back any of it up apart from a deep down fear of monsanto (having personally read up on the monsanto debacle im bettering yhour fear is based on lies)
> 
> ...


It seems I should reiterate...


DNAprotection said:


> You reap what you sow ginga = nonsense.
> What you don't seem to understand is the nature of the current brand of capitalism.
> The model says to not only defeat your competition, but to render it non existent.
> Cannabis provides the perfect inroad for Monsanto's ultimate goals in all other areas, in other words cannabis will be the first plant etc that they will achieve the 'only legal variety' status and from there they will proceed just as they have done through case law.
> ...




This is just a small sample of my imagination:



[h=3]_Monsanto_ ~ Saved Seed and _Farmer Lawsuits_[/h]www.monsanto.com  News & Views  Issues_Answers
Since 1997, we have only filed suit _against farmers_ 144 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you *...* Saved Seed and _Farmer Lawsuits_ *...*



 

[h=3]_Farmers_' _lawsuit against Monsanto_ heads back to federal court | The *...*[/h]www.kjonline.com/.../federal-court-to-hear-*lawsuit*_2012-11-23.html
Nov 23, 2012  A _lawsuit_ filed by a nationwide consortium of _farmers against_ the chemical giant _Monsanto_ concerning genetically modified seeds is headed for *...*



 

[h=3]_Monsanto_ wins _lawsuit against_ Indiana soybean _farmer_ | MNN *...*[/h]www.mnn.com  Your Home  Organic Farming & Gardening
_Monsanto_ Co., the world's largest seed company, has prevailed in another _lawsuit against_ a U.S. _farmer_, earning a ruling from a federal appeals court that prote.



 

[h=3]_Monsanto_ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Monsanto*
The Center for Food Safety has listed 112 _lawsuits_ by _Monsanto against farmers_ for claims of seed patent violations. The usual claim involves violation of a *...*
The World According - Monsanto Canada Inc. v. - Monsanto House of the Future



 

[h=3]_Farmers_ defend their right to grow food _against Monsanto_ Alex *...*[/h]www.infowars.com/*farmers*-defend-their-right-to-grow-food-*against*-...
Apr 15, 2012  Between 1997 and 2010, in fact, _Monsanto_ actually admits to having filed at least 144 _lawsuits against farmers_, and settled another 700 cases *...*



 

[h=3]Family _Farmers Lawsuit Against Monsanto_ Grows - Mother Earth News[/h]www.motherearthnews.com/...*farming*/*lawsuit*-*against*-*monsanto*-...
Jul 17, 2012  Prominent allies join the effort to reinstate the challenge to _Monsanto_ patents from _farmers_ who have been threatened with patent infringement.



 

[h=3]Landmark Family _Farmers Lawsuit Against Monsanto_ Grows[/h]readersupportednews.org/...*farm*.../12480-landmark-family-*farmers*-*l*...
Jul 19, 2012  Excerpt: "The brief by the law professors and the brief by the non-profit organizations were filed in support of over 300,000 individuals and *...*



 

[h=3]_Monsanto_ vs Schmeiser[/h]www.percyschmeiser.com/
Percy Schmeiser is victorious in his _lawsuit against Monsanto_ for the *...* named 2007 Winners of the Right Livelihood Award for their pursuit of _farmer's_ rights.



 

[h=3]_Monsanto_ wins _lawsuit against_ Indiana soybean _farmer_ | Reuters[/h]www.reuters.com/.../us-*monsanto*-*lawsuit*-idUSTRE78K79O2011092...
Sep 21, 2011  (Reuters) - _Monsanto_ Co., the world's largest seed company, has prevailed in another _lawsuit against_ a U.S. _farmer_, earning a ruling from a *...*



 

[h=3]_Farmers_ advance in their suit _against Monsanto_ | Grist[/h]grist.org/industrial.../*farmers*-advance-in-their-suit-*against*-*monsanto*/
Feb 10, 2012  According to PUBPAT, between 1997 and April 2010, _Monsanto_ filed 144 _lawsuits against farmers_ for patent infringement, and more than 500 *...

The pages on Monsanto's and others law suits in this area are practically endless.
I think you are in denial.
*


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> lol this hysterical ranting by you is hilarious it has such a chicken little feel to it all
> 
> you have no evidence to back any of it up apart from a deep down fear of monsanto (having personally read up on the monsanto debacle im bettering yhour fear is based on lies)
> 
> ...


He's trying to be that cool, "proactive", forward thinking hippy college kid. He's probably mad for all that homeopathy and all that other bullshit too. 

So pray, do tell DNAprotection, have you any sort of proof that Monsanto is trying to keep "normal" weed banned and their own super-weed being the only legal option? IF it was the case (and that's a VERY tentative if), why do you have a problem if its an improvement on previous varieties?

What about an equatorial sativa with huge yields, pest resistance and short flowering time?

And why would you not still be able to buy your own seeds from anywhere else in the world and grow it yourself? 

Strange that some dolts seem to think that a legalisation situation is less safe for end users than the current system of item 9 being "ILLEGAL!!".


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> It seems I should reiterate...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol yeah i've read all that before the farmers went into a contractual agreement with monsanto and then thought they stick 2 fingers up at them 

the farmers were in the wrong and monsanto had the right to sue them for it


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> lol yeah i've read all that before the farmers went into a contractual agreement with monsanto and then thought they stick 2 fingers up at them
> 
> the farmers were in the wrong and monsanto had the right to sue them for it


Also each article posted above says there was 144 cases, he thinks repeating it several times will give the illusion that its more than 144 cases. 

So DNA protection, if I take a few Xanax, put them in a different box, then sell them, should I not be subject to patent law either?


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 29, 2012)

It starts small, you get a politician in your back pocket, set up a committee, make some laws, and wallah, Your competition is history.

Each Florida field-grown tomato shipped out of Florida is regulated by a Federal Marketing Order that controls grade, size, quality and maturity.
http://www.floridatomatoes.org/AboutUs.aspx


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

Grandpapy said:


> It starts small, you get a politician in your back pocket, set up a committee, make some laws, and wallah, Your competition is history.
> 
> Each Florida field-grown tomato shipped out of Florida is regulated by a Federal Marketing Order that controls grade, size, quality and maturity.
> http://www.floridatomatoes.org/AboutUs.aspx


no mention about breed in there though

seems you can blame the producers for the bland taste


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Grandpapy said:


> It starts small, you get a politician in your back pocket, set up a committee, make some laws, and wallah, Your competition is history.Each Florida field-grown tomato shipped out of Florida is regulated by a Federal Marketing Order that controls grade, size, quality and maturity.http://www.floridatomatoes.org/AboutUs.aspx


Thats quality control and is beneficial to all.Not really the point of the conversation, but that site gives growers tips and everything, they're not the boogeyman you're looking for. Personally, I think the free market should deal with it, but if Floridians want to push their domestic produce that's also their choice.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

It is becoming seemingly apparent that some of the folks here have a different concept of the words 'own' and 'right' from mine, and that's all good just as long as it survives the test of law.
The law, in terms of 'rights', can be viewed as a scale where lets say my 'rights' are on one side of the scale and yours are on the other.
Either side can exercise said rights just as long and up until such aerobics begin to disturb the other side of the scale in such a way as to interfere with the exercise happening elsewhere by others.
In other words the exercising of your 'rights' cannot unduly interfere with someone else exercising their rights.
The law, in terms of 'ownership' requires a valid claim to said ownership.
It seems that some here think that the only things they own are that which is brought by corporations or by 'man' etc such as a car or a house etc, but for me the greatest 'ownership' responsibility comes in the area of what we all commonly own together.
Nature is one such place where we all have equal reach and responsibility to (and are a part of).

Monsanto et al seeks to impose, or do extreme aerobics on one side of the scale where you and I and all others are on the other side in terms of ownership and exercise. The extreme aerobics in effect begin not only to shake the scale for us all, but attempts to rid us of the scale all together.
This Act only seeks equal protection for yours mine and our rights with respect to 'the commons' as well as the 'rights' of 'the commons' itself if you can understand that concept...


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> It is becoming seemingly apparent that some of the folks here have a different concept of the words 'own' and 'right' from mine, and that's all good just as long as it survives the test of law.
> The law, in terms of 'rights', can be viewed as a scale where lets say my 'rights' are on one side of the scale and yours are on the other.
> Either side can exercise said rights just as long and up until such aerobics begin to disturb the other side of the scale in such a way as to interfere with the exercise happening elsewhere by others.
> In other words the exercising of your 'rights' cannot unduly interfere with someone else exercising their rights.
> ...


Bullshit, it talks about God and banning GM organisms from California. 

Did YOU even read it?!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> It is becoming seemingly apparent that some of the folks here have a different concept of the words 'own' and 'right' from mine, and that's all good just as long as it survives the test of law.
> The law, in terms of 'rights', can be viewed as a scale where lets say my 'rights' are on one side of the scale and yours are on the other.
> Either side can exercise said rights just as long and up until such aerobics begin to disturb the other side of the scale in such a way as to interfere with the exercise happening elsewhere by others.
> In other words the exercising of your 'rights' cannot unduly interfere with someone else exercising their rights.
> ...


get your head out of your arse for a second and explain why monsanto shouldnt have patent rights

and make sure you do it in plain text rather than your flowery bullshit that says nothing of relevence


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Thats quality control and is beneficial to all.Not really the point of the conversation, but that site gives growers tips and everything, they're not the boogeyman you're looking for. Personally, I think the free market should deal with it, but if Floridians want to push their domestic produce that's also their choice.


What you're missing here is the fact the market is RIGGED. Don't like salad or canning tomato's, you can always get Heirloom and Ugly's but they MUST be a trademark brand!(According to the Federal not State Government)


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Btw, OP, it's a Bill until its signed into law, when it becomes an Act. 

Just thought since we were correcting all your other BS I'd include that pearl of wisdom.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

Grandpapy said:


> What you're missing here is the fact the market is RIGGED. Don't like salad or canning tomato's, you can always get Heirloom and Ugly's but they MUST be a trademark brand!(According to the Federal not State Government)


where is the federal law that says that?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> ...
> So pray, do tell DNAprotection, have you any sort of proof that Monsanto is trying to keep "normal" weed banned and their own super-weed being the only legal option?


Well, not that you will (I know you all 'care' so much about the 'facts' of this discussion lol), you can start your investigation here:
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/hemp/iha/jiha6101.html

Then maybe go here:
http://gmocannabiswatch.blogspot.com/

If one adds up all the info contained in those links its hard to imagine one would not at least be asking the question.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Well, not that you will (I know you all 'care' so much about the 'facts' of this discussion lol), you can start your investigation here:
> http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/hemp/iha/jiha6101.html
> 
> Then maybe go here:
> ...


Wow, two anti GM sites. 

First link is related to killing cannabis altogether with fungi. 

The second is related to Patent law. 

Where is the relevance to a company wanting to produce GM plants?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

do you ven understand what "proof" means??



DNAprotection said:


> Well, not that you will (I know you all 'care' so much about the 'facts' of this discussion lol), you can start your investigation here:
> http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/hemp/iha/jiha6101.html


that quote isnt about GMO cannabis and doesnt even mention monsanto


> Then maybe go here:
> http://gmocannabiswatch.blogspot.com/
> 
> If one adds up all the info contained in those links its hard to imagine one would not at least be asking the question.


the "proof" in that one amounts to this


"The first mention of the possibility of cannabis being genetically modified I could find was cited in a document leaked to Cannabis Culture back in 2000, which read in part: "*Cannabis seeds from Monsanto are almost definitely genetically engineered.* Genetically engineered plants can be patented, and it is in Monsanto's best interest to hold a patent on any seed they sell. Seed patents ensure that companies like Monsanto can continue to profit from seeds from year to year, as farmers are legally bound to buy patented seeds from the patent holder rather than simply store them from the last year's crop.&#8221;

now aside from the fact that monsanto do not produce cannabis seeds proof isnt about making people "asking the question"

proof is about definative answers


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 29, 2012)

I had a pdf a few weeks ago....... give me a few.


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 29, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> where is the federal law that says that?


The Florida Tomato Committee is a Federal Marketing Order that was established pursuant to Federal Marketing Agreement and Order No. 966 as amended regulating the handling of tomatoes *and has authority over the tomatoes grown in Florida's production area *comprising the counties of Pinellas, Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola, Brevard and all
counties situated south. USDA

The pdf I can't seem to find, said something to the effect that non conforming fruit could not be exported out of state unless they we're a Trade Marked verity.

My apology's.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Apparently some folks are missing a lot from between the lines.
Monsanto had the fed contract in partnership with UC Davis et al to develop the fungal pathogens targeting cannabis.
To develop such pathogens that are target species specific they must do geneohm mapping, but to be effective they need to map the genes of as many naturally occurring varieties as possible (paid for by your tax$) and so because UC Davis is so perfectly located in norcal they had reach and access to every variety that we do, and so for ten tears they went about mapping every variety they could.
Now what in the world would they do with those 'maps' after the specific official project for 'ant bio-terrorism' was done, throw them out?
Not likely, such investments always have multiple pay offs that increase the bottom line profits etc.
I pose that those maps are now being used in the GE process to develop patentable varieties.
It doesn't really mean much to me whether you understand or the common logic of it means anything to anyone else lol, I'm just putting it out there to consider.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

Grandpapy said:


> The Florida Tomato Committee is a Federal Marketing Order that was established pursuant to Federal Marketing Agreement and Order No. 966 as amended regulating the handling of tomatoes *and has authority over the tomatoes grown in Florida's production area *comprising the counties of Pinellas, Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola, Brevard and all
> counties situated south. USDA
> 
> The pdf I can't seem to find, said something to the effect that non conforming fruit could not be exported out of state unless they we're a Trade Marked verity.
> ...


the bolded part doesn't mention breed 

http://www.floridatomatoes.org/Regulations/Domestic-Markets.aspx

theres this in reg's

"


> (d) *EXEMPTIONS*





> (1) *For Types.* The following types of tomatoes are exempt from these regulations: Elongated types commonly referred to as pear-shaped or paste tomatoes and including but not limited to San Marzano, Red Top and Roma varieties; cerasiform type tomatoes commonly referred to as cherry tomatoes; hydroponic tomatoes; and greenhouse tomatoes. Specialty packed red ripe tomatoes, yellow-meated tomatoes, and single and two-layer place-packed tomatoes are exempt from the container net weight requirements specified in Paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, and the requirement that each container or lid shall be marked to indicate the designated net weight as specified in Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, but must meet all other requirements."


or


> (5) *For UglyRipe&#8482; and Vintage Ripes&#8482; tomatoes.* UglyRipe&#8482; and Vintage Ripes&#8482; tomatoes must meet all the requirements of this section: Provided, that UglyRipe&#8482; and Vintage Ripes&#8482; tomatoes shall be graded and at least meet the requirements specified for U.S. No. 2 under the U.S. Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes, except they are exempt from the requirements that they be reasonably well formed and not more than slightly rough,


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Apparently some folks are missing a lot from between the lines.
> Monsanto had the fed contract in partnership with UC Davis et al to develop the fungal pathogens targeting cannabis.
> To develop such pathogens that are target species specific they must do geneohm mapping, but to be effective they need to map the genes of as many naturally occurring varieties as possible (paid for by your tax$) and so because UC Davis is so perfectly located in norcal they had reach and access to every variety that we do, and so for ten tears they went about mapping every variety they could.
> Now what in the world would they do with those 'maps' after the specific official project for 'ant bio-terrorism' was done, throw them out?
> ...


where is any evidence that monsanto is involved in anyway shape or form? the article about fungal pathogens doent mention them at all

EDIT it doesnt mention uc davis either

are you just making this shit up?


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 29, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> the bolded part doesn't mention breed
> 
> http://www.floridatomatoes.org/Regulations/Domestic-Markets.aspx
> 
> ...


The exemption was for the major producer already in the game,http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/crops-markets/122056139.html 

and again, USDA


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> where is any evidence that monsanto is involved in anyway shape or form? the article about fungal pathogens doent mention them at all
> 
> EDIT it doesnt mention uc davis either
> 
> are you just making this shit up?


If you are so concerned then call UC Davis and ask them about the project and who was the corporate partner, but I dont think your really concerned, it seems to me your just stuck in the evolutionary mud of trying to keep others from being concerned.
I suppose even though gov paid for it which means someone did it somewhere, you believe it was done by no one nowhere.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

Grandpapy said:


> The exemption was for the major producer already in the game,http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/crops-markets/122056139.html
> 
> and again, USDA


well it seems they have allowed execptions for the 2 producers/ their products that asked for them

are there any growers with their own product that have applied for exemptions that hasnt received them?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> If you are so concerned then call UC Davis and ask them about the project and who was the corporate partner, but I dont think your really concerned, it seems to me your just stuck in the evolutionary mud of trying to keep others from being concerned.
> I suppose even though gov paid for it which means someone did it somewhere, you believe it was done by no one nowhere.


so what your saying is that you are full of shit and cannot back anything you say up with factual evidence?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> so what your saying is that you are full of shit and cannot back anything you say up with factual evidence?


No actually I'm presenting an exercise in critical thinking, and it appears that maybe you might need more exercise (as in get out more into nature and discover yourself)
Just to refresh and condense the discussion I'm putting forth for the consideration of all who read this or care about the issue presented by the poll...




DNAprotection said:


> It is becoming seemingly apparent that some of the folks here have a different concept of the words 'own' and 'right' from mine, and that's all good just as long as it survives the test of law.
> The law, in terms of 'rights', can be viewed as a scale where lets say my 'rights' are on one side of the scale and yours are on the other.
> Either side can exercise said rights just as long and up until such aerobics begin to disturb the other side of the scale in such a way as to interfere with the exercise happening elsewhere by others.
> In other words the exercising of your 'rights' cannot unduly interfere with someone else exercising their rights.
> ...





DNAprotection said:


> Well, not that you will (I know you all 'care' so much about the 'facts' of this discussion lol), you can start your investigation here:
> http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/hemp/iha/jiha6101.html
> 
> Then maybe go here:
> ...





DNAprotection said:


> Apparently some folks are missing a lot from between the lines.
> Monsanto had the fed contract in partnership with UC Davis et al to develop the fungal pathogens targeting cannabis.
> To develop such pathogens that are target species specific they must do geneohm mapping, but to be effective they need to map the genes of as many naturally occurring varieties as possible (paid for by your tax$) and so because UC Davis is so perfectly located in norcal they had reach and access to every variety that we do, and so for ten tears they went about mapping every variety they could.
> Now what in the world would they do with those 'maps' after the specific official project for 'ant bio-terrorism' was done, throw them out?
> ...





DNAprotection said:


> If you are so concerned then call UC Davis and ask them about the project and who was the corporate partner, but I dont think your really concerned, it seems to me your just stuck in the evolutionary mud of trying to keep others from being concerned.
> I suppose even though gov paid for it which means someone did it somewhere, you believe it was done by no one nowhere.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> No actually I'm presenting an exercise in critical thinking, and it appears that maybe you might need more exercise (as in get out more into nature and discover yourself)
> Just to refresh and condense the discussion I'm putting forth for the consideration of all who read this or care about the issue presented by the poll...


Seems to me you're presenting a lesson in stupid.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Seems to me you're presenting a lesson in stupid.


Or it could be viewed that I'm trying to present a lesson to the 'stupid' as you say(your word not mine lol)


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Or it could be viewed that I'm trying to present a lesson to the 'stupid' as you say(your word not mine lol)


You havnt presented shit bro, everytime you've posted something it's either been rebutted or trolled. 

You clearly have some personal agenda or something else is at play, because none of the "facts" you've presented have turned out to be anything other than paranoid hyperbole.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> No actually I'm presenting an exercise in critical thinking, and it appears that maybe you might need more exercise (as in get out more into nature and discover yourself)
> Just to refresh and condense the discussion I'm putting forth for the consideration of all who read this or care about the issue presented by the poll...


oh i see what your doing your making nothing but fallacious statements for us to pick apart?

good job


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Apparently some folks are missing a lot from between the lines.
> Monsanto had the fed contract in partnership with UC Davis et al to develop the fungal pathogens targeting cannabis.
> To develop such pathogens that are target species specific they must do geneohm mapping, but to be effective they need to map the genes of as many naturally occurring varieties as possible (paid for by your tax$) and so because UC Davis is so perfectly located in norcal they had reach and access to every variety that we do, and so for ten tears they went about mapping every variety they could.
> Now what in the world would they do with those 'maps' after the specific official project for 'ant bio-terrorism' was done, throw them out?
> ...


lies lies and more lies. 

UC davis making cannabis targeting fungal diseases... LIES
"genohm" maps of cannabis varieties being used to patent cannabis varietals ... MORE LIES
UC davis invests for "multiple payoffs for bottom line profits"... DAMNED LIES
*"It doesn't really mean much to me whether you understand* (*1) *or the common logic of it* (*2) *means anything to anyone else *(*3) *lol, I'm just putting it out there to consider. * (*4)

*1) youre not that brilliant. your dizzying intellect and cleverly crafted wordsalad combined with _OH SO IRONICALLY HIP_ Donald Rumsfeld quotes hasnt impressed anyone. 
*2) "common logic" is not the cliche, it's not even an idiom. logic does not come in a common variety, and what you are shoveling in this thread is not logic, it' is merely COMMON, in the sense that it is unexceptional, not that it is particularly ubiquitous
*3) it is abundantly clear to all that your creation of, and comments within this thread are what we commonly call "sketching". Tweakers on a bender often indulge in this frenzied effort to do nothing REALLY REALLY FAST and in huge volume. it usually taakes the form of nonsense scribblings on a pad, furious tinkering to create an elaborate object with no purpose function or value, or installing a sprinkler system in a random stranger's lawn in the middle of the night... 
*4) and best of all, none of it's true, its all just "out there" for anyone gullible enough to believe you. "I'm Just Saying It's Out There..." is the same shameful and weak deflection against charges of libel or slander used by idiotic hacks like Randi Rhodes (of Air America Radio... ummm... ???? you cant really call it "fame"... what would you call it when someone has a shitty reputation which while despicable is not sufficiently widespread to be called notoriety, but is held in contempt by the few persons who actually ever heard of them?) when she accused Dick Cheney Donald Rumsfeld and GW Bush of involvement of human trafficking, to supply their S&M snuff orgies in the Whitehouse with smooth young thai boys. She too wasnt saying it was true, she was "Just Saying It's Out There...

on the fine line between hypocrisy, deceit and invocation of "Royal Privilege" on one side, and the utter madness of the paranoid schizophrenic on the other, you manage to drunkenly stagger across both extremes with stunning consistency. 

you have displayed a paranoid's unreasoning fear of everything, the lunatic's rage over again, everything, and the egotist's foolish belief that he can change ANYTHING by shouting at clouds, and combined it with the bombastic and self aggrandizing implications that all who dont agree are either too stupid to see your genius, or too corrupted by greed for Monsanto's money weed and hot bitches to stand up for what you foolishly seem to believe is "right". 

That's right. You heard me.

THEY have actually promised everyone who votes against your DEVASTATINGLY POWERFUL IDEAS $50, a pound of dank ass weed, a hot chick and a puppy. this is not a "pick one" offering either, every No vote gets it all. 
THEY are just that scared of your genius. 
THEY dont want anyone to know about your Top Flight legal mind, and your insightful issue advocacy. 
THEY are intimidated by your brilliance. 
THEY are really close to sending a second black helicopter to circle your house at night. 
THEY have already developed a cover story for your "Mysterious" disappearance scheduled for a week next thursday. 
THEY considered simply discrediting you like they did Nicola Tesla, but you're too cagey and cunning. 
THEY have resigned themselves to either murder or incarceration in Le Chateau Dyf in an iron mask with deaf-mute jailors
THEY feel you're too much of a threat.


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 29, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> well it seems they have allowed execptions for the 2 producers/ their products that asked for them
> 
> are there any growers with their own product that have applied for exemptions that hasnt received them?


I don't know.

But in order for my grandfather to sell his tomatoes to the bulk processing plant, he must first get his seed patented, or buy seed until he can afford to have his patented and approved. Not a fast process and most farmers live year to year so it's a losing battle. Thanks to http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/FVIdentityPreservationProgram not a bad thing, just the way it's handled, it forces the small farmer into a unnecessary hardship. Still a free market though.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Grandpapy said:


> I don't know.
> 
> But in order for my grandfather to sell his tomatoes to the bulk processing plant, he must first get his seed patented, or buy seed until he can afford to have his patented and approved. Not a fast process and most farmers live year to year so it's a losing battle. Thanks to http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/FVIdentityPreservationProgram not a bad thing, just the way it's handled, it forces the small farmer into a unnecessary hardship. Still a free market though.


It was my understanding from reading above that the laws apply to inter-state commerce and not to the domestic Floridian market. 

How many small farmers prepare enough for domestic markets and export?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> You havnt presented shit bro, everytime you've posted something it's either been rebutted or trolled.
> 
> You clearly have some personal agenda or something else is at play, because none of the "facts" you've presented have turned out to be anything other than paranoid hyperbole.


As to your first point, such data reflects more on the population or heard that you run with rather than my posts.
To the second point, such statements reflect more on your critical thinking abilities rather than my 'agenda' as you put it(not me).


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> As to your first point, such data reflects more on the population or heard that you run with rather than my posts.
> To the second point, such statements reflect more on your critical thinking abilities rather than my 'agenda' as you put it(not me).


your "facts" and "proofs" have turned out to be nonsense

you keep making unsubstantiated statements and you have the bare faced cheek to claim others are lacking in "critical thinking abilities"

your head is so far up your own arse that you have no idea how hilarious your self-righteous bullshit sounds to the rest of us


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 29, 2012)

Grandpapy said:


> I don't know.
> 
> But in order for my grandfather to sell his tomatoes to the bulk processing plant, he must first get his seed patented, or buy seed until he can afford to have his patented and approved. Not a fast process and most farmers live year to year so it's a losing battle. Thanks to http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/FVIdentityPreservationProgram not a bad thing, just the way it's handled, it forces the small farmer into a unnecessary hardship. Still a free market though.


is your grandpappy growing a non-standardized varietal? 

bulk processing plants preferr a single vareity to ensure batch to batch consistency (romas for sauce and paste, pear/plum for whole canning, etc...) if he has a variety of particular note farmer's markets and boutique distributors are always an option. 

only the GMO's can have a patent, and most varietals of tomato that are "patented" suck donkey balls. the standardized varietals are often demanded by processors for the consistency issue and for the advantages of "branding" in sales to "consumers" who think more words on the label makes a tinned tomatoe better. 

"Organic Vine Ripened Sweet Roma Italiano" sells more tins than "stewed tomatoes" even if both tins share the exact same contents. most AG regulations are designed to prevent misleading labeling and marketing, not growing obscure varieties. 

this particular regulation is designed to reduce the creases folds and funk concealing ridges in fresh produce (for hygiene reasons, not marketing or sinister desires to suppress non-conforming crops) since it's much harfder to wash an irregular fruit particularly one which is generally consumed raw and unpeeled. it does make sense from a certain perspective, and theres not issue of patent involved in the cited article. 

theres a couple of distributors in the sacramento area who deal extensively in "heirloom tomatoes" for fancy restaurants and boutiques where such things are prized by the swells, but the farmer's market is where i sell most of my "non-conforming" varieties. the markup is almost criminal, and well worth the afternoon surrounded by hippies (some of them dont even smell, sometimes)

i dont get your issue bro, if you have enough land to sell to processors, grow what they buy, if you want a higher profit per tomatoe, grow the funky ones and sell em at local markets and to the swanky eat-em-up joints, if youre looking for a stable contract, or certain income, quit farming and sell medical insurance for Obamacare. 

fuck that shit, keep farming but call it "hobby gardening" on your taxes since you can DEDUCT the costs of hobbies, and claim they produce no taxable income...


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 29, 2012)

Yes, that is true, he is still allowed to sell them at his fruit stand, unless it's to tourist on their way out of state then it's illegal.

Now days not many, I'll see if I can find out.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> your "facts" and "proofs" have turned out to be nonsense
> 
> you keep making unsubstantiated statements and you have the bare faced cheek to claim others are lacking in "critical thinking abilities"
> 
> your head is so far up your own arse that you have no idea how hilarious your self-righteous bullshit sounds to the rest of us


"The rest of us"...really?
Firstly that seems a bit "self righteous" a statement.
Who appointed you to perceive and interpret the world for the rest of us?
In your world it seems folks aren't allowed to think?
Yet it seems the poll takers on this thread for the most part not only think, but they think the opposite of you?
Maybe it is you who has the orifice head affliction?


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Grandpapy said:


> Yes, that is true, he is still allowed to sell them at his fruit stand, unless it's to tourist on their way out of state then it's illegal.
> 
> Now days not many, I'll see if I can find out.


The tourist is buying them for export, the seller is just selling them on the open domestic market.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> "The rest of us"...really?
> Firstly that seems a bit "self righteous" a statement.
> Who appointed you to perceive and interpret the world for the rest of us?
> In your world it seems folks aren't allowed to think?
> ...


People like you don't think and shouldn't be allowed speak publicly. 

Racists are entitled to their opinion too, but if they stood up in the ghetto and started insulting blacks and browns, would that be accepted? And does their entitlement to their opinion automatically make what they believe to be correct?

Keep posting, this is golden.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> "The rest of us"...really?
> Firstly that seems a bit "self righteous" a statement.
> Who appointed you to perceive and interpret the world for the rest of us?
> In your world it seems folks aren't allowed to think?


in my world i demand that people think, that they take great care when consuming information, that they have intellectual standards when presenting that information to others***

if they like yourself are incapable of that then by the powers given to me by the fact that its my world allows me to shamelessly ridicule the dribbling idiots like yourself 

***that means dont lie thru your teeth about the links you post here


> Yet it seems the poll takers on this thread for the most part not only think, but they think the opposite of you?
> Maybe it is you who has the orifice head affliction?


check my post's i've never said americans arent stupid


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 29, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> is your grandpappy growing a non-standardized varietal?
> 
> bulk processing plants preferr a single vareity to ensure batch to batch consistency (romas for sauce and paste, pear/plum for whole canning, etc...) if he has a variety of particular note farmer's markets and boutique distributors are always an option.
> 
> ...


My grandfather died years ago......I was trying to set a stage. lol

I use to be a seamer mechanic for Nestles (Contadina) Truckloads of tomatoes would come in and bottleneck at the color-sorter, because of odd sizes, small animals snakes and such.

I look forward to getting some "one hit wonder" that can handle wild PH swings, high temps and will never mold, but I really don't want Washington to tell me when, where, how to grow, smoke, or sell it.

I'm really just trying to point out that the profits of the large are more important then your rights and they have no problem stomping on you and me.

It starts small, at the color-sorter......


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> ...check my post's i've never said americans arent stupid


Where that comes apart for ya is that the status-quot in America (not represented by this threads poll) currently agree with your position as reflected in the current law or lack there of...so it seems to me you are calling them and your own position 'stupid'.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> in my world i demand that people think, that they take great care when consuming information, that they have intellectual standards when presenting that information to others***
> 
> if they like yourself are incapable of that then by the powers given to me by the fact that its my world allows me to shamelessly ridicule the dribbling idiots like yourself
> 
> ...





DNAprotection said:


> Where that comes apart for ya is that the status-quot in America (not represented by this threads poll) currently agree with your position as reflected in the current law or lack there of...so it seems to me you are calling them and your own position 'stupid'.


Of course I should have added the word 'majority' at the end of this bit (not represented by this threads poll).
Also, you haven't shown any 'proof' or conclusive 'evidence' whatsoever that disproves anything I'm presenting.
The only thing you and your shipmates (or cabin boys lol) offer are insults, innuendos, assumptions and so on in response to everything I post, and I don't have a problem with that so don't get me wrong, you go girl/boy!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> The tourist is buying them for export, the seller is just selling them on the open domestic market.


perhaps the "tourist" is really the mule for a tomatoe kingpin, the bottom tier of a complex organizational pyramid which rises to dizzying heights with a singel criminal enterprise at the heart of the endeavour... SMUGGLING TOMATOES INTO MISSISSIPPI!

for decades the almost pathological need for tomatoes in the cajun diet has required massive influxes of black and grey market fruits to feed their growing demand. this results in tremendous profits for tomatoe kingpins and their subordinates. the Early Girl Cartel coveres western and gulf coast regions with their violent miasma, while the Betterboy Familia controls the inland areas and the north. these two cartels clash frequently resulting in needless injury and death to all caught in their crossfire. often the victims of their conflict are innocent children. 

Ohh the Horror!


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 29, 2012)

Monsanto is trying to patent the genes found in all good grades of pig in Europe. It's trying to claim these natural gene sequences which happened over hundreds of years of selective breeding are the work of their mad scientists. Their research is a trade secret, so if you test your pigs to prove your pig already had these natural genes, you're violating trademark and patent law. You've just done an illegal act, industrial espionage.

No more bacon for you Harrekin. Guess you'll have to go vegan if Monsanto patents too many animals so only the rich can afford large quantities of meat, like how Debeers limits a common mineral, diamonds. Oh wait, you'll have to be rich to afford Monsanto's plants too. See, they don't care if the people starve, just as long as they can make their sex tourism trips to Thailand. I hope you look like a cute Thai boy, Harrekin. You'll need to give up your meat to get meat. 

Think of the animals!


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 29, 2012)

Mr. Litman Owner of the largest tomato producing co. in the country says taste is the biggest problem in growing Fl. tomatoes and Mexico has a good product.

Now the US Government says we have to pay more so he wont go out of business. I say, you didn't protect the farmer he stepped on, so why should you protect him now that he's being stepped on?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/business/global/mexican-tomato-growers-make-offer-to-revise-a-trade-deal.html?_r=0

It's just a tax on the US consumer.

Then consider this, Swap the word Tomato with Cannabis.

Colorado Cannabis Growers Association is not yet established, (at least not coming up on Google) 

This could be the time when we don't have to settle for bland and tasteless meds. And just maybe, we wont have to pay more for an inferior product.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Monsanto is trying to patent the genes found in all good grades of pig in Europe. It's trying to claim these natural gene sequences which happened over hundreds of years of selective breeding are the work of their mad scientists. Their research is a trade secret, so if you test your pigs to prove your pig already had these natural genes, you're violating trademark and patent law. You've just done an illegal act, industrial espionage.
> 
> No more bacon for you Harrekin. Guess you'll have to go vegan if Monsanto patents too many animals so only the rich can afford large quantities of meat, like how Debeers limits a common mineral, diamonds. Oh wait, you'll have to be rich to afford Monsanto's plants too. See, they don't care if the people starve, just as long as they can make their sex tourism trips to Thailand. I hope you look like a cute Thai boy, Harrekin. You'll need to give up your meat to get meat.
> 
> Think of the animals!


But don't forget Monsanto care's...


Human Rights
Corporate Giving
 &#8220;As an agricultural and technology company committed to human rights, we have a unique opportunity to protect and advance human rights. We have a responsibility to consider not only how our business can benefit consumers, farmers, and food processors, but how it can protect the human rights of both Monsanto&#8217;s employees and our business partners&#8217; employees.&#8221;
&#8212; Hugh Grant, Monsanto, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer 
Our human rights policy is an important manifestation of the company&#8217;s values as described in the Monsanto Pledge.
Learn more about our dedication to human rights


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 29, 2012)

Grandpapy said:


> Mr. Litman Owner of the largest tomato producing co. in the country says taste is the biggest problem in growing Fl. tomatoes and Mexico has a good product.
> 
> Now the US Government says we have to pay more so he wont go out of business. I say, you didn't protect the farmer he stepped on, so why should you protect him now that he's being stepped on?
> 
> ...


Do these bland and tasteless meds get me high?


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Do these bland and tasteless meds get me high?


I feel it will be equal to the satisfaction one might get from a store bought tomato.
I could be wrong, I'm sure the USDA will tell us the best way to store and use before the expiration date.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Monsanto is trying to patent the genes found in all good grades of pig in Europe. It's trying to claim these natural gene sequences which happened over hundreds of years of selective breeding are the work of their mad scientists. Their research is a trade secret, so if you test your pigs to prove your pig already had these natural genes, you're violating trademark and patent law. You've just done an illegal act, industrial espionage.
> 
> No more bacon for you Harrekin. Guess you'll have to go vegan if Monsanto patents too many animals so only the rich can afford large quantities of meat, like how Debeers limits a common mineral, diamonds. Oh wait, you'll have to be rich to afford Monsanto's plants too. See, they don't care if the people starve, just as long as they can make their sex tourism trips to Thailand. I hope you look like a cute Thai boy, Harrekin. You'll need to give up your meat to get meat.
> 
> Think of the animals!


Lol, patent law doesn't _really_ apply to Irish people, you honestly think we give a fuck about your fancy laws?

And the EU told Monsanto to go suck themselves, so try they may have, but failed they also did.


----------



## kelly4 (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Lol, patent law doesn't _really_ apply to Irish people, you honestly think we give a fuck about your fancy laws?


Is that why there are so many generic forms of Lucky Charms?


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

kelly4 said:


> Is that why there are so many generic forms of Lucky Charms?


Ironically we don't get Lucky Charms here, we have the International version, it's called Fat Dumb Yanks.


----------



## kelly4 (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Ironically we don't get Lucky Charms here, we have the International version, it's called Fat Dumb Yanks.


I watched a show a couple weeks ago that had me thinking of you. It might even be your clan. It was called 'Knuckle'. You should check it out, you might be in it.

Every time you post, I now think of that documentary. LOL!


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

kelly4 said:


> I watched a show a couple weeks ago that had me thinking of you. It might even be your clan. It was called 'Knuckle'. You should check it out, you might be in it.
> 
> Every time you post, I now think of that documentary. LOL!


Everytime the rest of the world hears/reads/thinks the word "Americans" this is what we visualise. 

[video=youtube_share;mgbSpmZyN7I]http://youtu.be/mgbSpmZyN7I[/video]

Then I read things from the likes of Cn and get reminded "it's not all of them...only most".


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Lol, patent law doesn't _really_ apply to Irish people, you honestly think we give a fuck about your fancy laws?
> 
> And the EU told Monsanto to go suck themselves, so try they may have, but failed they also did.


Ireland is part of Berne and UCC. So Monsanto can suck you. I really hope you look like a "cute" Thai boy, as much as an ugly ginger can.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Ireland is part of Berne and UCC. So Monsanto can suck you. I really hope you look like a "cute" Thai boy, as much as an ugly ginger can.


You keep getting me and ChesusRice's "wife" confused man, do try to focus.

And you think Thai boys are cute, you fucking perv.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Ireland is part of Berne and UCC. So Monsanto can suck you. I really hope you look like a "cute" Thai boy, as much as an ugly ginger can.


Btw, everytime you post the word "ginger" I'm gonna shoot a grey squirrel. 

So that's two deaths you'll have caused within the next 12 hours. 

Some vegan...


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Lol, patent law doesn't _really_ apply to Irish people, you honestly think we give a fuck about your fancy laws?
> 
> And the EU told Monsanto to go suck themselves, so try they may have, but failed they also did.


lol is your nick name ferret face? *not accusing, just wondering
Hawkeye Pierce: "_We're helping you look foolish, Frank_." _Frank Burns_: "_I don't need your help_!"


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> lol is your nick name ferret face? *not accusing, just wondering
> *Hawkeye Pierce: "We're helping you look foolish, Frank." Frank Burns: "I don't need your help!"*


Are you actually so stupid that you can't see you're getting trolled to bits by everyone who weighs in on this except Canna who's a vegan-tard?

Wow, a loan vegan and a retard standing against Genetic Engineering. 

What a smelly, hippy-like spectacle that'd be to behold.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Are you actually so stupid that you can't see you're getting trolled to bits by everyone who weighs in on this except Canna who's a vegan-tard?
> 
> Wow, a loan vegan and a retard standing against Genetic Engineering.
> 
> What a smelly, hippy-like spectacle that'd be to behold.


omg Frank, lol all anyone need do is check the poll results to see that your opinion has been genetically engineered.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> omg Frank, lol all anyone need do is check the poll results to see that your opinion has been genetically engineered.


If you're really going to count a poll on RIU as anything more than simply bandwidth wasted, then you're a super retard, far far worse than the regular "garden variety" retard.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> You keep getting me and ChesusRice's "wife" confused man, do try to focus.
> 
> And you think Thai boys are cute, you fucking perv.


I think most animals are cute, too. Doesn't mean I want to fuck them. Cute doesn't mean fuckability. Who's the fucking perv now?

Btw it's lone, not loan. Your Gaelic to Engrish translator is malfunctioning.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> I think most animals are cute, too. Doesn't mean I want to fuck them. Cute doesn't mean fuckability. Who's the fucking perv now?
> 
> Btw it's lone, not loan. Your Gaelic to Engrish translator is malfunctioning.


Oh the perv is still you, Im not really sure why you keep talking about Thai boys. 

And it's the retarded American-English autocorrect thing on this IPhone (designed in the US) that keeps fucking up my words. 

I bet you feel rather stupid now. 

PS: We're just leaving it at 2 squirrels for now, yeah?


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Oh the perv is still you, Im not really sure why you keep talking about Thai boys.
> 
> And it's the retarded American-English autocorrect thing on this IPhone (designed in the US) that keeps fucking up my words.
> 
> ...


Ask the politicians and those who lobby them why they pick Thai boys.

You chose the Iphone, not me. I thought you were all about personal responsibility? If you hold a gun with a hair trigger, is it you or the gun's fault when it goes off and kills? 

You talk like a filthy liberal, yet you claim libertarianism. You're such a liar!


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Ask the politicians and those who lobby them why they pick Thai boys.
> 
> You chose the Iphone, not me. I thought you were all about personal responsibility? If you hold a gun with a hair trigger, is it you or the gun's fault when it goes off and kills?
> 
> You talk like a filthy liberal, yet you claim libertarianism. You're such a liar!


A liberal? Seriously?

Must be having one of your little "polar shifts" if you think that, I guess it's frustrating being part-mental.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> A liberal? Seriously?
> 
> Must be having one of your little "polar shifts" if you think that, I guess it's frustrating being part-mental.


It starts out innocent enough. First you blame the phone, then the maker should be held responsible, before you know it, you're a cheese eater bitching when his benefits get decreased.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> It starts out innocent enough. First you blame the phone, then the maker should be held responsible, before you know it, you're a cheese eater bitching when his benefits get decreased.


Iv never claimed a fucking cent in my life even tho Iv been working since I was 14 and thus would be one of the few people truely entitled to it. 

I have what liberal cheese eaters don't; self respect, good work ethic and ambition.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> If you're really going to count a poll on RIU as anything more than simply bandwidth wasted, then you're a super retard, far far worse than the regular "garden variety" retard.


It seems to me Frank that there is a pattern developing here in that the folks on this thread that voted yes on wanting Monsanto cannabis also appear to be the folks who keep stating derogatory 5th grader type of put downs about this site and the people on it.
What does it say about you Frank that you spend so much time and energy in a place that you proclaim as fact is "simply bandwidth wasted", I only just arrived here,(and have found some thoughtful human beings) but you seem to live here and see nothing but waste?
Your other pal ginja has basically stated that everyone here that has an opposing viewpoint is 'stupid' and your local doc, well lets just say he's not so keen when it comes to observing the thoughtful posters you have here while he remains in denial and incoherence and is afflicted with all the accompanying symptoms.
So if yall are seemingly such 'haters' of this place and the folks here, why then do you stay?


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Are you actually so stupid that you can't see you're getting trolled to bits by everyone who weighs in on this except Canna who's a vegan-tard?
> 
> Wow, a loan vegan and a retard standing against Genetic Engineering.
> 
> What a smelly, hippy-like spectacle that'd be to behold.


Don't forget the other Canna ... dripping blood from muzzle ... not trolling. cn


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Iv never claimed a fucking cent in my life even tho Iv been working since I was 14 and thus would be one of the few people truely entitled to it.
> 
> I have what liberal cheese eaters don't; self respect, good work ethic and ambition.


"Fuck you, I'm not a cheese eater! Now I'm going to cry."


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> It seems to me Frank that there is a pattern developing here in that the folks on this thread that voted yes on wanting Monsanto cannabis also appear to be the folks who keep stating derogatory 5th grader type of put downs about this site and the people on it.
> What does it say about you Frank that you spend so much time and energy in a place that you proclaim as fact is "simply bandwidth wasted", I only just arrived here,(and have found some thoughtful human beings) but you seem to live here and see nothing but waste?
> Your other pal ginja has basically stated that everyone here that has an opposing viewpoint is 'stupid' and your local doc, well lets just say he's not so keen when it comes to observing the thoughtful posters you have here while he remains in denial and incoherence and is afflicted with all the accompanying symptoms.
> So if yall are seemingly such 'haters' of this place and the folks here, why then do you stay?


You still don't understand the crux of this do you?

Id be all for banning the patenting of strands of genetic material, I'd also be in favour of making sure wind swept pollen which contaminates other fields isn't a breach of patent. 

Your BILL doesn't once address this, it merely outright bans the existence of *ANY* GMO in California. 

Thats a completely reteroactive step and you've totally misrepresented the intentions and content of the bill by even using the name Monsanto. 

So you're either a liar or don't actually understand the bill you're lobbying for...I'll leave that for you to decide.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Don't forget the other Canna ... dripping blood from muzzle ... not trolling. cn


Here is an example of one of the folks I was referring to Frank, and cn doesn't even agree with me, but i can appreciate cn's posts and respect them.
So I must reiterate:
*It seems to me Frank that there is a pattern developing here in that most of the folks on this thread that voted yes on wanting Monsanto cannabis also appear to be the folks who keep stating derogatory 5th grader type of put downs about this site and the people on it.
What does it say about you Frank that you spend so much time and energy in a place that you proclaim as fact is "simply bandwidth wasted", I only just arrived here,(and have found some thoughtful human beings) but you seem to live here and see nothing but waste?
Your other pal ginja has basically stated that everyone here that has an opposing viewpoint is 'stupid' and your local doc, well lets just say he's not so keen when it comes to observing the thoughtful posters you have here while he remains in denial and incoherence and is afflicted with all the accompanying symptoms.
So if yall are seemingly such 'haters' of this place and the folks here, why then do you stay? *


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> You still don't understand the crux of this do you?
> 
> Id be all for banning the patenting of strands of genetic material, I'd also be in favour of making sure wind swept pollen which contaminates other fields isn't a breach of patent.
> 
> ...


Address this and stop the bullshit talking, you want to discuss your bill, well I'll stop the trolling right now, but you have to actually address the points made to you and stop being such an arrogant twat waffle. 

This is politics, you expected to put your idea out there then stick your fingers in your ears when it's time to scrutinise it?

That's called being a petulant child, throwing ones toys out of the crib.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Address this and stop the bullshit talking, you want to discuss your bill, well I'll stop the trolling right now, but you have to actually address the points made to you and stop being such an arrogant twat waffle.
> 
> This is politics, you expected to put your idea out there then stick your fingers in your ears when it's time to scrutinise it?
> 
> That's called being a petulant child, throwing ones toys out of the crib.


Cannabis is illegal. What keeps corrupt politicians,like the Amphibian, from paying off a research firm to add oleander genes, etc, to kill us? By the time we find out, it'll be too late. He already wants the death penalty for weed. 

That's why marijuana should have a GMO ban. Marijuana is the safest plant. No ones has ever died from an OD. Why should we risk whatever it is and do GMO to it?

We don't fully understand what causes cannabis to kill cancer cells when smoked. Yet tobacco et al don't.

I accidently smoke a heavy indica and get freaked out. You can't say just don't smoke GMO. How do I know? Currently you have no clue your soy or corn is non-GMO, unless marked such on the package. But how do you really know? 

I will only accept GMO if there's a mandated label and if the company makes "mistake" and "forgets" to label it, they need to execute publicly the ones in charge.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Address this and stop the bullshit talking, you want to discuss your bill, well I'll stop the trolling right now, but you have to actually address the points made to you and stop being such an arrogant twat waffle.
> 
> This is politics, you expected to put your idea out there then stick your fingers in your ears when it's time to scrutinise it?
> 
> That's called being a petulant child, throwing ones toys out of the crib.


Frank I'm thrilled to address the bill, but when you "stick your fingers in your ears" and then strap blinders on (and who knows what else) it makes it not much worth more than reindeer games as we discussed before.
Banning the patenting of GMO's or GE DNA is only achievable at the federal level, there is no ballot initiative process at the federal level and if you think the congress would ban such then we need to go way back and re-discuss how and who congress and the executive branches work for = not 'the people'.
California is one of the few states with a ballot initiative process that once an initiative passes into law by a vote of the people it cannot be amended in any way by the legislative or executive branches.
The courts have settled the patent issue until congress acts on that aspect, do you understand that part at least?


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Cannabis is illegal. What keeps corrupt politicians,like the Amphibian, from paying off a research firm to add oleander genes, etc, to kill us? By the time we find out, it'll be too late. He already wants the death penalty for weed.
> 
> That's why marijuana should have a GMO ban. Marijuana is the safest plant. No ones has ever died from an OD. Why should we risk whatever it is and do GMO to it?
> 
> ...


Don't execute'm ... "genetically enguneer" them.  cn


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Frank I'm thrilled to address the bill, but when you "stick your fingers in your ears" and then strap blinders on (and who knows what else) it makes it not much worth more than reindeer games as we discussed before.
> Banning the patenting of GMO's or GE DNA is only achievable at the federal level, there is no ballot initiative process at the federal level and if you think the congress would ban such then we need to go way back and re-discuss how and who congress and the executive branches work for = not 'the people'.
> California is one of the few states with a ballot initiative process that once an initiative passes into law by a vote of the people it cannot be amended in any way by the legislative or executive branches.
> The courts have settled the patent issue until congress acts on that aspect, do you understand that part at least?


Your bill doesn't address the title of the thread in the slightest nor does it involve Monsanto at all. 

It merely bans GMO's for no reason other than "God made them, we're not God". 

Discussing ballot initiatives and such is deflection, the bill doesn't even address it's own title and you can't even rebut that point.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Cannabis is illegal. What keeps corrupt politicians,like the Amphibian, from paying off a research firm to add oleander genes, etc, to kill us? By the time we find out, it'll be too late. He already wants the death penalty for weed.
> 
> That's why marijuana should have a GMO ban. Marijuana is the safest plant. No ones has ever died from an OD. Why should we risk whatever it is and do GMO to it?
> 
> ...


I agree, there will have to be regulations to protect the consumer from "harmful" cannabis but a blanket ban on GMO for an entire state is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

But as with anything, the only way to ever be sure (be it cannabis, tomatoes, etc) is to make/produce/grow it yourself, this applies nowadays even absent legalised cannabis, does it not?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Your bill doesn't address the title of the thread in the slightest nor does it involve Monsanto at all.
> 
> It merely bans GMO's for no reason other than "God made them, we're not God".
> 
> Discussing ballot initiatives and such is deflection, the bill doesn't even address it's own title and you can't even rebut that point.


Frank your points are quite irrelevant in that there is no need to specifically mention cannabis as the ballot initiative proposal would ban such GMO's.
Furthermore Monsanto isn't the only corps developing GMO's Frank so again no need to single them out and so again your second point becomes entirely irrelevant.
As for your third point, again irrelevant because firstly the proposal doesn't even state as you state such at all, secondly unless you created all that exists you must have some theory about how it all came to be here whether that be your apparent choice of "god" or my best interpretation of such into words = the great equation, either way its simply a supporting finding to the proposed Act that you simply couldn't possibly have an argument with unless you have a definitive and or data based conclusion that answers the ultimate question without question lol, and I'm guessing you don't.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Frank your points are quite irrelevant in that there is no need to specifically mention cannabis as the ballot initiative proposal would ban such GMO's.
> Furthermore Monsanto isn't the only corps developing GMO's Frank so again no need to single them out and so again your second point becomes entirely irrelevant.
> As for your third point, again irrelevant because firstly the proposal doesn't even state as you state such at all, secondly unless you created all that exists you must have some theory about how it all came to be here whether that be your apparent choice of "god" or my best interpretation of such into words = the great equation, either way its simply a supporting finding to the proposed Act that you simply couldn't possibly have an argument with unless you have a definitive and or data based conclusion that answers the ultimate question without question lol, and I'm guessing you don't.


Again, loads of twat waffle. 

A blanket ban would include microorganisms too right?

You realise a GM version of HIV was used to treat a child's cancer recently? Why would you deny such potentially groundbreaking cures to people in Liberal-land?

GM Microbes are also used for a myriad of other practical reasons, I believe Exxon are modifying algae to produce fuel. 


Care to actually address any points or are you just going to keep talking shite and disregarding everything that's said to you?

Also, it was you who infact singled Monsanto out by putting them in the OP, genius.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> I agree, there will have to be regulations to protect the consumer from "harmful" cannabis but a blanket ban on GMO for an entire state is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
> 
> But as with anything, the only way to ever be sure (be it cannabis, tomatoes, etc) is to make/produce/grow it yourself, this applies nowadays even absent legalised cannabis, does it not?


As stated previously on this thread, GMO's aren't like some product that once released into the public if it flops only a limited number of folks get hurt like the investors or the number of children that swallow such and get hurt etc and can then just be discontinued or recalled, GMO's create possibly permanent changes to us and the environment we all depend on for life.
Genetic engineering is not just a deal where we just give it a taste and see how it goes down etc...its far more serious a roulette game than that and probably more akin to Russian roulette.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 29, 2012)

I have no problem with GMO, unless it enters our food supply.

They're working on algae who respirate hydrogen. An algae farm using such would only need an area the size of Texas to supply all the world's energy needs. I've seen proposals for growing algae on floating platforms in the middle of the ocean.

GMO corn which converts to higher amounts of ethanol or methylalcohol would be fine too.

My objections are to GMO animal feed (even though it'd be hilarious if you meat eaters ate cancer causing bacon from the feed) and human feed.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> I have no problem with GMO, unless it enters our food supply.
> 
> They're working on algae who respirate hydrogen. An algae farm using such would only need an area the size of Texas to supply all the world's energy needs. I've seen proposals for growing algae on floating platforms in the middle of the ocean.
> 
> ...


Yet you support a bill that would ban GMO's entirely, outright, forever in Cali?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Again, loads of twat waffle.
> 
> A blanket ban would include microorganisms too right?
> 
> ...


Frank, again I know you don't need help looking foolish, but you really should have read sec 3(c).
ps...lol


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> As stated previously on this thread, GMO's aren't like some product that once released into the public if it flops only a limited number of folks get hurt like the investors or the number of children that swallow such and get hurt etc and can then just be discontinued or recalled, GMO's create possibly permanent changes to us and the environment we all depend on for life.
> Genetic engineering is not just a deal where we just give it a taste and see how it goes down etc...its far more serious a roulette game than that and probably more akin to Russian roulette.


You are aware that GMOs are already "out there"?

If the genie is as hard to get back in the bottle as you claim, why are you attempting it by lobbying for this bill?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Yet you support a bill that would ban GMO's entirely, outright, forever in Cali?


Your the only one stating forever Frank, the proposal has no ability to do so.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> You are aware that GMOs are already "out there"?
> 
> If the genie is as hard to get back in the bottle as you claim, why are you attempting it by lobbying for this bill?


nomorebrokenDNA is reason enough for me at this time Frank.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Your the only one stating forever Frank, the proposal has no ability to do so.


Section 3c, whilst on face value makes medical technologies and research possible, the restrictions placed upon such make it impractical and unprofitable, thus ensuring it wouldn't happen. 

So after lobbying for the ban, you made the bill open ended but do you honestly see people voting to relegalise GMOs when your side is so thoroughly trying to demonise them?


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> nomorebrokenDNA is reason enough for me at this time Frank.


Lets cut the bullshit at this point, what vested interest in this have you got?

Noone would spend this much time and effort without having a finger in the mix.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Section 3c, whilst on face value makes medical technologies and research possible, the restrictions placed upon such make it impractical and unprofitable, thus ensuring it wouldn't happen.
> 
> So after lobbying for the ban, you made the bill open ended but do you honestly see people voting to relegalise GMOs when your side is so thoroughly trying to demonise them?


I've no doubt that one day we will evolve past all the Frank's and ginja's and keen dr's lol at which point we might be mature enough as a species to handle such technologies responsibly.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 29, 2012)

What happens when failed cancer treatment GMO HIV gets released into the wild?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Lets cut the bullshit at this point, what vested interest in this have you got?
> 
> Noone would spend this much time and effort without having a finger in the mix.


I have children and I also care about everyone elses...
Now its time to call the kids in for some tasty Monsanto soup...don't worry kids its not really like being a cannibal, its just virtually like that...


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> What happens when failed cancer treatment GMO HIV gets released into the wild?


Thats why sec 3(c) has tight control specs on medical tech...


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 29, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> .
> 
> So after lobbying for the ban, you made the bill open ended but do you honestly see people voting to relegalise GMOs when your side is so thoroughly trying to demonise them?


You probably know Bush made a full on ban of stem cell research. But did you know the FDA currently approves Hemacord&#8482; stem cells?


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 29, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> You probably know Bush made a full on ban of stem cell research. But did you know the FDA currently approves Hemacord stem cells?


Bush banned embryonic stem cell research, you should look into the differences between the two. 

DNAprotection; if you owned a twat-waffle stand, you'd always have loads in stock to sell, wouldn't you?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> DNAprotection; if you owned a twat-waffle stand, you'd always have loads in stock to sell, wouldn't you?


Hot tw's I'm in! There must be a fortune waiting in just selling to your heard lol...don't worry though I won't sell GMO tw's, already fed'em to rats and it was a no go...

'Published on Sep 19, 2012 by François Le Bayon '

"French researchers secretly studied, for two years, 200 rats fed with transgenic maize. Tumors, serious disorders... full-fledged slaughter. And a bomb for the GMO industry.
More information http://www.gmo-global-alert.net "


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

* Monsanto enters pharmaceutical business, acquires key 'gene silencing' technology for use in humans*
*   *
"The Monsanto company has forged a new partnership with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company whose primary focus seems to be on figuring out how to best crack the genetic code so as to manipulate the way genes inherently express themselves. And based on the agreement the two companies have made publicly with one another, it appears as though Monsanto is planning to utilize Alnylam&#8217;s proprietary gene-silencing technologies in its emerging agricultural pursuits, which will likely spawn a whole new category of problems for humanity and the planet at large.
In a recent press release, Monsanto disclosed that it has officially obtained &#8220;worldwide, exclusive rights&#8221; to use Alnylam&#8217;s platform technology and intellectual property (IP) in its own agricultural products, and particularly in its new &#8220;BioDirect&#8221; line of products designed to treat seeds and crops with what the company has dubbed &#8220;biopesticides&#8221;. Monsanto apparently sees something exceptionally valuable in Alnylam&#8217;s technologies that it does not currently possess, and is now seeking to leverage it for the purpose of expanding its own market share. But what is it?
* Monsanto wants to turn food crops into gene-altering &#8216;drugs&#8217;*

In a nutshell, Alnylam specializes in a technology known as RNA interference (RNAi) that involves deliberately silencing the expression of genes throughout the body for the purpose of preventing the production of proteins that some scientists believe are responsible for causing disease. By artificially blocking production of these proteins, RNAi technology is believed to have the potential to effectively block the development of disease, which is why many major drug companies have also signed on as strategic partners with Alnylam.
But Monsanto is an agricultural company, not a pharmaceutical company, which begs the obvious question as to why this multinational company has suddenly decided to shell out nearly $30 million with promises of perpetual royalty payments to gain access to this emerging technology. As it turns out, Monsanto has plans to roll out all sorts of new genetically-modified (GM) crops, crop pesticides and herbicides, and various other technologies with built-in RNAi modifications, which could turn future GM food crops into &#8220;drugs.&#8221;
Many modern varieties of wheat, for instance, are problematic for people with gluten sensitivity or Celiac disease because they produce unnaturally high levels of a wheat protein known as gluten. By integrating genetic changes using RNAi; however, companies like Monsanto could theoretically produce a GM wheat variety that does not contain any gluten at all, which they could then market as the solution to gluten insensitivity.

* Modifying food crops with RNAi is unsafe, unpredictable*

But such experimental gene-tampering is already taking place elsewhere, and it is proving to be a complete failure. In Australia, for instance, field trials of a novel variety of GM wheat with RNAi alterations have been disastrous, as the modified gene expressions in the wheat are also modifying human genes in the liver. Researchers are now warning that human children who eat this GM wheat could actually die before reaching the age of five.
A paper compiled by _Greenpeace_ about the same strains of RNAi-modified wheat explain that RNAi modifications in general &#8220;are prone to unexpected and unpredictable effects that have not been considered in the risk assessments done by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.&#8221; The paper goes on to explain that releasing RNAi-modified crops &#8220;poses severe, and potentially irreversible, risks to the environment and human and animal health.&#8221;
You can read the full _Greenpeace_ paper here: http://www.greenpeace.org
* Many foods contain natural gene regulators, and modifying them could change the entire human genome*

Researchers from _Nanjing University_ in China recently conducted an unrelated study that found gene-altering properties in regular, non-GMO rice. It turns out that certain plant-based foods, or perhaps all of them, contain unique properties that naturally turn genes on or off throughout the body when ingested, depending on these foods&#8217; various nutritive functions.
Synthetically altering these functions in the form of RNAi-modified GM crops, in other words, could result in disastrous consequences as the entire human genome is thrown off balance. As Ari Levaux from _The Atlantic_ puts it, the discovery of food&#8217;s natural gene-altering capacities illustrates how GM foods, and particularly those that have been RNAi-modified, &#8220;could influence human health in previously unanticipated ways.&#8221;
In other words, Monsanto&#8217;s latest endeavors involve tampering with plants at their most elemental level, which will in turn tamper with humans at their most elemental level as well. Sure, Monsanto has been inserting, removing, and splicing the genes of plants for decades; but RNAi modifications involve essentially reprogramming the way plants express their genes, which is uncharted territory as far as the consequences to the environment and humanity are concerned."
Source


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Hot tw's I'm in! There must be a fortune waiting in just selling to your heard lol...don't worry though I won't sell GMO tw's, already fed'em to rats and it was a no go...
> 
> 'Published on Sep 19, 2012 by François Le Bayon '
> 
> ...


i see your standards havent increased any
Anti-GMO researchers used science publication to manipulate the press. Researchers handed media a flawed paper, but forbid any consulting of experts

Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned 

The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that a recent paper raising concerns about the potential toxicity of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment.

EFSAs initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate. To enable the fullest understanding of the study the Authority has invited authors Séralini et al to share key additional information.

 GM Corn-Tumor Link Based on Poor Science
Criticisms trump the results of an alarming new study, which used questionable methods.

Under Controlled: Why the New GMO Panic Is More Sensational Than Sense


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> i see your standards havent increased any
> Anti-GMO researchers used science publication to manipulate the press. Researchers handed media a flawed paper, but forbid any consulting of experts
> 
> Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned
> ...


[h=1]Breaking: Monsanto Found Guilty of Chemical Poisoning in France[/h]_by_ Anthony Gucciardi
_February 13th, 2012_ | Updated 11/04/2012 at 10:37 pm
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/breaking-monsanto-found-guilty-of-chemical-poisoning-in-france/#ixzz2GXi5lDQf
​​







In a major victory for public health and what will hopefully lead to other nations taking action, a French court decided today that GMO crops monster *Monsanto is guilty of chemically poisoning a French farmer*. The grain grower, Paul Francois, says he developed neurological problems such as memory loss and headaches after being exposed to Monsantos Lasso weedkiller back in 2004. The monumental case paves the way for legal action against Monsantos Roundup and other harmful herbicides and pesticides made by other manufacturers.
In a ruling given by a court in Lyon (southeast France), Francois says that Monsanto failed to provide proper warnings on the product label. The court ordered an expert opinion to determine the sum of the damages, and to verify the link between Lasso and the reported illnesses. The case is extremely important, as previous legal action taken against Monsanto by farmers has failed due to the challenge of properly linking pesticide exposure with the experienced side effects.
When contacted by Reuters, *Monsantos lawyers declined to comment*.
[h=2]Monsantos Deadly Concoctions[/h] Farmer Paul Francois was not alone in his quest to hold Monsanto accountable for their actions. He and other farmers affected by Monsantos deadly concoctions actually founded an association last year to make the case that their *health problems were a result of Monsantos Lasso and other crop protection products*. Their claims were also met by many other farmers. Since 1996, the agricultural branch of the French social security system has gathered about 200 alerts per year regarding sickness related to pesticides. However _only 47 cases were even recognized in the past 10 years_.


Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/breaking-monsanto-found-guilty-of-chemical-poisoning-in-france/#ixzz2GXhpZWqT









*'Poland's Monsanto action lays 1000s of dead bees on Govt steps' Ag Ministry begins process to ban MON810
"On March 15, over 1,500 beekeepers and their allies marched thru the streets of Warsaw, depositing thousands of dead bees on the steps of the Ministry of Agriculture, in protest of genetically modified foods and their requisite pesticides which are killing bees, moths and other agriculturally-beneficial insects around the globe.
Later that day the Minister of Agriculture, Marek Sawicki, announced plans to ban MON810, which has become ineffective at deterring pests in the US..."
"...GM crops and the pesticides used with them have led to a host of problems..."*

[spoil]The Evidence:
*
The Evidence:

Bt Toxin Kills Human Kidney Cells
March 2012 The Bt protein, Cry1Ab, used to genetically modify corn, kills human cells at low doses as does Roundup herbicide. http://www.i-sis.org... ... _Cells.php

Pro-biotech bug docs tell EPA US should not plant GM crops
March 2012 Because the rootworm has developed resistance to genetically modified corn, the best way to stop or slow increasing numbers of resistant insects is to stop planting GM crops, say 22 entomologists. http://foodfreedomgr... ... -gmo-corn/

Glyphosate Kills Rat Testicular Cells
Dec. 2011 At low doses, glyphosate-based herbicides, used on genetically modified crops, reduces testosterone by 35% in mature rats; at high doses, it destroys testicles. See Emilie Clair, et al. (2011). A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels. Toxicol In Vitro. 2012 Mar;26(2):269-79. http://www.sciencedi... ... 3311003341

GM Feed Toxic, New Meta-Analysis Confirms
Sept. 2011 A meta-analysis on 19 studies confirms kidney and liver toxicity in rats and mice fed on GM soybean and maize, representing more than 80 percent of all commercially available GM food; it also exposes gross inadequacies of current risk assessment. http://www.i-sis.org... ... nfirms.php

Transgenic genes from GM corn found in pregnant women
May 2011 The Bt protein, CryAb1, used to genetically modify corn to kill pests who eat the plant, was found in the blood of pregnant women, their fetuses and in non-pregnant women in Canada. The pesticides glyphosate and gluphosinate were also found in the womens blood. See Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol. 2011 May;31(4):528-33. Epub 2011 Feb 18. http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21338670

Scientists link dangerous new pathogen with Monsantos Roundup
Feb. 2011 A new, self-replicating, micro-fungal virus-sized organism which may be causing spontaneous abortions in livestock, sudden death syndrome in Monsantos Roundup Ready soy, and wilt in Monsantos RR corn has been linked to the use of Roundup. http://foodfreedom.w... ... -pathogen/

Monsantos Roundup linked to human birth defects
http://globalresearc...xt=va&aid=21251
Sept. 2010 Engdahl cites Paganelli, A., et al. (2010). Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chem. Res. Toxicol. http://pubs.acs.org/....1021/tx1001749

Corn pops on the stalk: GM side effect?
Sept. 2010 A Kentucky corn farmer found his corn popped in the field, meaning the internal temperature was so great that it vaporized the water molecules. What is this stuff doing to us? http://foodfreedom.w... ... de-effect/

Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage
http://foodfreedom.w... ... an-damage/
Jan. 2010 Researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsantos GM corn, citing Joël Spiroux de Vendômois1, et al. (2009). A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5(7):706-726. http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

Bt Brinjal Unfit for Human Consumption
Feb. 2009 Monsantos GM eggplant produces a protein in the vegetable cells that induce antibiotic resistance, and in rats causes blood clots, diarrhea, and decreased liver weight. http://www.i-sis.org...injal_Unfit.php

GM Eggplant Contains Bt Toxin Linked to Hundreds of Allergy Cases and Thousands of Sheep Deaths
July 2006 The GM brinjal contains the same Cry1Ac toxin from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis as the widely cultivated GM cotton that has been implicated recently in major health controversies in India. Hundreds of farm workers and cotton handlers developed allergic reactions. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMeggplant.php

Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton
May 2006 At least 1 820 sheep were reported dead after grazing on post-harvest Bt cotton crops; the symptoms and post-mortem findings strongly suggest they died from severe toxicity. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MDSGBTC.php*[/spoil]

*Related:France Bans GM Corn Amid Mass US Protests against Monsanto http://t.co/TmLfg2zI*


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> lies lies and more lies.
> 
> UC davis making cannabis targeting fungal diseases... LIES
> "genohm" maps of cannabis varieties being used to patent cannabis varietals ... MORE LIES


One should read the fed contracts before misleading folks with such an uninformed view.



*Preparing for Disaster: Protecting the Most Vulnerable in Emergencies*

lawreview.law.*ucdavis*.edu/issues/42/5/articles/42-5_Hoffman.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by S Hoffman - Cited by 25 - Related articles
_University of California_, _Davis_. [Vol. 42:1491. TABLE OF *....* the Known: Communities and _Public Health_ Preparedness, 25 _HEALTH_ AFF. 946, 946 *...* See _Public Health_ Security and _Bioterrorism Preparedness_ and Response _Act_ of. 2002, 42 *...* American taxpayers who pay for _public safety_-net programs would thus absorb the *...* 
 

[PDF] *Public Response to Infectious Disease Research: The UC Davis ...*

dels-old.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/46_1/pdfs/v4601Fell.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by AH Fell - Cited by 6 - Related articles
the _safety_ of the facility and the perceived risk of release of biological agents by *....* in the _Public Health_ Se- curity and _Bioterrorism Preparedness Act_ of 2002 (&#8220;Bio- *...* cine, _UC Davis_ Fire Department, and Environmental _Health_ and _Safety_. 
 

*ILAR Journal Vol 46(1)*

dels-old.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/46_1/html/v4601fell.shtml
by AH Fell - Cited by 6 - Related articles
_Public_ Response to Infectious Disease Research: The _UC Davis_ Experience *...* These laboratories are built with multiple _safety_ features and have an excellent *...* to language in the _Public Health_ Security and _Bioterrorism Preparedness Act_ of *...* 
 

[PDF] *Responding to Bioterrorism: Assessing California's Preparedness*

www.library.ca.gov/crb/02/04/02-004.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by RA Zilinskas - Cited by 2 - Related articles
Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic _Preparedness_ Program. *.....* _PUBLIC HEALTH_ SECURITY AND _BIOTERRORISM_ RESPONSE _ACT_ OF 2001, H.R. 3448 . *....* governments within California involved in protecting _public safety_, and preparing *....* Department of Food and Agriculture or the _University of California_, _Davis_, and be *...* 
 

*Rep. Doris Matsui Introduces Legislation to Revitalize Declining ...*

matsui.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task...
Doris Matsui (CA-05) introduced the _Public Health Preparedness_ Workforce Development _Act_ to address the *...* &#8220;This vital cache of workers helps keep Sacramento &#8212;and communities across the nation&#8212;_safe_ and secure. *...* Marc Schenker, M.D., M.P.H., Professor and Director _Public Health_ School Planning, _U.C. Davis_ *...* 
*Results for similar searches*
 

*Counterterrorism-Related Legislation*

www.fda.gov &#8250; ... &#8250; Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats
Sep 11, 2001 &#8211; The Pandemic and All-Hazards _Preparedness Act_ (PAHPA) The purpose of PAHPA is to improve the nation's _public health_ and medical *...*


More results for *public* *health* *and* safety *and* *bioterrorism* *preparedness* *act* uc davis 
 

*Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response ...*

en.wikipedia.org/.../*Public*_*Health*_Security_and_*Bioterrorism*_*Prepa*...
_Public Health_ Security and _Bioterrorism Preparedness_ Response _Act_ *...* and Toxins that could pose a threat to human, animal, and plant _safety_ and _health_.


More results for *public* *health* *and* safety *and* *bioterrorism* *preparedness* *act* uc davis 
 

*Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and ...*

olpa.od.nih.gov/legislation/107/*public*laws/*publichealth*security.asp
_Public Health_ Security and _Bioterrorism Preparedness_ and Response _Act_ of 2002 *...* and recommendations regarding provision of appropriate _safety_ and _health_ *...*


More results for *public* *health* *safety* *and* *bioterrorism* *preparedness* *and* *response* *act* *of* *2002*

*ILAR Journal Vol 46(1)*

dels-old.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/46_1/html/v4601fell.shtml
by AH Fell - Cited by 6 - Related articles
_Public_ Response to Infectious Disease Research: The _UC Davis_ Experience *...* These laboratories are built with multiple _safety_ features and have an excellent *...* to language in the _Public Health_ Security and _Bioterrorism Preparedness Act_ of *...*

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14313-did-monsanto-write-uc-davis-profs-op-eds


*'Home of biotech'*

Crops and genes have long been a UC Davis passion. Gurdev Khush, known worldwide for his work to improve rice yields in Third World countries, is a 1960 graduate. Dennis Gonsalves, developer of the virus-resistant papaya - a biotech crop that rescued one of Hawaii's top farm exports - is another alum. So, too, is Gordon Conway, president of the Rockefeller Foundation and author of &#8220;The Doubly Green Revolution - Food for All in the 21st Century.&#8221;
Since 1999, when gene studies officially got top priority at the UC Davis agricultural college, 10 genetics experts have been hired to work on everything from mosquitoes to weeds. More such &#8220;gene jockeys&#8221; are on the way to fill the monolithic Genome Center due to open later this year on a campus already well known as a life-science leader.
&#8220;We call it the home of biotech,&#8221; said a beaming Judith Kjelstrom, who runs the UC Davis biotech studies program. The goals of Kjelstrom's program include promoting biotechnology, creating partnerships with industry and educating the public.
Although universities crave industry connections, those liaisons may undermine something even harder to come by: the public's trust.
It's an issue that's starting to get more attention. At Portland State University, environmental economist David Ervin is part of a nationwide project to analyze industry sponsorships. One of his key questions is whether such ties hinder critical reviews of biotech crops, including potential environmental and health safety problems.
&#8220;There seems to be very little research in academia that dispassionately assesses all sides,&#8221; Ervin said. &#8220;It seems to be mostly, 'How do we use industry-university relationships to promote the development of this technology?'&#8221;
Ask almost anyone at UC Davis if the university is biased in favor of biotech crops, and they'll point to one man as the counterweight: Paul Gepts.
Gepts is a compact, soft-spoken professor who got into biotechnology through a side door. He spills a can of beans on his desk - various hues, shapes and sizes that he has collected from around the world - as he explains.
His primary interest was tracking the flow of genes between domesticated and wild beans. His research led him to Mexico, where he ran into questions about biotech genes infiltrating native Mexican corn, and back to Davis, where he's the de facto representative for critical assessment of biotech crops, also known as genetically modified organisms or GMOs.
Said Gepts: &#8220;On this campus... there is actually very little research going on - no organized effort - about the environmental effects of GMOs.&#8221;
Van Alfen, the college dean, attributes the lack of such work to the paucity of federal money for it. &#8220;That really is what decides what research is being done,&#8221; he said.
The USDA offers universities a relative pittance for work on biotech risk assessment - and since 2000, UC Davis hasn't had a single project funded through the agency's main grant program.
Instead, the UC's best-known biotech risk research program is at Riverside - not Davis. UC Riverside is where professor Norman Ellstrand runs a small Biotech Impacts Center out of his office. He wryly calls it &#8220;budget-free.&#8221;




Norman Ellstrand, a UC Riverside professor who shuns industry donations for his research program on the risks of biotechnology, listens to UC Davis agronomy professor Paul Gepts in a class discussion on biotech crop policies. _Sacramento Bee/Renée C. Byer_
To do almost anything, he must solicit donations or grants - and from a much smaller pool of potential funders than peers who accept corporate contributions.
Ellstrand has won more USDA risk money in the past decade than all of UC Davis, including a grant last fall for a two-day conference weighing risks and benefits of biotechnology. For that conference, he scoffed at accepting company money to pay the bills. 
&#8220;Somebody said, 'Why don't you have a Monsanto reception?'&#8221; Ellstrand recalled. &#8220;I said 'No - then we might as well hang it up and go home.'&#8221;


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Hot tw's I'm in! There must be a fortune waiting in just selling to your heard lol...don't worry though I won't sell GMO tw's, already fed'em to rats and it was a no go...
> 
> 'Published on Sep 19, 2012 by François Le Bayon '
> 
> ...


and you keep going back to the well. that "study" has beenn lambasted by everyone outside greenpeace and the lefty media as a waste of ink. only those for whom this shitty study provides cover pretend it's worth a squirt of piss. 

it is USELESS save as a headline. when you read more it becomes just another propaganda piece, a psuedo-scientific red herring designed to infliame the stupid.

take a lesson in how you convince the stupid to vote the way you want. 

"Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, he has a brother who is a known homo sapiens, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy." ~ Time magazine allegedly quoting George Smathers in his 1950 congreessional campaign, a classic "DoubleSwitch" fallacy

that one is awesome,, your lame attempts are weak by comparison.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

and now you begin the useless Gish Gallop. 

all those copy/pasted slanders are designed to cause the stupid and lazy to simply ASSUME you know what youre talking about, when in fact most of your links go directly to the "About Us" page for various government agencies and the UC davis PR office. not even a good try. 


UC davis did NOT make a sinister dope killing fungus for the DEA, nor did anyone ever create a "technology" to turn food crops into gene therapy tools. 

the EXTENT of Genetically Modified Organism/ Genetic Engineering/ Genetic Manipulation of Crops is:

increasing nutritional value of certain varieties of grains to improve nutrition in developing nations (golden rice)
creating resistance to roundup so this short duration direct herbicide could be used to kill weeds without killing crops
transposing natural pest resistance from one species of plant to food crops
attempting to engineer frost resistance (and generally failing)

all the other claims are BULLSHIT. experimental techniques to turn normally green apples blue, or make fishies glow in the dark are EXPERIMENTS not sinister plots to poison you by some unexplained mechanism where people who eat french fries slowly transform into potatoes.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> and now you begin the useless Gish Gallop.
> 
> all those copy/pasted slanders are designed to cause the stupid and lazy to simply ASSUME you know what youre talking about, when in fact most of your links go directly to the "About Us" page for various government agencies and the UC davis PR office. not even a good try.
> 
> ...


Oh dr keen, that's just the tip'o the ice burg lol...and I'm certainly not going to do all your research for you, I'm satisfied with my own...but heres a lil bit more for a large mouth bass to bite on...


[h=3]Biological Attack on _Agriculture_: Low-Tech, High-Impact _Bioterrorism_[/h]extension.missouri.edu/eden/Lesson_1/PDF.../L1_Bio_Attack.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
bility to _agricultural bioterrorism_ and biocrimes; the ac- companying articles and *....* _Agricultural bioterrorist_ attack can *.....* _research and development_ of the use of plant pathogens for killing or reducing yields of opium _poppy_, _coca, and cannabis_ *...*



 

[h=3]An Introduction to Biological Weapons, their Prohibition, and the *...*[/h]www.sunshine-project.org/publications/bk/bk10en.html
The BTWC outlaws any _development_ and production of biological weapons and has *...* of _coca_, opium _poppy_, and _cannabis_ as biological weapons in the Drug War. *...* officially renounced offensive _research_, paving the way for the Biological and *.....* From _Agricultural_ Biowarfare and _Bioterrorism_ by Dr. Mark Wheelis (Section *...*



 

[h=3]the threat of plant pathogens as weapons against *...* - Annual Reviews[/h]www.annualreviews.org/doi/.../annurev.phyto.41.121902.102839?...
by LV Madden - 2003 - Cited by 69 - Related articles
The nation has inadequate plans to deal with _agricultural bioterrorism_. *.....* In Germany, biological warfare _research and development_ was severely *....* In particular, R&D has been conducted on controlling _coca_, _cannabis_, and opium _poppy_ with *...*



 

[h=3]U.S. Moves Towards _Bioterrorism_ in Colombia[/h]www.organicconsumers.org/corp/agentgreen012703.cfm
Jan 24, 2003 &#8211; and were _developed_ by the U.S. Department of _Agriculture_, and by two *...* _coca and cannabis_) and Pleospora papaveracea (to kill opium _poppy_) *...*



 

[h=3]Public Law 108-199 - U.S. Government Printing Office[/h]www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW.../html/PLAW-108publ199.htm
RURAL _DEVELOPMENT_, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED *....* _Agricultural Research_ Service For necessary expenses to enable the *......* including salaries and related expenses of the Executive Office for _Weed_ and *......* for the procurement of chemicals for aerial _coca_ and _poppy_ fumigation programs *...*



 

[h=3]Drug Trafficking | Controversial Topics for Essays & _Research_ *...*[/h]www.essayempire.com &#8250; ... &#8250; Social Problems
The HHS also reports that _marijuana_ is the most commonly used illicit drug *...* States come from plants that are cultivated in the less _developed_ nations of Latin America, *...* geographically conducive to opium _poppy_, _coca_, or _marijuana_ cultivation, *...* _coca_, and hemp production for their _agricultural_ base, and the manufacture of *...*



 

[h=3]University of California | _Research_ | In the news[/h]*research*.universityofcalifornia.edu/in-the-news/
A _research_ team led by UC Santa Barbara scientists has gathered data from a *....* To protect crops from destruction researchers at UC Davis are _developing_ a *....* problem in California's _agricultural_ heartland and is bound to intensify in the *....* Scientists man _bioterror_ front lines post-9/11 with sensors to warn of deadly germs *...*



 

[PDF] [h=3]FIGHTING _BIOTERRORISM_[/h]www.dikseo.teimes.gr/.../E.../Fighting_*Bioterrorism*_Viewpoints.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Protection of U.S. _Agriculture_ Against _Bioterror_ Attacks. 40 *...* which all signatory nations pledged never to _develop_, produce, or stock- pile such *.....* tained the agent from a _research_ laboratory in Russia.2 *......* _poppy_, _coca, and cannabis_.



 

[PDF] [h=3]BWPP Biological Weapons Reader - BioWeapons Prevention Project[/h]www.bwpp.org/documents/BWPP%20BW%20Reader_final+.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by K McLaughlin - Cited by 1 - Related articles
Weapons: _Research_, _Development_ and Use from the Middle Ages to 1945, (Oxford: Oxford *......* 21 Wheelis, M. _Agricultural_ biowarfare and _bioterrorism_: an analytical *......* the purpose of destroying opium _poppies_, _coca and cannabis_ plants.



 

[h=3]Richters HerbLetter - Richters Herbs[/h]www.richters.com/show.cgi?page=HL/HerbLett.html
New _Research_ Confirms Safety and Efficacy of Menopause Herb 8. *...* Cognitive Impairment Increases with Long-term Heavy _Cannabis_ Use *...* Medicinal Plants Seen as Opium _Poppy_ Crop Substitute in Myanmar *....* Chinese Scientists _Developing_ Drugs to Cure Malaria *...* _Bioterror_ Defenses: Lowly Weeds May Offer Answers *...*


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

* My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. My opponent has openly admitted he feels an affinity toward your city, but I happen to like this area. It might be a salubrious place to him, but to me it is one of the nation's most delightful garden spots. 
When I embarked upon this political campaign I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead -- to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me. 

At first, I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities. Now I do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he's going to get one ! 
It might be instructive to start with his background. My friends, have you ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what was underneath ? Well, exploring my opponent's background is dissimilar. All the slime and filth and corruption you could possibly imagine, even in your wildest dreams, are glaringly nonexistent in this man's life. And even during his childhood ! 
Let us take a very quick look at that childhood: It is a known fact that, on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys at a certain playground. It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate excessively in their presence, but even urged him to do so. Most explicable of all, this man who poses as a paragon of virtue exacerbated his own sister while they were both teenagers ! 
I ask you, my fellow Americans: is this the kind of person we want in public office to set an example for our youth ? Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background -- no, not when you consider the other members of his family: 


His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities
The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion
My opponent's second cousin is a Mormon
His uncle was a flagrant heterosexual
His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte outside a church
His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature
His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homosapien
His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease
His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine
His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers
And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian
 Now what shall we say of the man himself ? 
I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political radicalism, economic irresponsibility, and personal depravity. His own record proves that he has frequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well. 


He perambulated his infant son on the street
He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin
He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately
He participated in a seance at a private residence where, among other odd goings-on, there was incense
He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses
He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company -- and has taken part in such gatherings himself
He has been deliberately averse to crime in our streets
He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic  tastes
Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the American flag
Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign "isms", he has coolly announced his belief in altruism -- and his fervent hope that some day this entire nation will be altruistic !
 I beg you, my friends, to oppose this man whose life and work and ideas are so openly and avowedly compatible with our American way of life. A vote for him would be a vote for the perpetuation of everything we hold dear. 
The facts are clear; the record speaks for itself. 

**[SIZE=+1]Do your duty.* ~Bill Garvin, Dec 1970. [SIZE=+1][/SIZE]*[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]*
at least my copy/paste is funny. 

[/SIZE]


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh dr keen, that's just the tip'o the ice burg lol...and I'm certainly not going to do all your research for you, I'm satisfied with my own...but heres a lil bit more for a large mouth bass to bite on...
> 
> 
> *Biological Attack on Agriculture: Low-Tech, High-Impact Bioterrorism*
> ...


Shirley, you can't still be trying to sell your bullshit?

You're a persistent twat-waffle salesman, I'll give you that. 

Name ONE person who has died as a result of GM food.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh dr keen, that's just the tip'o the ice burg lol...and I'm certainly not going to do all your research for you, I'm satisfied with my own...but heres a lil bit more for a large mouth bass to bite on...
> 
> 
> *Biological Attack on Agriculture: Low-Tech, High-Impact Bioterrorism*
> ...


lol the only thing your last post shows is that you are seemingly an idiot who doesn't have a clue what your talking about and who has now been shown to be the 'liar' that you accuse others of being...nice work dr,,,lol


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Whats up doc?
Thought you said this was a lie?



*Biological Attack on Agriculture: Low-Tech, High-Impact Bioterrorism*

extension.missouri.edu/eden/Lesson_1/PDF.../L1_Bio_Attack.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
bility to _agricultural bioterrorism_ and biocrimes; the ac- companying articles and *....* _Agricultural bioterrorist_ attack can *.....* _research and development_ of the use of plant pathogens for killing or reducing yields of opium _poppy_, _coca, and cannabis_ *...*


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> lol the only thing your last post shows is that you are seemingly an idiot who doesn't have a clue what your talking about and who has now been shown to be the 'liar' that you accuse others of being...nice work dr,,,lol


*protip:* quoting yourself as evidence of your statement is not evidence of anything but incompetence. 

this is a lesson ISIS could do well to learn, as a leading source for your "evidence", they source themselves as the source for their own claims, as they source themselves as proof of their sources.... 

*Example*: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMeggplant.php

as proof that this experimental eggplant with the BT budworm/borer worm toxin is deadly to people, they endlessly source themselves in what can only be described as a an irreducible circlejerk, or daisy chain of specious unsupported claims. 

whatever shitty econaut website is feeding you this feces, it wont provide you with the support you need to prop up the mad claims you have already unleashed. 

we're gonna need to see some REAL sauce on your claims before we're gonna listen to any more nuttiness.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> *protip:* quoting yourself as evidence of your statement is not evidence of anything but incompetence.
> 
> this is a lesson ISIS could do well to learn, as a leading source for your "evidence", they source themselves as the source for their own claims, as they source themselves as proof of their sources....
> 
> ...


Oh sorry doc, having trouble addressing the point at play? = gov + universities et al + monsanto et al = developing fungal pathogens to kill cannabis.
You stated as fact was a lie, so why do you now try to divert and hide from such?
*

Biological Attack on Agriculture: Low-Tech, High-Impact Bioterrorism

extension.missouri.edu/eden/Lesson_1/PDF.../L1_Bio_Attack.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
bility to agricultural bioterrorism and biocrimes; the ac- companying articles and .... Agricultural bioterrorist attack can ..... research and development of the use of plant pathogens for killing or reducing yields of opium poppy, coca, and cannabis ...
*


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh sorry doc, having trouble addressing the point at play? = gov + universities et al + monsanto et al = developing fungal pathogens to kill cannabis.
> You stated as fact was a lie, so why do you now try to divert and hide from such?
> *
> 
> ...


Read the conclusion in that pseudo-scientific paper, it states that the US is susceptible to terrorist organisations, governments, etc using bio-terrorist attacks on crops with a profit motive. 

Most of it was tl;dr, but considering its merely a secondary study, most of the information can be drawn from the abstract and conclusion with the middle essentially being padding. 

Its hilarious when people cite studies without ANY accompanying primary data collection as if they're somehow the word of God, what you posted was essentially a "no shit Sherlock" opinion piece.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 30, 2012)

At UC Riverside it conducts agriculture experiments. The barbwire points inward, like a prison. So you can easily get in but not out! The hardest field to get out of is the nematode enclosure. Those must be some big ass nematodes to require a chainlink fence and barbwire.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Whats up doc?
> Thought you said this was a lie?
> 
> 
> ...


You didn't read it at all, did you?

You would've noticed they did infact say:

"Genomic technologies should also facilitate the development of a new generation of pesticides that combine high specificity, high effectiveness, and low environmental and health risks (for a discussion of genomics and drug discov- ery, see Wheelis 2002). Because plant disease control will very likely continue to rely heavily on pesticide use, substantial research and development efforts are warranted, including genome sequencing of important current and potential pests and their hosts."


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> You didn't read it at all, did you?
> 
> You would've noticed they did infact say:
> 
> "Genomic technologies should also facilitate the development of a new generation of pesticides that combine high specificity, high effectiveness, and low environmental and health risks (for a discussion of genomics and drug discov- ery, see Wheelis 2002). Because plant disease control will very likely continue to rely heavily on pesticide use, substantial research and development efforts are warranted, including genome sequencing of important current and potential pests and their hosts."


Your point is what?


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Your point is what?


Anyone with any vague scientific background can see that is basically a grant application, you tool. 

Do you have any idea how much that study is COMPLETELY irrelevant it is to what you're saying? And infact contrary to your whole point they actually advocate the use of Genomic technologies to produce new pesticides, etc. 

Is it you don't read it, or do you not understand it?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh sorry doc, having trouble addressing the point at play? = gov + universities et al + monsanto et al = developing fungal pathogens to kill cannabis.
> You stated as fact was a lie, so why do you now try to divert and hide from such?
> *
> 
> ...


this "citation" contains exactly ONE paragraph alleging:

"Another possible motive is revenge. The United States and the United Nations Drug Control Program have supported research and development of the use of plant pathogens for killing or reducing yields of opium poppy, coca, and cannabis (Kliener 1999, Jelsma 2001) The programs involved selection of virulent strains of fungi,, consideration of large-scale production of fungal spores, and testing of the most efficient ways of delivering the spores the work is exactly analogous to the anticrop biological weapons programs of the former Soviet Union and the United States during the cold war (Whitby and Rogers 1977) Because of various political and social pressures these programs are on hold or moving very slowly. However, if the deliberate release of plant pathogens to destroy drug crops did ever go ahead, there could bhe a powerful incentive for those in the illicit drug business to retaliate by releasing plant pathogens into US crops (Stone 2000)." ~ from your own weak sauce. 

NONE of this transparent fearmongering and wild speculation proves UC Davis or Monsanto created "Grass Killing Super Powdery Mildew" or proves that there is any plot to release it,, your own weak ass sauce declares the opposite, that the bullshit you claim is actually just another cold-war relic,, but the "real fear" should be that the colombian cartels or the mexican drug gangs might turn this "technology" against us by breeding up Corn Smut (huitlocoche, a mexican delicacy) for use as a weapon against the US for the non-existent plot to unleash an army of trained spidermites in their dope gardens.... 

dude, just because the word cannabis is used in a report to get more funding for some obscure researcher and his night terrors doesnt mean the US Govt, Monsanto and the UC system are teaming up to infest your dorm closet with Budworms. 

neither Monsanto or UC Davis and NO US GOVT AGENCY are named in this "report" which is just 8 pages of "what if...<insert nightmare scenario of Biblical Scale>" ipso facto, "we should therefore throw a shitload of cash into researching this..."

try again. get me a copy of the UC Davis Grant, just ONE of the study's presumably innumerable reports, eyewitness testimony from a researcher on the alleged program, or something from Monsanto's notoriously leaky document archives and maybe youll get traction on this ONE claim... maybe.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Anyone with any vague scientific background can see that is basically a grant application, you tool.


A grant application to do the work I'm referring to lol...and to which grants have been given to Places like UC Davis et al...
I suppose you think there is no fungal pathogen project if one goes to the trouble to apply for said grant lol...that's efficient logic.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Anyone with any vague scientific background can see that is basically a grant application, you tool.
> 
> Do you have any idea how much that study is COMPLETELY irrelevant it is to what you're saying? And infact contrary to your whole point they actually advocate the use of Genomic technologies to produce new pesticides, etc.
> 
> Is it you don't read it, or do you not understand it?


it's all about Huitlocoche. those dastardly mexicans dont actually eat the stuff, they are stockpiling it in secret to infest Iowa with Corn Smut!







it's all a plot!!!


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> ...NONE of this transparent fearmongering and wild speculation proves UC Davis or Monsanto created "Grass Killing Super Powdery Mildew" or proves that there is any plot to release it,,


Oh doc, I'm not trying to 'prove' anything, you are lol...I'm just trying to induce better brain cell function within your scull.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh doc, I'm not trying to 'prove' anything, you are lol...I'm just trying to induce better brain cell function within your scull.


If anything, people probably become more stupid from reading your posts. 

There's also indications it causes full body super cancer with too much exposure. 

Truely the funniest part? That's got as much scientific backing as the bullshit you're spreading.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)




----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh doc, I'm not trying to 'prove' anything, you are lol...I'm just trying to induce better brain cell function within your scull.


so, when i say show me your evidence that UC Davis and monsanto teamed up with the DEA to make dope killing fungus and your "source" is just more hot air:

"You just be trollin me..." 

seems like you're the one with the misfiring synapses.


----------



## desert dude (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh doc, I'm not trying to 'prove' anything, you are lol...I'm just trying to induce better brain cell function within your scull.


After reading some of your post here, all I can say is, I am glad you are on the other side of this topic. You will probably convince 47% [......] of the population with your yawping, but not much more.


----------



## desert dude (Dec 30, 2012)

Monsanto inserts turtle gene into corn. Gullible mom eats turtle-corn. Results predictable:


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

desert dude said:


> Monsanto inserts turtle gene into corn. Gullible mom eats turtle-corn. Results predictable:


Let's not forget the ManBearPig incident:


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> At UC Riverside it conducts agriculture experiments. The barbwire points inward, like a prison. So you can easily get in but not out! The hardest field to get out of is the nematode enclosure. Those must be some big ass nematodes to require a chainlink fence and barbwire.


wabbit... most california municipalities require that barbed wire tops be canted inward to prevent injury to those passing by outside the property, particularly if the fence borders the property line. 

this is a frequent canard used by the "FEMA Camp" nutbars to "prove" that railway turnarounds and service yards, bottling plants and undeveloped county parks are actually concentration camps. 

for nearly a decade camarillo state mental hospital had a cyclone fence with an inward canted barbed wire topper on it's north side. this was to keep the critters out, not to keep patients in, since the fence only went along the frontage of South Lewis Road, and stopped immediately where the hospital property ended, leaving sod fields, a mushroom farm and a 3 inch deep stream as the remainder of the "Barrier' to keep the kludges from escaping. thats right, a 6 foot cyclone fence with inward facing barbed wire toppers on ONE SIDE of the property. no fence on the remaining sides. why you might ask, would you build 200 yards of fence on a property that spreads across nearly 4000 acres? it creates the impression that the hospital is secure to discourage casual trespassers and gawkers from bothering the loonies. why was the barbed wire canted inward? because tall people (like me), people on horseback, and agricultiural vehicles kept hitting the barbed wire topper when it faced out. somebody had the brilliant idea to turn it in, and it worked. most new fences in california are REQUIRED to have their toppers turned in. 

you also may not construct your house in such a manner that the 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th floors extend over your neighbor's property. 
just cuz it aint toucching their dirt doesnt mean you can build over somebody else's head.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> wabbit... most california municipalities require that barbed wire tops be canted inward to prevent injury to those passing by outside the property, particularly if the fence borders the property line.
> 
> this is a frequent canard used by the "FEMA Camp" nutbars to "prove" that railway turnarounds and service yards, bottling plants and undeveloped county parks are actually concentration camps.
> 
> ...


Is it legal to turn them outward in the case of an alien invasion/legal?

Iv heard Monsanto is genetically engineering Zerglings...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Is it legal to turn them outward in the case of an alien invasion/legal?
> 
> Iv heard Monsanto is genetically engineering Zerglings...


well played. i gotta go build more control pylons 

check this wackiness out:

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june122012/monsanto-gates-dp.php

i found that while futilely searching for any Monsanto/UC Davis/Dope Killing Fungus plot. it's hilarious! 

my favorite line: 

*"Gates' work would genetically engineer the milk that goes into the yogurt (as well as into cheeses, ice cream, cottage cheese, cream, butter, cream cheese, etc) which might genetically engineer the bacteria that is in the gut (thus genetically engineering the person's immune system, which is primarily comprised of gut bacteria)." 
*
cheese is the new mustard gas,, and only our intestinal flora can protect us from bill gates.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

So just to summarize on what Frank and his keen doctor are saying is that even though Gov passed into law a bio-terrorism Act which in part called for the development of fungal pathogen agents that would kill cannabis and awarded grants for such:
One of the leading Universities in the technology had no interest and did not take part, and,
That the leading corporation in the technology had no interest and did not take part.
Just so folks can grasp your argument lol...


----------



## desert dude (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> well played. i gotta go build more control pylons
> 
> check this wackiness out:
> 
> ...


I am pretty sure Bill Gates is an Asperger sufferer.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> So just to summarize on what Frank and his keen doctor are saying is that even though Gov passed into law a bio-terrorism Act which in part called for the development of fungal pathogen agents that would kill cannabis and awarded grants for such:
> One of the leading Universities in the technology had no interest and did not take part, and,
> That the leading corporation in the technology had no interest and did not take part.
> Just so folks can grasp your argument lol...


oops i quoted myself again lol...


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> So just to summarize on what Frank and his keen doctor are saying is that even though Gov passed into law a bio-terrorism Act which in part called for the development of fungal pathogen agents that would kill cannabis and awarded grants for such:
> One of the leading Universities in the technology had no interest and did not take part, and,
> That the leading corporation in the technology had no interest and did not take part.
> Just so folks can grasp your argument lol...


Name the Act, butt-pirate.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> So just to summarize on what Frank and his keen doctor are saying is that even though Gov passed into law a bio-terrorism Act which in part called for the development of fungal pathogen agents that would kill cannabis and awarded grants for such:
> One of the leading Universities in the technology had no interest and did not take part, and,
> That the leading corporation in the technology had no interest and did not take part.
> Just so folks can grasp your argument lol...


mmm hmmm... so now you were NOT alleging that UC Davis, Monsanto and the US Govt were in a plot to create dope killing fungus to eliminate cannabis... they were trying to PROTECT WEED with this program which is why they hid it so good nobody has any evidence of the program's existence, cuz this is the ONE Govt program that had security tight enough to prevent the aluminium foil hat club from discovering their plans. 

it seemed to me like you were declaring the opposite was fact before, and you implied that your aluminium foil hat concealed the evidence that would blow the conspiracy wide open.

but now that i have read your evidence and it says nothing of the sort, doesnt prove anything and is actually just a poorly written report to convince congress to write some checks, now i just read your earlier statements wrong...

next stop: im on the payroll of Monsanto, and i presume, the illuminnati, and the global jewish conspiracy.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> mmm hmmm... so now you were NOT alleging that UC Davis, Monsanto and the US Govt were in a plot to create dope killing fungus to eliminate cannabis... they were trying to PROTECT WEED with this program which is why they hid it so good nobody has any evidence of the program's existence, cuz this is the ONE Govt program that had security tight enough to prevent the aluminium foil hat club from discovering their plans. it seemed to me like you were declaring the opposite was fact before, and you implied that your aluminium foil hat concealed the evidence that would blow the conspiracy wide open.but now that i have read your evidence and it says nothing of the sort, doesnt prove anything and is actually just a poorly written report to convince congress to write some checks, now i just read your earlier statements wrong...next stop: im on the payroll of Monsanto, and i presume, the illuminnati, and the global jewish conspiracy.


Take the suicide pills, your cover is blown.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Name the Act, butt-pirate.


there is such an act (passed by congress in 2002 when putting terrorism in the bill title could get anything passed no matter how crazy) but the bill doesnt do what he claims, doesnt say what he says, and doesnt prove shit. 

basically in 2002, the congress opened up the purse strings for massive new funding so "homeland security" could create new ways to waste money on preventing "Bio Terror"


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 30, 2012)

desert dude said:


> Monsanto inserts turtle gene into corn. Gullible mom eats turtle-corn. Results predictable:


Great Scott ... It's Armageddes! cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Take the suicide pills, your cover is blown.


these Euthanasia pills dont do shit! 

I got ripped off!


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> these Euthanasia pills dont do shit!
> 
> I got ripped off!


Mossad really need to stop hiring dyslexic people.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> mmm hmmm... so now you were NOT alleging that UC Davis, Monsanto and the US Govt were in a plot to create dope killing fungus to eliminate cannabis... they were trying to PROTECT WEED with this program which is why they hid it so good nobody has any evidence of the program's existence, cuz this is the ONE Govt program that had security tight enough to prevent the aluminium foil hat club from discovering their plans.
> 
> it seemed to me like you were declaring the opposite was fact before, and you implied that your aluminium foil hat concealed the evidence that would blow the conspiracy wide open.
> 
> ...


lol wtf? you are good for my health doc...laughing is good meds


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> these Euthanasia pills dont do shit!
> 
> I got ripped off!


They're suppositories. The printer skipped; its an Herbal Shoveitupplement. Basically a colossal pain in the ... oh look! Gravel!! cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> They're suppositories. The printer skipped; its an Herbal Shoveitupplement. Basically a colossal pain in the ... oh look! Gravel!! cn


im a big boy,, ill need the 50,000 mg dose. and some vaseline...


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> there is such an act (passed by congress in 2002 when putting terrorism in the bill title could get anything passed no matter how crazy) but the bill doesnt do what he claims, doesnt say what he says, and doesnt prove shit.
> 
> basically in 2002, the congress opened up the purse strings for massive new funding so "homeland security" could create new ways to waste money on preventing "Bio Terror"


Actually doc they were already hard at it during the Clinton admin...under previous 'preparedness' laws as well.
Oh and you are quite incorrect about the cannabis, poppy and coca fungal pathogens that were called for and developed in a 'devil's' three way as you say lol...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Actually doc they were already hard at it during the Clinton admin...under previous 'preparedness' laws as well.
> Oh and you are quite incorrect about the cannabis, poppy and coca fungal pathogens that were called for and developed in a 'devil's' three way as you say lol...


still waiting on anything other than your assertions to support that bullshit. 

theres more evidence supporting the cia's exploding cigar plot to kill castro than your wacky claims


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> still waiting on anything other than your assertions to support that bullshit.
> 
> theres more evidence supporting the cia's exploding cigar plot to kill castro than your wacky claims


lol how many people do you think would actually care either way on the Cuban cigar crises?
conversely, how many people would care if they knew about the 'devils three way'(your words) going on to not only create but also employ these type of pathogens?


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> lol how many people do you think would actually care either way on the Cuban cigar crises?
> conversely, how many people would care if they knew about the 'devils three way'(your words) going on to not only create but also employ these type of pathogens?


You're an idiot, they'd be hailed as heros by the "drugs are bad" crowd if they not only revealed but used pathogens to wipe out "the bold drug plants". 

Again, anything to back up your bat-shit crazy assertions?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> lol how many people do you think would actually care either way on the Cuban cigar crises?
> conversely, how many people would care if they knew about the 'devils three way'(your words) going on to not only create but also employ these type of pathogens?









proof positive that the CIA used the old Tuskegee Campus to train and equip several battalions of Spidermite Paratroopers for use against Pablo Escobar's secret Marijuana Factories in Wisconsin! 

they gave those bastards tiny little M16's and microscopic "Nanothermite" grenades and sent them out with orders to exterminate all non-Monsanto weed in America!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

Look at all this "Proof" Tailgunner Joe McCarthy had of communists in hollywood! 
No, you cant see it from any closer, it's like totally secret and shit, but if you COULD see it, it would
*BLOW. YOUR. MIND!*


whistle blowers blow whistles on everyhting imaginable 

If the US govt were in a plot to exterminate hemp with bio-weapons it would not be secret for more than a few seconds. 

just like the loch ness monster, bigfoot, and paris hilton's acting talent your story is just a myth.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> these Euthanasia pills dont do shit!
> 
> I got ripped off!


Echinacea doesn't do shit except smell and taste like you're swallowing stale ashes.

But it makes my hair nice in the shampoo I use.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

You Must Be High. 

i been takin homeopathic suicide pills too, damned things just give me boners and make everything look blue!


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> You're an idiot, they'd be hailed as heros by the "drugs are bad" crowd if they not only revealed but used pathogens to wipe out "the bold drug plants".
> 
> Again, anything to back up your bat-shit crazy assertions?


I'm thinking you are probably incorrect as with most of your assertions and which is some what exampled with gov's paraquat program in the 70's and the immense public outcry that stopped the program.
Also that was before states started 'dealing' with cannabis laws on their own such as cali etc, and your making the argument that there would be less outcry now over an even more serious threat to cannabis and the health of those who partake?
"anything to back up your bat-shit crazy assertions?"


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 30, 2012)

The only herbal suicide pill I know of is mah hwahng´. That stuff will make your heart race so fast, you'll think the alien is about to pop out of your chest.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> I'm thinking you are probably incorrect as with most of your assertions and which is some what exampled with gov's paraquat program in the 70's and the immense public outcry that stopped the program.
> Also that was before states started 'dealing' with cannabis laws on their own such as cali etc, and your making the argument that there would be less outcry now over an even more serious threat to cannabis and the health of those who partake?
> "anything to back up your bat-shit crazy assertions?"


Ok so you don't have anything. 

The rest deserves a solid "Cool story bro" tho.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> You Must Be High.
> 
> i been takin homeopathic suicide pills too, damned things just give me boners and make everything look blue!


If they give you boners, ask your doctor about homeosexuality (now available in a convenient minty gel) ... cn


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> If they give you boners, ask your doctor about homeosexuality (now available in a convenient minty gel) ... cn


Funny, cos pill companies only care about profits...and so do the Ferangi!


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Ok so you don't have anything.
> 
> The rest deserves a solid "Cool story bro" tho.


lol oh Frank, your poker face shows every time you respond with nothing when your responding to something...
Are you still angry I've exposed your 'hidden' identity. Its irresistible not to help you look foolish Frank.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> lol oh Frank, your poker face shows every time you respond with nothing when your responding to something...
> Are you still angry I've exposed your 'hidden' identity. Its irresistible not to help you look foolish Frank.


Listen, you made retarded claims, that puts the onus of proof on you. 

So far you've dicked about and talked shite, but have presented nothing to back up your assertions, infact one of your "sources" completely countered the point you were trying to make. 

So...ANY proof at all to back up what you're saying or just more cock-swaggle?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Listen, you made retarded claims, that puts the onus of proof on you.
> 
> So far you've dicked about and talked shite, but have presented nothing to back up your assertions, infact one of your "sources" completely countered the point you were trying to make.
> 
> So...ANY proof at all to back up what you're saying or just more cock-swaggle?


So far Frank I've offered a boat load and you haven't responded in any coherent way to any of it...Further Frank, every truly unthoughtout thing you do state is so ridicules on its face that one liners are all that's needed in response, and thats only for the sake of trying to help...you look foolish lol...


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Listen, you made retarded claims, that puts the onus of proof on you.
> 
> So far you've dicked about and talked shite, but have presented nothing to back up your assertions, infact one of your "sources" completely countered the point you were trying to make.
> 
> So...ANY proof at all to back up what you're saying or just more cock-swaggle?


Ok Frank, or FFF (frank ferret face) for short...for example why have you still not responded to this,

*[SIZE=+2]Killing Cannabis with mycoherbicides[/SIZE]* [Also see: http://mycoherbicide.net/MUTABILITY/mutability.htm] John M. McPartland, D.O., M.S.
VAM/AMRITA
53 Washington Street Extension
Middlebury, VT 05753, USA David P. West, Ph.D.
GamETec
363 S. Warren Street
Prescott, WI 54021, USA 
Abstract [SIZE=-1]Last year, researchers were funded by the U.S. government to create fungi that destroy drug plants, including marijuana (_Cannabis_ species). The fungi will be genetically engineered. Controversies surrounding this "new solution" for the war on drugs are discussed, including the ethics of exterminating plant species that have occupied central roles in human culture for thousands of years. The importation of foreign fungi into new habitats is fraught with unpredictable environmental pitfalls; exotic pathogens can spread from their intended targets to other organisms. All known pathogens of marijuana also attack hemp; exterminating drug plants will probably spell the demise of a valuable and resurgent fiber and oil-seed crop. Genetically transformed fungi are genetically unstable and mutate easily. Fungi with recombinant DNA may reproduce with native fungi and create new strains of virulent, transgenic pathogens. Once these pathogens are released in the environment, they cannot be recalled. In summary, we argue that research involving transgenic pathogens of _Cannabis_ is a dangerous misuse of biotechnology, and call for an immediate moratorium.[/SIZE]

Introduction [SIZE=-1]The U.S. Congress recently appropriated $23 million dollars to fund a "new solution" for the war on drugs. The new solution attacks drugs at their source  the drug plants. Researchers say they can eliminate drug plants with fungal pathogens. The fungi would be genetically engineered to kill only coca plants (_Erythoxylum_ species), opium poppies (_Papaver_ species), and marijuana (_Cannabis_ species).[/SIZE] Rep. Bill McCollum, who introduced the appropriation bill, described the tactic as "a silver bullet in the drug war" (Fields 199. The development of transgenic coca and opium pathogens began several years ago, but previous appropriations were relatively small (the 1998 budget was $2.58 million). This year McCollum expanded the program to include marijuana, and moved the budget's decimal point to the right.
A fungal weapon for the war on drugs is not new. Millions of dollars were spent in the 1970s in a world-wide search for fungi which would attack coca (Lentz _et al. _1975), poppies (Schmitt & Lipscomb 1975), or marijuana (Ghani _et al. _197. See Figure 1. It was a strange era for plant pathologists. While researchers around the globe attacked the pathogens of poppies and hemp, US-funded scientists reversed the strategythey attacked poppies and hemp with the same pathogens (Doctor 1986).
Renewed interest in fungal pathogens for the war on drugs concerns us in its own right. Our law-enforcement lobby wishes to exterminate three plant species that have occupied central roles in human culture for thousands of years. Are the targeted plants inescapably evil? Are there no alternative means for reducing their dangers to humans? We wish to report the ethical and scientific controversies pertinent to this issue, framed for consideration by academia, State and Federal government agencies, and others interested in genetically engineered organisms, biological control, and the drug war (Cook _et al._ 1996).
Killer fungi [SIZE=-1]Experiments with fungi to control plants began in the late 1960s. The initial targets were noxious agricultural weeds that had been accidentally imported from one region of the world into another, where they became more aggressive, because their natural enemies were often absent. Hence, the _classical _strategy for biocontrol of weeds involves the importation of natural enemies from their native ranges. Classical biocontrol generally enjoys wide approval and is used by organic agriculture, although the strategy does have its critics (Howarth 1991).[/SIZE]
Classical biocontrol of marijuana was originally envisioned by Arthur McCain in 1970 (Shay 1975). McCain, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley, suggested, "Just introduce a couple of pounds [of a pathogenic fungus] into an area, and while it wouldn't have much of an effect the first year, in several years it would spread throughout the country with devastating results" (Zubrin 1981). In reality, however, classical biocontrol rarely extirpates a weed, it merely reduces the weed population to a low level (Watson 1991). Reduction without eradication is acceptable for most agricultural weeds, but is unacceptable for "zero tolerance" drug control, which seeks the complete eradication of a crop.
The other biocontrol strategy, _inundative _release, is also called the _mycoherbicide _approach. This strategy releases massive amounts of fungal spores upon target plants. The mycoherbicide approach can totally eradicate a field of drug plants. This approach, however, utilizes a delivery system similar to that of chemical herbicides  such as hovering over clandestine fields in a helicopter while releasing the control agent. Thus the mycoherbicide approach, compared to the current herbicide strategy, is equally expensive, exposes pilots to equal danger as they hover over fields, and may require annual retreatment of annual crops. The mycoherbicide approach is not the suggested "silver bullet."
Fear of foreigners [SIZE=-1]The importation of foreign fungi into new habitats is fraught with controversy. Once a self-perpetuating fungus has been released, it is impossible to recall or control (Lockwood 1993). Despite host-range testing to identify potential nontarget hosts, exotic fungi can spread from their intended targets to other plants. The entire flora of a continent may ultimately be exposed, especially if the fungus produces wind-borne spores (Auld 1991). Because of this concern, only two exotic fungi have ever been intentionally imported into North America_Puccinia chondrillina_ and _Puccinia carduorum._[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Fear of "collateral damage" to nontarget plants is justified. When _Puccinia xanthii, _considered a selective selective pathogen of _Xanthium_ weeds, was imported into Australia from North America, the fungus spread to sunflowers (_Helianthus annuus_) and _Calendula officinalis _(Auld 1991). Native fungi sold as mycoherbicides may also spread to new hosts after release. For example, _Colletotrichum gloesporioides_ f. sp. _aeschynomene_ (Collego®), one of only three mycoherbicide fungi commercially available in the U.S., has a wider host range than originally determined, including several economically important legumes (TeBeest 198.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The situation with fungi is comparable to that with insects. Turner (1985) estimated that 21% of biocontrol insects intentionally introduced into North America have spread to non-target native plants. For instance, the beetle _Chrysolina quadrigemina_ was imported into North America to kill weedy St. John's wort (_Hypericum perforatum_), but it subsequently moved to the ornamental species _Hypericum calycinum_ (Turner 1985). Howarth (1991) described nearly 100 cases where errant biocontrols have driven non-target hosts to extinction, mostly in island ecosystems. Howarth claimed that more species extinctions have been caused by biocontrols than by pesticides.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Non-target hosts at greatest risk to exotic biocontrol fungi include:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]1) plants phylogenetically related to the target species,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2) plants with secondary compounds or morphological features similar to the target species,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3) plants attacked by fungi related to the biocontrol fungus,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]4) plants never exposed to the biocontrol fungus,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]5) plants whose fungal pathogens are unknown (Watson 1991).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The study of fungus-host specificity is site-dependent. That is, each potential release site has its own unique flora, fauna, and climactic conditions. Sites with a high degree of biodiversity, such as Amazonia, are teeming with potential non-target hosts. Studies of tropical sites are very complicated and become susceptible to errors of tremendous consequence. The potential spread of fungi away from release sites must also be taken under consideration. Biocontrol agents do not recognize international boundaries, yet host specificity studies rarely consider non-target hosts in neighboring countries (Lockwood 1993).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In the case of pathogens _of Cannabis,_ the non-target host at greatest risk, because of its close phylogenetic relationship to _Cannabis,_ is hops (_Humulus lupulus_). At least 10 fungal pathogens are known to mutually infect _Cannabis_ and _Humulus_ (McPartland 1992). The next closest relatives are the Urticaceae (members of the nettle family) and the Moraceae (mulberry family), with which _Cannabis_ shares at least 20 fungal pathogens (McPartland 1992).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The species debate[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]The non-target host at greatest risk is _Cannabis_ itself. Within the genus we find plants cultivated for drugs (marijuana), or fiber (hemp), or seed oil (seed hemp), as well as wild, uncultivated plants (feral hemp). How closely related are these plants? Some taxonomists describe marijuana and hemp as completely separate species (Schultes _et al. _1974), whereas other taxonomists say they are the same species, _Cannabis sativa_ (Small & Cronquist 1976).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This "species debate" achieved semantic importance during the 1970s (Small 1979). Drug libertarians promoted the polytypic approach and cited marijuana as _Cannabis indica, _to argue that statutes written against _Cannabis sativa_ did not apply to marijuana. Conversely, law enforcement agencies have maintained that the genus is monotypic. Now, to rationalize the mycoherbicide approach, law enforcement appears to have reversed its position. Semantics aside, most fungi that attack marijuana also attack hemp (McPartland 1995b, 1995c, 1997, McPartland & Cubeta 1997).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Clearly, the greatest concern surrounding biological control is host specificity. Consider _Pseudoperonospora cannabina,_ a marijuana pathogen promoted by biocontrol researchers (Zabrin 1981, McCain & Noviello 1985). _P. cannabina_ may be identical to _Pseudoperonospora humuli, _a pathogen of hemp and hops (Hoerner 1940). We have re-investigated several fungi that were originally described as specific pathogens of _Cannabis,_ but under closer scrutiny, turned out to be misidentifications of widespread pathogens that attack many hosts (for example, "_Pleosphaerulina cannabina_" turned out to be _Leptosphaerulina trifolii, "Stemphylium cannabinum_" = _Stemphylium botryosum, "Sclerotinia kauffmanniana_" = _Sclerotinia sclerotiorum_) (McPartland 1995d).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Genetic engineering[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Wishing to improve host specificity and toxicity of fungal pathogens, researchers are now turning to genetic engineering (Brooker & Bruckart 1996). The use of transgenic organisms, however, elicits a new set of concerns (Levin & Israeli 1996). These are concerns that resulted in the Asilomar moratorium on genetic engineering of human pathogens.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Genetic engineers have recently been investigating a coca pathogen, _Fusarium oxysporum_ f. sp. _erythroxli _(Sands _et al. _1997, Nelson _et al. _1997). _F. oxysporum _f. sp. _erythroxli _was selected for coca eradication because it caused natural epidemics in Peru and on the former Coca-cola plantation on Kauai, where "containment of the fungus proved challenging" (Sands_ et al. _1997). _Fusarium oxysporum_ is well known to bioengineers, and previous researchers successfully inserted toxin genes into the species (Kistler 1991). Nevertheless, Gabriel (1991) considered it "unwise" to clone a toxin gene into a necrotrophic pathogen (such as _F. oxysporum_). He argued that such a pathogen might gain unexpected fitness and radically expand its host range, "a potentially dangerous experiment." _Fusarium_ species can produce a variety of toxic metabolites known as trichothecenes, which gained some notoriety for their reputed use in biological warfare ("yellow rain"). _F. oxysporum _is known to cause systemic infections in humans (Rippon 198.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Genetically transformed fungi have unstable genotypes, making mutations more likely. Experiments have shown _F. oxysporum_ spontaneously mutates its transgenic DNA (Kistler 1991). Furthermore, _F. oxysporum_ utilizes parasexual coupling, and at least 5% of its genome consists of transposons, or moveable pieces of DNA (Kistler 1997). Parasexuality and active transposable elements would facilitate the transfer of recombinant DNA to native fungi, potentially creating new strains of virulent pathogens. The wheat pathogen _Puccinia graminis, _for instance, hybridizes with other fungi on wild grasses, giving rise to offspring with increased virulence (Luig & Watson 1972, Burdon _et al._ 1981). This fact is not cited by proponents of biocontrol with rust fungi (Cook _et al._ 1996).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"Gene flow" has been more thoroughly studied in plants than fungi. Levin & Israeli (1996) documented five examples of spontaneous gene flow from crops to native plants, which resulted in new or worse weeds. The introgression of engineered genes from transgenic crops to related weed species has been demonstrated (Brown & Brown 1996), and may arise after just 2 generations of hybridization and backcrossing (Mikkelsen _et al._ 1996).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Currently, testing for gene flow is not standard procedure during the evaluation of transgenic organisms. This could be accomplished by crossing engineered fungi with related fungi (particularly if the fungi reproduce sexually, and especially if they are heterothallic fungi). Several generations of crossed hybrids are evaluated in serial host studies. Testing for gene flow is especially imperative for biocontrols which have been genetically manipulated to resist _fungicides. _Researchers have transformed _Colletotrichum gloesporioides_ f. sp. _aeschynomene_ (Collego®) with a gene for fungicide resistance (Brooker & Bruckart 1996). Imagine if this fungicide-resistant gene introgressed into _Histoplasma capsulatum_ or other human pathogens commonly found in agricultural areas![/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The species question, round two[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Another _Fusarium_ species, _F. oxysporum_ f. sp. _cannabis, _is the primary candidate to kill marijuana (Hildebrand & McCain 1978, Noviello _et al. _1990) and wild hemp in the American Midwest (Shay 1975). See Figure 2. Researchers promote _F. oxysporum_ as a marijuana mycoherbicide because they claim hops, _Humulus lupulus_, is not susceptible to fusarium wilt (McCain & Noviello 1985). They overlooked "Hops wilt" caused by _F. oxysporum_ in Australia (Sampson & Walker 1982).[/SIZE]
_[SIZE=-1]F. oxysporum [/SIZE]_[SIZE=-1]f. sp._ cannabis_ was originally isolated from hemp cultivars in Italy, by researchers who believed "...the wilt disease and its pathogen have not been previously described" (Noviello & Snyder 1962). In fact, these researchers missed _many_ previous descriptions of this wilt disease (Dobrozrakova _et al._, 1956, Rataj 1957, Ceapoiu 1958, Czyzewska & Zarzycka 1961, Barloy & Pelhate 1962, Serzane 1962). All previous descriptions attributed hemp wilt disease to _Fusarium oxysporum_ f. sp. _vasinfectum. _This fungus is morphologically identical to _F. oxysporum _f. sp._ cannabis_ but has a very broad host range (e.g., cotton, mung beans, pigeon peas, rubber trees, alfalfa, soybeans, coffee, tobacco and many other plants).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland (1995a) proposed that _F. oxysporum _f. sp._ cannabis_ may be a misidentified pathotype of _F. oxysporum_ f. sp. _vasinfectum._ Similarly, the fungus causing tobacco wilt, originally named _F. oxysporum _f. sp. _nicotianae, _proved to be a race of _F. oxysporum_ f. sp. _vasinfectum _(Armstrong & Armstrong 1975). According to Kistler _et al._ (199, _F. oxysporum_ f. sp. _vasinfectum _consists of at least 10 vegetative compatibility groups (VCGs). Comparing _F. oxysporum _f. sp._ cannabis_ with the genotype of _F. oxysporum_ f. sp. _vasinfectum _can be accomplished with VCG studies using _nit _mutants.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Conflicting interests[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]U.S. regulations have prevented the testing of bioengineered fungi in the field (Brooker & Bruckart 1996). But regulatory oversight is lacking in Peru and Columbia (Levin & Israeli 1996). Exigencies generated by the drug war metaphor could dangerously rush these fungi into deployment.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Moreover, saboteurs or irresponsible scientists could breech regulatory barriers, as occurred in Montana where several bioengineered organisms were illegally released around 1987 (Roberts 1987). In Australia, saboteurs illegally introduced the fungus _Phragmidium violaceum_ to control European blackberry (_Rubus fruticosus_). Weedy _R. fruticosus_ was spreading across pastures and impeding Australian cattle ranchers. The government had previously rejected ranchers' requests to import _P. violaceum, _because of economic objections from commercial blackberry growers and beekeepers. Wind-borne spores of illegally introduced _P. violaceum _dispersed rapidly across the continent, and the fungus now infests at least four _Rubus_ species (Watson 1991).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Australian debacle illustrates how biocontrol may impact competing interests. The first U.S. drug czar, Carlton Turner, recognized that target plants may be considered noxious weeds by one group, _and _valuable crops by another group (Turner 1985). St. John's wort (_Hypericum perforatum_) is an excellent example. _H. perforatum_ was previously branded a noxious weed. But now it has become the second-best-selling herbal medicine in the U.S.  $121 million dollars of _H. perforatum_ was sold last year, and producers are predicting a severe shortage of raw material (Brevoort 199.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]As consultants to the European and Canadian hemp industry, we face a dilemma. As ecologists, we endorse classical (non-engineered) biocontrol organisms as potential replacements of chemical pesticides (McPartland 1984, Doctor 1986). As physicians, we praise the safety of biocontrols over paraquat and other synthetic herbicides (McPartland & Pruitt 1997). Nearly 20 years ago, these reasons guided our decision to search for classical biocontrols against marijuana (McPartland 1983). But times have changed. Hemp cultivation has resurged in western Europe, the former USSR, and China. Last year the Canadian government allowed farmers to grow hemp for the first time in 50 years  251 farmers successfully harvested 5,930 acres (Cauchon 199. Have our neighbors to the north been explicitly informed of the "Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act" spearheaded by Rep. McCollum? We feel the development of transgenic mycoherbicides against marijuana would endanger hemp cultivation, permanently. Hemp is usually a pest- and disease-tolerant crop requiring little or no pesticide for cultivation; it has been characterized as "an environmentally friendly crop for a sustainable future" (Ranalli1999). Hemp should not be endangered, and research involving transgenic pathogens of _Cannabis_ should be halted. Moreover, the use of genetically engineered pathogens as a weapon in the drug war should be reevaluated.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Acknowledgements[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]We thank David Morris and two anonymous phytopathologists for reviewing and improving our manuscript.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]References[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Armstrong G, Armstrong J. 1975. Reflections on the wilt fusaria. Annual Review of Phytopathology 13:95-103.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Auld BA. 1991. "Economic aspects of biological weed control with plant pathogens," pp. 262-273 in Microbial control of Weeds, DO TeBeest, Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Barloy J, Pelhate J. 1962. Premières observations phytopathologiques relatives aux cultures de chanvre en Anjou. Annales des Épiphyties 13:117-149.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Booker NL, Bruckart W. 1996. "Genetically engineered fungi in agriculture," pp. 149-163 in Engineered organisms in environmental settings, Eds. MA Levin & E Israeli. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Brevoort P. 1998. The booming U.S. botanical market. HerbalGram 44:33-46.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Brown J, Brown AP. 1996. Gene transfer between canola (_Brassica napus_ L. and _B. campestris_ L.) and related weed species. Annals Applied Biology 129:513-522.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Burdon JJ, Marshall DR, Luig NH. 1981. Isozyme analysis indicates that a virulent cereal rust pathogen is a somatic hybrid. Nature 293:565-566.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Cauchon D. 1998. Canadian hemp isn't going to pot. USA Today 17(17)(7 Oct 199:13-14.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Ceapoiu N. 1958. Cinepa, Studiu monografic. Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romine. Bucharest. 652 pp.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Cook RJ, Bruckart WL, Coulson JR, Goettel MS, Humber RA, Lumsden RD, _et al._ 1996. Safety of microorganisms intended for pest and plant disease control: a framework of scientific evaluation. Biological Control 7:333-351.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Czyzewska S, Zarzycka H. 1961. Ergebnisse der bodeninfektionsversuche an _Linum usitatissinum, Crambe alyssinica, Cannabis sativa _und _Cucurbita pepo _var. _oleifera _mit einigen _Fusarium_-Arten. Instytut Ochrony Roslin, Reguly, Polen. Report No. 41:15-36.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Dobrozrakova TL, Letova MF, Stepanov KM, Khokhryakov MK. 1956. "_Cannabis sativa_ L." pp. 242-248 _in _Opredelitel' Bolesni Rasteniî, Moscow. 661 pp.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Doctor B. 1986. Interview with John McEno. Sinsemilla Tips 6(1):33-34, 84-85.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Fields G. 1998. U.S. might enlist fungi in drug war. USA Today 17(2(22 Oct 199:1.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Gabriel DW. 1981. "Parasitism, host species specificity, and gene-specific host cell death," pp. 115-131 in Microbial control of Weeds, DO TeBeest, Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Ghani M, Basit A, Anwar M. 1978. Final Report: Investigations on the natural enemies of marijuana, _Cannabis sativa_ L. and opium poppy, _Papaver somniferum_ L. Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Pakistan station. 26 pp. + 12 illus.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Hildebrand DC, McCain AM. 1978. The use of various substrates for large scale production of _Fusarium oxysporum_ f. sp. _cannabis_ inoculum. Phytopathology 68: 1099-1101.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Hoerner GR. 1940. The infection capabilities of hop downy mildew. J. Agric. Res. 61:331-334.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Howarth FG. 1991. Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Annual Review Entomology 36:485-509.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Kistler HC. 1991. "Genetic manipulation of plant pathogenic fungi," pp. 152-170 in Microbial control of Weeds, DO TeBeest, Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Kistler HC. 1997. Genetic diversity in the plant-pathogenic fungus _Fusarium oxysporum. _Phytopathology 87:474-479.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Kistler HC, Alabouvette C, Baayen RP, et al. 1998. Systematic numbering of vegetative compatibility groups in the plant pathogenic fungus _Fusarium oxysporum. _Phytopathology 88:30-32.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Lentz PL, Lipscomb BR, Farr DF. 1975. Fungi and diseases of _Erythroxylum. _Phytologia 30:350-367.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Levin M, Israeli E. 1996. "General overview of releases to date," pp. 13-39 in Engineered organisms in environmental settings, Eds. MA Levin & E Israeli. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Luig NH, Watson IA. 1972. The role of wild and cultivated grasses in the hybridization of formae speciales of Puccinia graminis. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 25:335-42.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Lockwood JA. 1993. Environmental issues involved in biological control of rangeland grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) with exotic agents. Environmental Entomology 22:503-518.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]McCain AH, Noviello C. 1985. Biological control of _Cannabis sativa._ Proceedings, 6th International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, pp.635-642.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1983. Fungal pathogens of _Cannabis sativa _in Illinois. Phytopathology 72:797.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1984. Pathogenicity of _Phomopsis ganjae _on _Cannabis sativa_ and the fungistatic effect of cannabinoids produced by the host. Mycopathologia 87:149-153.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1992. The _Cannabis _pathogen project: report of the second five-year plan. Mycological Society of America Newsletter 43(1):43.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1995a._Cannabis_ pathogens VIII: misidenfications appearing in the literature. Mycotaxon 53:407-416.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1995b._Cannabis_ pathogens X: _Phoma, Ascochyta_ and _Didymella _species. Mycologia 86:870-878.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1995c. _Cannabis_ pathogens XI: _Septoria _spp. on _Cannabis sativa, sensu strico. _Sydowia 47:44-53.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1995d. _Cannabis_ pathogens XII: lumper's row. Mycotaxon 54:273-279.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1997. "Krankheiten und Schädlinge an _Cannabis,_" pp. 37-38 in Symposium Magazin, 2nd Biorohstoff Hanf Technisch-wissenschaftliches Symposium. Nova Institut, Köln, Germany.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM, Cubeta MA. 1997. New species, combinations, host associations and location records of fungi associated with hemp (_Cannabis sativa_). Mycological Research 101:853-857.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM, Pruitt PL. 1997. Medical marijuana and its use by immunosuppressed individuals. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 3(3):39-45.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Mikkelsen TR, Andersen B, Jørgensen RB. 1996. The risk of crop transgene spread. Nature 380:31.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Nelson AJ, Elias KS, Arévalo E, Darlington LC, Bailey BA. 1997. Genetic characterization by RAPD analysis of isolates of _Fusarium oxysporum _f. sp. _erthroxyli _associated with an emerging epidemic in Peru. Phytopathology 87:1220-1225.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Noviello C, Snyder WC. 1962. Fusarium wilt of hemp. Phytopathology 52:1315-1317.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Noviello C, McCain AH, Aloj B, Scalcione M, Marziano F. 1990. Lotta biologica contro _Cannabis sativa_ mediante l'impiego di _Fusarium oxysporum_ f. sp. _cannabis. _Annali della Facolta di Scienze Agrarie della Universita degli Studi di Napoli, Portici 24:33-44.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Ranalli P, editor. 1999. Advances in Hemp Research. Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY. 272 pp.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Rataj K. 1957. Skodlivi cinitele pradnych rostlin. Prameny literatury 2:1-123.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Rippon JW. 1988. Medical Mycology, 3rd ed. W.B.Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA. 797 pp.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Roberts L. 1987. New questions in Strobel case. Science 237:1098-8.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Sampson PJ, Walker J. 1982. An annotated list of plant diseases in Tasmania. Dept. of Agriculture, Tasmania, Australia 121 pp.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Sands DC, Ford EJ, Miller RV, Sally BK, McCarthy MK, Anderson TW, Weaver MB, Morgan CT, Pilgeram AL. 1997. Characterization of a vascular wilt of _Erythroxylum coca _caused by _Fusarium oxysporum_ f. sp. _erythroxyli_ forma specialis nova. Plant Disease 81:501-504.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Schmitt CG, Lipscomb BR. 1975. Pathogens of elected members of the Papaveraceae  an annotated bibliography. USDA-ARS Northeastern Region Report No. 62. USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD. 186 pp.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Schultes RE, Klein WM, Plowman T, Lockwood TE. 1974. _Cannabis: _an example of taxonomic neglect. Bot. Mus. Leaflet. Harv. Univ. 23:337-367.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Serzane M. 1962. "Kanepju - _Cannabis sativa_ L. Slimibas." pp. 366-369 _in _Augu Slimibas, Praktiskie Darbi. Riga Latvijas Valsts Izdevnieciba, Lativa USSR. 518 pp.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Shay R. 1975. Easy-gro fungus kills pot among us. The Daily Californian, March 14, pg. 3.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Small E. 1979. The species problem in Cannabis. Volume 2: semantics. Corpus Information Services Ltd. and Agriculture Canada. Ottawa. 156 pp.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Small E, Cronquist A. 1976. A practical and natural taxonomy for _Cannabis._ Taxon 25:405-435.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]TeBeest DO. 1988. Additions to host range of _Colletotrichum gloeosporiodes_ f. sp. _aeschynomene._ Plant Disease 72:16-18.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Turner CE. 1985. "Conflicting interests and biological control of weeds," pp. 203-225 in Proceedings 6th International Symposium Biological Control of Weeds.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Watson AK. 1991. "The classical approach with plant pathogens," pp. 3-23 in Microbial control of Weeds, DO TeBeest, Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Zubrin R. 1981. The fungus that destroys pot. War on Drugs Action Reporter: June 1981:61-62.[/SIZE] 


[SIZE=-1]Figure 1.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Healthy marijuana seedling flanked by plants exposed to pathogenic fungi.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]




[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Figure 2.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Microscopic spores of _Fusarium oxysporum_, a potential mycoherbicide of Cannabis.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]




[/SIZE]


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Ok Frank, or FFF (frank ferret face) for short...for example why have you still not responded to this,
> 
> *[SIZE=+2]Killing Cannabis with mycoherbicides[/SIZE]* [Also see: http://mycoherbicide.net/MUTABILITY/mutability.htm] John M. McPartland, D.O., M.S.
> VAM/AMRITA
> ...


Tl;dr

So where exactly has this happened? And from my glance through I saw no mention of any live GM cultures, only normal plant pathogens that could potentially be modified. 

Much in the same way that if your auntie had balls, she'd potentially be your uncle however she likely doesn't. 

Do try some paragraphs next time, did they not teach you anything in special needs school? It's a pity they couldn't GM your extra chromosome away. 

DNAprotection:


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Tl;dr
> 
> So where exactly has this happened? And from my glance through I saw no mention of any live GM cultures, only normal plant pathogens that could potentially be modified.
> 
> ...


Well I'm glad to finally see what you look like, sorry I've been so hard on you Frank truly I am...
I don't want to seem like you have a mental disability though because I truly believe in folks all being treated equally, so I'll ask once again, why no logical or even reasonable response to that info, let alone all the rest I have posted?
Don't worry Frank its ok if you need to respond with nothing again, I won't abuse you now that I know.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Well I'm glad to finally see what you look like, sorry I've been so hard on you Frank truly I am...
> I don't want to seem like you have a mental disability though because I truly believe in folks all being treated equally, so I'll ask once again, why no logical or even reasonable response to that info, let alone all the rest I have posted?
> Don't worry Frank its ok if you need to respond with nothing again, I won't abuse you now that I know.


now see i READ that "article". if you think thats proof that UC Davis and Monsanto teamed up with the DEA to make *Powdery Mildew IV The Reckoning!* and unleash it on the world,, youre incredibly high. 


this says youre full of shit: http://www.greens.org/s-r/26/26-14.html


it names names, notably absent from this article : Monsanto, UC Davis and Cannabis. 
it turns out, cannabis was PROPOSED as a possible target crop for the mycoherbicisdes youre talking about but no project has as yet been established, further the coca program (not from Monsanto or UC Davis either) is currently "dormant" which for a Federal program is as close as you can get to "dead', and the opium poippy program is being done by Uzbekistan and the UN NOT the US, NOT Monsanto and NOT UC Davis. 

aww snap.

Edit: and just for swank,, this is what it looks like when somebody who gives a shit writes their sources down:

* Further reading:* 
Sunshine Project web site, http://www.sunshine-project.org/ 
Fungus Considered As a Tool To Kill Coca In Colombia, _New York Times_, 07/06/2000, Vol. 149 Issue 51441, pA1 
_The Covert Biowar Against Drugs In Central Asia_, Dr. John C. K. Daly, http://www.cacianalyst.org/Jan_3_2001/Covert_Biowar.htm 
Fungus Versus Coca  UNDCP and the Biological War on Drugs in Colombia, Martin Jelsma, February 2000. http://www.tni.org/drugs/links/fungus.htm 
_Pleospora fungus. A biological weapon for the drugs war._ James Robbins. Sunday, 1 October, 2000, BBC News Online. http://www.pcpafg.org/news/Afghan_News/Year2000/2000_10_02/ West_funds_anti-opium_fungus.shtml 
Fight the Fungus. _Earth Island Journal_, Autumn 2000, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p20 
Operation eradicate. Kleiner, Kurt. _New Scientist_, 9/11/99, Vol. 163 Issue 2203, p20 
Coca Killer. Kleiner, Kurt. New Scientist, 03/11/2000, Vol. 165 Issue 2229, p5 
Colombia rejects use of fusarium fungus to eradicate illicit crops. _BBC Summary of World Broadcasts_, October 26, 2000 (transcript available in Lexis-Nexis online service; see a local academic library).


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Well I'm glad to finally see what you look like, sorry I've been so hard on you Frank truly I am...
> I don't want to seem like you have a mental disability though because I truly believe in folks all being treated equally, so I'll ask once again, why no logical or even reasonable response to that info, let alone all the rest I have posted?
> Don't worry Frank its ok if you need to respond with nothing again, I won't abuse you now that I know.


Because its a total fantasy, a "what if" piece but ultimately it's nothing but total cock-balls. 

I could post up a whole "cool story" about surviving a zombie apocalypse...but it still doesn't mean the hordes of the undead are clawing at the door. 

Can you name a single strain of GM pathogen that specifically destroys drug plants like coca, opium poppies or cannabis?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Because its a total fantasy, a "what if" piece but ultimately it's nothing but total cock-balls.
> 
> I could post up a whole "cool story" about surviving a zombie apocalypse...but it still doesn't mean the hordes of the undead are clawing at the door.
> 
> Can you name a single strain of GM pathogen that specifically destroys drug plants like coca, opium poppies or cannabis?


psst... just cuz he;'s full of shit doesnt mean it dont exist... 
* 
*http://www.greens.org/s-r/26/26-14.html

even a retarded clock is right once a week or so. i had to search that up myself, since all his sources were garbage. 

in breif: 
*Coca Program:* dead program from the mid 90's, never fully developed, never reached an operational stage, never used, never involved monsanto, never involved UC Davis, never involved cannabis, only coca
*Opium Program: *active at time of writing, in Uzbekistan, run by UN, not monsanto, not UC Davis, not cannabis, not US, Not operational yet. still merely investigative. 
*Cannabis Program:* imaginary.

Edit: also the program is NOT a GMO program, its mould breeding with a highly mutagenic mould variety called Fusarium Oxysporum (leaf wilt) which thrives in wet conditions. it's a plague on careless rose growers and people who hate raking up fallen leaves in the autumn. it would have ZERO effect on cannabis outside the tropics, and less then Zero on indoor cultivators. it would fuck up your berry grape and citrus harvests and would qualify as Biological Warfare under the geneva convention. its a pipe dream cooked up by a couple buttfrustrated DEA agents.

in other words:

*NOBODY TELL ERIC HOLDER!!!!*

Cockbbreath would embrace this like it was a flaccid wilty smegma coated penis and slurp his way to nirvana.

so lets just keep "Agent Green" under our hats.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Dec 30, 2012)

Would the FDA _actually_ independently test any GM cannabis that has been produced for human consumption?

_&#8220;Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.&#8217;s job&#8221; &#8211; Phil Angell, Monsanto&#8217;s director of corporate communications. &#8220;Playing God in the Garden&#8221; New York Times Magazine,October 25, 1998._

The 'erb seems to be working just fine for myself and many of you all _(i assume that's why your here)_ so why change what 'aint broke?

No round up ready cannabis for me thanks....


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> psst... just cuz he;'s full of shit doesnt mean it dont exist...
> *
> *http://www.greens.org/s-r/26/26-14.html
> 
> ...


My apologies, my definition of "existing" in the context of a Government programme involves either working towards a product or having a product ready to deploy. 

Even then you've to weaponise it and find a delivery system which won't kill your beautiful (hypothetical) little micro-creations. 

Its like the people who said we'd be dead 9 days ago, or the people who protested the LHC in CERN before they fired it up, it's sensationalist garbage. 

Btw; referencing exercises, I fucking HATED that in college.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> now see i READ that "article". if you think thats proof that UC Davis and Monsanto teamed up with the DEA to make *Powdery Mildew IV The Reckoning!* and unleash it on the world,, youre incredibly high.
> 
> 
> this says youre full of shit: http://www.greens.org/s-r/26/26-14.html
> ...


Dissenting opinion. Those are all secondary references: news articles and digests of the primary literature. 
I was pleased to notice that there were a few primary references in the wall of text DNAp posted. However, Google is truly no replacement for a good library, and I lament not having one nearby. So i cannot check to see if the conclusions in the posted article are honest or not. cn


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

echelon1k1 said:


> Would the FDA _actually_ independently test any GM cannabis that has been produced for human consumption?
> 
> _&#8220;Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.&#8217;s job&#8221; &#8211; Phil Angell, Monsanto&#8217;s director of corporate communications. &#8220;Playing God in the Garden&#8221; New York Times Magazine,October 25, 1998._
> 
> ...


If they hadn't selectively bred cannabis because "it's not broken, don't fix it" we wouldn't have the awesome "fire" strains that are available today. 

If you don't want GM Cannabis, don't buy it or just grow your own from the million other seedbanks. 

No need to seek a ban on something you won't partake in, is there?

By the say vein (no pun intended), I say even legalise heroin, crack, etc it won't make a damn bit of difference to my life cos I won't partake anyways, would make it cheaper for junkies so maybe less people getting robbed/murdered.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Dissenting opinion. Those are all secondary references: news articles and digests of the primary literature.
> I was pleased to notice that there were a few primary references in the wall of text DNAp posted. However, Google is truly no replacement for a good library, and I lament not having one nearby. So i cannot check to see if the conclusions in the posted article are honest or not. cn


most of the referneces i tried to chase down wound up in deadends 404's or whatchoo talkin bout willis'. 

even the mutability reference in the header is a deadend to a lawn care site. 

the inline citations are dodgey at best, one of them (Doctor 1986) turned out to be a reference to the old yippie pot growing book "Bush Doctor" and the "citation" has to do with long standing myco problems in hydroponic systems, and NOTHING to do with any government plot to manufacture dope strangling mutant mushrooms, despite how it is portrayed. 

theres no mention of any of the shit mentioned in the "citation" in "Bush Doctor" 

heres the citation im talking about from the footer:

*[SIZE=-1]Doctor B. 1986. Interview with John McEno. Sinsemilla Tips 6(1):33-34, 84-85.[/SIZE] 

*and here it is in the context:
*"While researchers around the globe attacked the pathogens of poppies and hemp, US-funded scientists reversed the strategy&#8212;they attacked poppies and hemp with the same pathogens (Doctor 1986)."

*nothing like this is found in "Bush Doctor"*, *it appears to be a case of citation inflation.

Or the source is referencing the well known scholarly compendium published in 1978 by the eminent Peter Tosh *PHD, which was also entitled "Bush Doctor", featuring a variety of well source Dub Jams, including the oft cited "Dem Ha Fe Get a Beatin" (Bush Doctor, 197, though i generally prefer his later work including his seminal essay on the medicinal value of cannabis Reggaemyillitis. (Wanted Dread or Alive, 1981) and of course the unforgettable "Legalize It" (Legalize It, 1975)

*Pretty High Dude

Of course one cannot discuss these early works without also citing the most recent efforts made by the top Reggae Experts , like Steel Pulse (Steppin Out 197 Pato Banton (Dont Sniff Coke, 1991)

[video=youtube;9lP_APoRNiY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lP_APoRNiY[/video]


as well as the great Rod and the I-Deals (Life In the Hills, 1997)


see how by adding inline citations you can make anything look well researched?


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> most of the referneces i tried to chase down wound up in deadends 404's or whatchoo talkin bout willis'.
> 
> even the mutability reference in the header is a deadend to a lawn care site.
> 
> ...


In lay-mans terms; it's a load of twat-waffle-cock-swaggle.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> In lay-mans terms; it's a load of twat-waffle-cock-swaggle.


maybe. maybe its just a shitty writer trying to make his shit look "well sourced" and hoping that nobody chases down his shit and fins old yippie dope grower books from the mid 80's which they still have on their bookshelf, with NO correlation to the subject at hand. 

unless the feds are secretly trying to genetically engineer Hydroponic Root Slime into something akin to a 12 Hit Die Gelatinous Cube, you know, for dungeon maintenance. 

pity the slow moving adventurers


----------



## kelly4 (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> In lay-mans terms; it's a load of twat-waffle-cock-swaggle.


Or as everyone else calls it... a HARREKIN.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

kelly4 said:


> Or as everyone else calls it... a HARREKIN.


Weak. 

Its a pity the rest of the discussion is too complicated for you, leave the adults talk, the children are over in T&T.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Dissenting opinion. Those are all secondary references: news articles and digests of the primary literature.
> I was pleased to notice that there were a few primary references in the wall of text DNAp posted. However, Google is truly no replacement for a good library, and I lament not having one nearby. So i cannot check to see if the conclusions in the posted article are honest or not. cn


I wish it were that simple cn, but when some folks started making a stink in the birth of these projects suddenly info on such became harder to find anywhere...
Its called national security and it relates to these posts:


Frank burns said:


> You're an idiot, they'd be hailed as heros by the "drugs are bad" crowd if they not only revealed but used pathogens to wipe out "the bold drug plants".
> 
> Again, anything to back up your bat-shit crazy assertions?





me said:


> I'm thinking you are probably incorrect as with most of your assertions and which is some what exampled with gov's paraquat program in the 70's and the immense public outcry that stopped the program.
> Also that was before states started 'dealing' with cannabis laws on their own such as cali etc, and your making the argument that there would be less outcry now over an even more serious threat to cannabis and the health of those who partake?
> "anything to back up your bat-shit crazy assertions?"


----------



## echelon1k1 (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> If they hadn't selectively bred cannabis because "it's not broken, don't fix it" we wouldn't have the awesome "fire" strains that are available today.
> 
> If you don't want GM Cannabis, don't buy it or just grow your own from the million other seedbanks.
> 
> ...


Selective breeding of strains by and for MJ lovers is one thing. We know there is medicinal & recreational value in it. We'd like someone else to experience the taste, smell, high etc... of a particular strain.

On the other hand;

Monsanto GM' the shit outta cannabis is something else. They cannot prove their products are safe and the FDA can't / won't say otherwise. Why would anyone expect differently with pot?

Remember when tobacco companies said ciggarettes were safe? That didn't turn out to well for them.

James Hardie told similar stories about asbestos. That too didn't turn out to well.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> In lay-mans terms; it's a load of twat-waffle-cock-swaggle.


Frank this is no time to boast about your family reunions! for goodness sake man we are under genetic attack...and they want the cannabis!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgBEhnZCJKc


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

echelon1k1 said:


> Selective breeding of strains by and for MJ lovers is one thing. We know there is medicinal & recreational value in it. We'd like someone else to experience the taste, smell, high etc... of a particular strain.
> 
> On the other hand;
> 
> ...


Again, you don't have to consume GM cannabis. 

Id be supportive of regulations related to labelling of GM cannabis so people have a choice, but the Bill in the OP as presented makes it illegal for GMO's of ALL kinds to even "exist" in California on the basis that it "might" be dangerous. 

Lets ban cars, guns, painkillers, etc too because they "might" be dangerous. 

DNAprotection; couldn't you at least do your "do gooder" thing about something that is a real, modern day crisis like the overprescription of antibiotics? Bioengineering is the future, trying to ban it will massively slow our species' advancement.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Frank Burns said:


> DNAprotection; couldn't you at least do your "do gooder" thing about something that is a real, modern day crisis like the overprescription of antibiotics? Bioengineering is the future, trying to ban it will massively slow our species' advancement.


Helping your family can't be my only mission in life Frank, I must think of others as well.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Helping your family can't be my only mission in life Frank, I must think of others as well.


Can you actually address any of the points at all?

"We're under genetic attack". 

You're a window licker, good luck selling your bullshit to the scientific community.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Again, you don't have to consume GM cannabis.
> 
> Id be supportive of regulations related to labelling of GM cannabis so people have a choice, but the Bill in the OP as presented makes it illegal for GMO's of ALL kinds to even "exist" in California on the basis that it "might" be dangerous.
> 
> ...


+rep for the bolded. cn


----------



## echelon1k1 (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Again, you don't have to consume GM cannabis.
> 
> Id be supportive of regulations related to labelling of GM cannabis so people have a choice, but the Bill in the OP as presented makes it illegal for GMO's of ALL kinds to even "exist" in California on the basis that it "might" be dangerous.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't but with no labelling required, as yet, how could I choose not to consume GM products?

If offered, free GM food, with the stipulation, it is all you consumed for 3 months - Only GM fruit, vegetables, that includes bi-products like bread etc... Would you?

I would be keen to see how you were feeling after the fisrt 2 weeks...


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

echelon1k1 said:


> I wouldn't but with no labelling required, as yet, how could I choose not to consume GM products?
> 
> If offered, free GM food, with the stipulation, it is all you consumed for 3 months - Only GM fruit, vegetables, that includes bi-products like bread etc... Would you?
> 
> I would be keen to see how you were feeling after the fisrt 2 weeks...


GM food doesn't require labelling in the EU anymore, I probably consume at least some GM food daily. 

Im healthy as fuck.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Frank Burns said:


> Weak.
> 
> Its a pity the rest of the discussion is too complicated for you, leave the adults talk, the children are over in T&T.



Frank, that's like the definition of the pot calling the kettle black...and did you ever see that geico commercial where the flying pig = me (in air plane) is responding to what the stewardess just said?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-r4Z1K_LDc


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Frank, that's like the definition of the pot calling the kettle black...and did you ever see that geico commercial where the flying pig = me (in air plane) is responding to what the stewardess just said?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-r4Z1K_LDc


I'm pretty much done with your horseshit agenda and your horseshit bill. 

If you can't even honestly discuss the bill YOU'RE FUCKING LOBBYING FOR then you've completely failed and this thread is a waste if inter-ma-net space. 

Had you actually discussed it you may have changed people's minds whereas your EXTREMELY poor and dishonest attempt at presenting it probably harmed your cause.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> GM food doesn't require labelling in the EU anymore, I probably consume at least some GM food daily.
> 
> Im healthy as fuck.


http://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food_legislation/gmos/labelling_of_gm_food.html


> Labelling of GM Food
> Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 sets out specific labelling requirements for GM foods which are to be delivered as such to the final consumer or mass caterers and which:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> http://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food_legislation/gmos/labelling_of_gm_food.html
> [/LIST]


I'm nearly sure that regulation expired and wasn't renewed, I'll Google it again when Iv my laptop, researching things on a tiny touchscreen with no keyboard is difficult to say the least.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 30, 2012)

Frank Burns said:


> I'm pretty much done with your horseshit agenda and your horseshit bill.
> 
> If you can't even honestly discuss the bill YOU'RE FUCKING LOBBYING FOR then you've completely failed and this thread is a waste if inter-ma-net space.
> 
> Had you actually discussed it you may have changed people's minds whereas your EXTREMELY poor and dishonest attempt at presenting it probably harmed your cause.


That was my first approach Frank, but it didn't seem to acclimated to the environment reg army pps like you want to live in, so now you've just been used like a tampon in effort to get folks to view the Act proposal, and by the view count its going swimmingly and i urge you to keep on stroken...there has also been an increase in the margin of folks against GMO cannabis on the poll here ever since you've been posting, so thanks Frank and come again anytime...
in fond memory of Frank:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FevVfmog4JA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8Eet_ZsGu8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8BcRTassOs


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> That was my first approach Frank, but it didn't seem to acclimated to the environment reg army pps like you want to live in, so now you've just been used like a tampon in effort to get folks to view the Act proposal, and by the view count its going swimmingly and i urge you to keep on stroken...there has also been an increase in the margin of folks against GMO cannabis on the poll here ever since you've been posting, so thanks Frank and come again anytime...
> in fond memory of Frank:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FevVfmog4JA
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8Eet_ZsGu8
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8BcRTassOs


It's only as Act when it's passed and becomes law. 

What you presented was a Bill, and that's all it'll ever be cos it's fuck-tarded. 

Do you actually understand anything?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Dec 30, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> GM food doesn't require labelling in the EU anymore, I probably consume at least some GM food daily.
> 
> Im healthy as fuck.


It still requires labelling - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:268:0024:0028:EN:PDF


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 31, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Can you actually address any of the points at all?
> 
> "We're under genetic attack".
> 
> You're a window licker, good luck selling your bullshit to the scientific community.


That's not how the world works.

Lawyers, judges and politicians are all he needs to impress.

CP/M lost it's IP theft case because DOS uses c:/ by default, while CP/M used a:/. That was enough of a difference to determine DOS was an original idea.

All you need to do is hope the judge is a Ninja Turtle fan, and show him Tokka and Rahzar. Or if you eat slimey mutanagenic spinach, criminals can become Super Shredder.

Think of the planet, dude! Do you really want mutants? There is already talk the Newtown killer was a mutant. If we can prove he ate GMO tofu, Monsanto needs to change careers.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

echelon1k1 said:


> It still requires labelling - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:268:0024:0028:EN:PDF


Cheers man, must've been something else similar. 

DNAprotection: Interestingly, it seems this year California rejected Proposition 37 which would have required the labelling of GM food. 

If they don't even want it labelled, why in fuck would they want all GMOs banned outright?

Good luck shithead, maybe make your references harder to look up next time...just so anyone who chooses to look can't see you're a complete bullshitter.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 31, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Cheers man, must've been something else similar.
> 
> DNAprotection: Interestingly, it seems this year California rejected Proposition 37 which would have required the labelling of GM food.
> 
> ...



What you say is a lie. Prop 37 was worded in such a way as to confuse people even more.

That's because prop 37 was a scam to eliminate healthy foods. You'd have no way to identify GMO from milled wheat, for example. Monsanto could then sue mom and pop sellers for selling "unnatural" bread, since ALL bread would be considered unnatural as bread using GMO corn syrup.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> What you say is a lie. Prop 37 was worded in such a way as to confuse people even more.
> 
> That's because prop 37 was a scam to eliminate healthy foods. You'd have no way to identify GMO from milled wheat, for example. Monsanto could then sue mom and pop sellers for selling "unnatural" bread, since ALL bread would be considered unnatural as bread using GMO corn syrup.


Oh Im not lying my rabbit fucking friend...



Prop 37 Wording said:


> Section 2 of Proposition 37, "Statement of Purpose": The purpose of this measure is to create and enforce the fundamental right of the people of California to be fully informed about whether the food they purchase and eat is genetically engineered and not misbranded as natural so that they can choose for themselves whether to purchase and eat such foods. It shall be liberally construed to fulfill this purpose.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 31, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Oh Im not lying my rabbit fucking friend...


Did you even read what you quoted? Do you understand English? Maybe it needs to be translated to Gaelic for you.

Notice that, "and not misbranded as natural ?" What is "natural?" Is grinding natural? Is heating with fire natural? 

Does the words mean only GMO is unnatural? Are the phrases GMO separate from "and not misbranded as natural?" The way it's worded is ambiguous and could mean either one. Monsanto has more money than your local health store. They can buy off judges to interpret misbranded natural to include: pasteurized, milled, cooked or other human processing, including machine harvested.

Also, why do you think commercial organic farmers liked prop 37? Because they're altruistic? Fuck no! Organic farming currently bans GMO. If you violate the GMO rules, Uncle Sam sends you to prison to get ass raped by Bubba.

" Exempts
foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally
produced with genetically engineered material; made
from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered
material but not genetically engineered themselves;
processed with or containing only small amounts of
genetically engineered ingredients;"

Holy shit! Organic farmers are exempt from "accidental" or if "small amounts" of GMO are used. What's accidental? If you can prove it was intentional? If less than x% is GMO, it's ok too!

When I grow, I use 1,200 out of 1,000,000 parts chemicals. The other is natural spring water! I'm 99.88% organic!


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Did you even read what you quoted? Do you understand English? Maybe it needs to be translated to Gaelic for you.
> 
> Notice that, "and not misbranded as natural ?" What is "natural?" Is grinding natural? Is heating with fire natural?
> 
> ...


You need another hit of your crack pipe, cos you tweeking bro


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 31, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> You need another hit of your crack pipe, cos you tweeking bro


I'm going to bed. But whenever you post, I think of you here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obnA2cKxhn0

Dude gets you high, all you think about is your fucking gold!


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> I'm going to bed. But whenever you post, I think of you here:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obnA2cKxhn0
> 
> *Dude gets you high, all you think about is your fucking gold!*


You're thinking of Bucks wife. 

Wants pics of those two critters I shot for you btw?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Cheers man, must've been something else similar.
> 
> DNAprotection: Interestingly, it seems this year California rejected Proposition 37 which would have required the labelling of GM food.
> 
> ...


First Frank I must apologize to you and the commune here for my miss use of the quote option, I have become aware that such custom applications are a forum rule violation and therefore I will no longer be using your real name in the quote option.
Second, prop 37, just like all the labeling campaigns, is irreparably flawed in concept as well as presentation.
If you could have seen the oppositions tv spots against prop 37 you might have a better understanding of what I mean.
Even if prop 37 in some way forced a GMO debate to occur (which as I eluded to above, it did not) it also provides the frame work of the 'debate' to be about GMO's in terms of 'good v bad' etc and of course the wonderful delusion that 'people have the right to choose' lol...
The corporate polls told p37's 'upper class deciders' that 'the people' would not vote for a ban on GMO's and that they would vote for labeling and so they went the labeling means nothing road instead.
Mitt Romney also counted on corporate polls and look how far it got him...sometimes its better just to do the right thing no matter the out come Frank...sometimes its simply the struggle itself that tests a humans worth if you will...so do the best you can at whatever you do is the moral of the story Frank, understand?


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> First Frank I must apologize to you and the commune here for my miss use of the quote option, I have become aware that such custom applications are a forum rule violation and therefore I will no longer be using your real name in the quote option.Second, prop 37, just like all the labeling campaigns, is irreparably flawed in concept as well as presentation.If you could have seen the oppositions tv spots against prop 37 you might have a better understanding of what I mean.Even if prop 37 in some way forced a GMO debate to occur (which as I eluded to above, it did not) it also provides the frame work of the 'debate' to be about GMO's in terms of 'good v bad' etc and of course the wonderful delusion that 'people have the right to choose' lol...The corporate polls told p37's 'upper class deciders' that 'the people' would not vote for a ban on GMO's and that they would vote for labeling and so they went the labeling means nothing road instead.Mitt Romney also counted on corporate polls and look how far it got him...sometimes its better just to do the right thing no matter the out come Frank...sometimes its simply the struggle itself that tests a humans worth if you will...so do the best you can at whatever you do is the moral of the story Frank, understand?


That's TOTAL bullshit.


Sun Tzu said:


> If fighting is sure to result in victory, than you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler's bidding.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> That's TOTAL bullshit.


&#8220;The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.&#8221; 
&#8213; Sun Tzu, _ The Art of War 

_&#8220;Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.&#8221; 
&#8213; Sun Tzu, _ The Art of War 

_&#8220;If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself,
you will succumb in every battle&#8221; 
&#8213; Sun Tzu, _ The Art of War, Special Edition 

_&#8220;Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win&#8221; 
&#8213; Sun Tzu, _ The Art of War 

_&#8220;Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.&#8221; 
&#8213; Sun Tzu, _ The Art of War 

_&#8220;Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer&#8221; 
&#8213; Sun Tzu

&#8220;Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.&#8221; 
&#8213; Sun Tzu

&#8220;When strong, avoid them. If of high morale, depress them. Seem humble to fill them with conceit. If at ease, exhaust them. If united, separate them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.&#8221; 
&#8213; Sun Tzu

&#8220;know yourself and you will win all battles&#8221; 
&#8213; Sun Tzu

&#8220;Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.&#8221; 
&#8213; Sun Tzu

&#8220;Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1)
He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (2) He
will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
(3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout
all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take
the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and
is not interfered with by the sovereign.&#8221; 
&#8213; Sun Tzu

&#8220;If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.&#8221; 
&#8213; Sun Tzu

&#8220;To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.&#8221; 
&#8213; Sun Tzu, _ The Art of War 

Need I go on Frank?_


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> &#8220;The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.&#8221;
> &#8213; Sun Tzu, _ The Art of War
> 
> _&#8220;Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.&#8221;
> ...


I quoted that for a reason, which was trying to inform you to give up your losing battle. 

You don't even get context at all, do you?


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> I quoted that for a reason, which was trying to inform you to give up your losing battle.
> 
> You don't even get context at all, do you?


Frank I'm quite aware of the context that results from your mental status filters regurgitating responses reflecting your perception of the discussion, but that only shows that "You don't even get context at all".
The way the Act proposal works is that it seeks to avoid the 'good v bad' GMO debate and instead go to peoples more defined interests such as with here the people clearly in a far majority (not a corporate poll) choose no on GMO cannabis and so might be inclined to support the Act proposal as it would ban such GMO cannabis living in cali.
Now if you get the gears in that mental ability of yours to turn, you might be able to cipher that the same scenario can apply across different demographics such as religions, farmers, environmentalists, the right and the left and so on.
The notion is to preempt the 'good v bad' debate with more core belief kind of questions,
the kind of questions me thinks you might fare well to avoid Frank.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Frank I'm quite aware of the context that results from your mental status filters regurgitating responses reflecting your perception of the discussion, but that only shows that "You don't even get context at all".
> The way the Act proposal works is that it seeks to avoid the 'good v bad' GMO debate and instead go to peoples more defined interests such as with here the people clearly in a far majority (not a corporate poll) choose no on GMO cannabis and so might be inclined to support the Act proposal as it would ban such GMO cannabis living in cali.
> Now if you get the gears in that mental ability of yours to turn, you might be able to cipher that the same scenario can apply across different demographics such as religions, farmers, environmentalists, the right and the left and so on.
> The notion is to preempt the 'good v bad' debate with more core belief kind of questions,
> the kind of questions me thinks you might fare well to avoid Frank.


so your intention is to skip the evidence based good/bad arguement

and rely on the uninformed emotional response to get what your looking for?

and to help that emotional response along you are more than happy about lying in a fear mongering hysterical way?


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 31, 2012)

It's very simple. GMO isn't ready for prime time. Plants have been around over 400 million years. We've been fiddling with their DNA for less than one human generation.

Assume we think GMO is perfected. No one thinks that. But suppose we got to that point. What are the far reaching consequences which will happen maybe hundreds, even thousands of years from now? We have no clue.

That's why we must use extreme caution. To know for sure, it'll take a minimum of several human generations. We shouldn't even have these debates until we think GMO is perfected and we understand the actual mechanics behind the DNA language itself. Not just at the level we're currently at of try and see.

Our current level of GMO is akin to alchemy understanding of chemistry. Yet we think we're bad ass genetic engineers with skills on par with god.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 31, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> It's very simple. GMO isn't ready for prime time. Plants have been around over 400 million years. We've been fiddling with their DNA for less than one human generation.
> 
> Assume we think GMO is perfected. No one thinks that. But suppose we got to that point. What are the far reaching consequences which will happen maybe hundreds, even thousands of years from now? We have no clue.
> 
> ...


considering god doesnt exist we've surpassed even his imaginary skills

nutcases like yourself will NEVER get to a point where you think GMO is ready and as you have nothing to back up your fears its about high time to marginalize you and your ilk while the rest of us get on with progressing naturally with this planet


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> so your intention is to skip the evidence based good/bad arguement
> 
> and rely on the uninformed emotional response to get what your looking for?
> 
> and to help that emotional response along you are more than happy about lying in a fear mongering hysterical way?


No ginja not at all, the first people of this place we now call California (for example) had a better notion of 'who and what we are' than the existing culture, especially when tainted with the 'get the gold' motives that we still have yet to evolve past.
What I'm saying is that we as a species need to slow down long enough to see more clearly and know better what is starring back at us from our mirrors before we do irreparable harm heading off in a direction that unlike your average consumer products where the harm that is done is usually limited to the particular consumers and possibly the investors and so on, this is quite possibly a more permanent and broad reaching type of harm that can possibly result, a result that can effect us all whether we are consumers of the particular 'products' or not.
So the proposal simply seeks to establish the fact that there is an original natural evolutionary track that has gotten us to 'here' and is everywhere one can see or cannot see. Now there is human technology that seeks to create evolutionary tracks that are 'custom' and would/could not normally happen in the original tracks.
The question simply becomes does one want that to be or not to be.
Some have core belief systems that if held consistent (religion/creation etc), one would think they would be in opposition to such rewriting of the 'blue prints' or fingerprint of their perception of 'god'.
Some, like me, think we are just simply not far enough down our natural evolutionary track to even consider trying to 'fool mother nature' if you will.
Others might have other reasons etc...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> No ginja not at all, the first people of this place we now call California (for example) had a better notion of 'who and what we are' than the existing culture, especially when tainted with the 'get the gold' motives that we still have yet to evolve past.
> What I'm saying is that we as a species need to slow down long enough to see more clearly and know better what is starring back at us from our mirrors before we do irreparable harm heading off in a direction that unlike your average consumer products where the harm that is done is usually limited to the particular consumers and possibly the investors and so on, this is quite possibly a more permanent and broad reaching type of harm that can possibly result, a result that can effect us all whether we are consumers of the particular 'products' or not.
> So the proposal simply seeks to establish the fact that there is an original natural evolutionary track that has gotten us to 'here' and is everywhere one can see or cannot see. Now there is human technology that seeks to create evolutionary tracks that are 'custom' and would/could not normally happen in the original tracks.
> The question simply becomes does one want that to be or not to be.
> ...


^^^^special pleading to an emotion response?

your doing exactly what i accused you of

"and rely on the uninformed emotional response to get what your looking for?

and to help that emotional response along you are more than happy about lying in a fear mongering hysterical way? "


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 31, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> considering god doesnt exist we've surpassed even his imaginary skills
> 
> nutcases like yourself will NEVER get to a point where you think GMO is ready and as you have nothing to back up your fears its about high time to marginalize you and your ilk while the rest of us get on with progressing naturally with this planet


Really? If we're so good, why are we fucking with drugs and not go for the money shot of direct gene therapy?

It's because we tried and every time we've failed. Stem cells were supposed to be the holy grail and a GMO short cut. What we've discovered is our body rejects our tampering. 

There was this boy in Russia who was given specific programmed stem cells. Not only did it not work, but the cells ran rampant and caused systematic organ failure within a week.

Do you know god doesn't exist? I'm an atheist, yet I don't know. What exactly is god, really? Isn't it just the process of how life came about? Whether it was god or a natural process, what does it matter if the end result is the same?

We have zero clue about that process. We have zero clue about evolution. All we know about evolution is what has been observed. We don't know the mechanisms behind it. All we know is micro change takes place and no idea how the macro happens.

All we know outside observation is a guess. Those guesses aren't reality, not even close.

When evolution was purposed, we had no idea about DNA. Then we thought all you need to do is change the DNA for magic to happen.

We were wrong. Now we understand DNA needs activation through a process called the epigenetic genome.

What other processes besides DNA, RNA, or epigenes is happening? If we don't know, how can we be sure we're not screwing up that process?

Back in the day Thealamide was given to mothers to get rid of mourning sickness. We had no idea it was chirality causing deformities. Once we figured that out, we had no idea our body converted the safe chiral structure to the unsafe one.

Look at the problems we get ourselves into when we just dive in and do what you say because it's progress.

DNA manipulation is much more complicated chemistry chirality. Yet you want to say let's use GMO and it's progressing us, naturally? The fuck?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 31, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Really? If we're so good, why are we fucking with drugs and not go for the money shot of direct gene therapy?
> 
> It's because we tried and every time we've failed. Stem cells were supposed to be the holy grail and a GMO short cut. What we've discovered is our body rejects our tampering.
> 
> ...


ahh a bit of frothy to go with my coffee


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 31, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> ahh a bit of frothy to go with my coffee


I have no idea what dangers GMO really cause. But neither do you. Let's assume those dangers are low. Even so, I'd rather be wrong bad will happen than hope the bad won't.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Really? If we're so good, why are we fucking with drugs and not go for the money shot of direct gene therapy?
> 
> It's because we tried and every time we've failed. Stem cells were supposed to be the holy grail and a GMO short cut. What we've discovered is our body rejects our tampering.
> 
> ...


You seriously need to stop the meth/crack/whatever that clearly non-weed substance you're smoking is. 

Are you aware that stem cells by very definition are "unprogrammed"?

Are you aware that they called stem cells because they're undifferentiated cells that all other cells "stem" from?

The Anti-GM crowd really are fucking nuts.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> ^^^^special pleading to an emotion response?
> 
> your doing exactly what i accused you of
> 
> ...


Oh for goodness sake ginja you and a few others are the only ones 'mongering' in any way here lol...
I'm simply posing a question that probably needs to be posed and because even the anti GMO crowd has been corporately co-opted in their upper ranks, if I wasn't posing it here (me = horton) then who would be?
Your accusation of 'lying' is based on a mistyped description of where I live in terms of one word missing from my description of the lake here, and a statement I made about past native population numbers based on the 'destroyed' peoples version rather than the destroyers version, that's a fairly weak excuse for accusing of 'lying' don't ya think?
Nowhere here have I lied about anything ginja, but I understand how your brain has been conditioned to respond in such a way to things you don't understand.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh for goodness sake ginja you and a few others are the only ones 'mongering' in any way here lol...
> I'm simply posing a question that probably needs to be posed and because even the anti GMO crowd has been corporately co-opted in their upper ranks, if I wasn't posing it here (me = horton) then who would be?
> Your accusation of 'lying' is based on a mistyped description of where I live in terms of one word missing from my description of the lake here, and a statement I made about past native population numbers based on the 'destroyed' peoples version rather than the destroyers version, that's a fairly weak excuse for accusing of 'lying' don't ya think?
> Nowhere here have I lied about anything ginja, but I understand how your brain has been conditioned to respond in such a way to things you don't understand.


you have repeated lied about whats going on in the GMO world

you have repeated lied about the "evidence" that you brought here to back up the above lies

you are lying about your intentions when you claim that your trying to circumnavigate the evidence based good/bad argument in lieu of the emotional based pleading


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

What do you people actually think Genetic Modification ACTUALLY involves? 

Genes are just arrangements of 4 molecules whose SOLE job is to build proteins and perform mitosis/meiosis...then the cell dies. 

Seriously, people arnt going to just start randomly exploding someday. 

The bullshit within this whole subject is TREMENDOUS, I'm not writing an essay to explain how it all works because it's basic "high school" biology but this whole "ManBearPig" fucking lunacy surrounding it CANNOT rationally occur. 

The changes we (by we, I mean humanity) make are so tiny to the overall genome of any organism are so infinitesimally small and *extremely* highly controlled. Sure, some "evil dude" cos do some massively heinous evil shit...but Im fairly sure Dr Evil doesn't follow the law anyways so...yeah. 

Again, good luck selling your bullshit "Bill" to anyone who knows vaguely anything about the content or accompanying "sky is falling" appeal to emotion. 

Its about as rational and sane as the notion that cannabis should be illegal cos its dangerous and makes "the negros look at white women twice...and it makes the WHITE WOMEN LOOK BACK!!!". 

Courtesy of Harry "Sucker of Satans Cock" Anslinger.


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 31, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> considering god doesnt exist we've surpassed even his imaginary skills
> 
> nutcases like yourself will NEVER get to a point where you think GMO is ready and as you have nothing to back up your fears its about high time to marginalize you and your ilk while the rest of us get on with _*progressing naturally*_ with this planet


It's all natural, the Earth will win in the end, just like Mars.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> you have repeated lied about whats going on in the GMO world
> 
> you have repeated lied about the "evidence" that you brought here to back up the above lies
> 
> you are lying about your intentions when you claim that your trying to circumnavigate the evidence based good/bad argument in lieu of the emotional based pleading


Ginja all your inept conclusions are backed with nothing, and though 'nothing' is also part of nature, it doesn't hold much water shall we say like maybe the glass jar I'm guessing you live in (or were born from) does.
I have heard of turtles that got into the sewer and were mutated from some sort of GMO I think and I recall that possibly they were called 'ginjaturtles'? Is that your clan? It would explain some things...you might do well to go back and have a long talk with your sensei.


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 31, 2012)

I would feel better about fucking with nature, once they show some responsibility, but until they can round up the frogs they introduced in Australia it's just reckless abondon.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 31, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> You seriously need to stop the meth/crack/whatever that clearly non-weed substance you're smoking is.
> 
> Are you aware that stem cells by very definition are "unprogrammed"?
> 
> ...


We program the stem cells from scratch? Damn we're good.

If so, we knew what we were doing and killed that Russian kid on purpose.

That's just evil!


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Ginja all your inept conclusions are backed with nothing, and though 'nothing' is also part of nature, it doesn't hold much water shall we say like maybe the glass jar I'm guessing you live in (or were born from) does.
> I have heard of turtles that got into the sewer and were mutated from some sort of GMO I think and I recall that possibly they were called 'ginjaturtles'? Is that your clan? It would explain some things...you might do well to go back and have a long talk with your sensei.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Ginja all your inept conclusions are backed with nothing, and though 'nothing' is also part of nature, it doesn't hold much water shall we say like maybe the glass jar I'm guessing you live in (or were born from) does.
> I have heard of turtles that got into the sewer and were mutated from some sort of GMO I think and I recall that possibly they were called 'ginjaturtles'? Is that your clan? It would explain some things...you might do well to go back and have a long talk with your sensei.


what claims have i made in this thread other than "your full of shit" or "your lying thru your teeth"?

you have been asked to show evidence that backs up what you say and instead you have lied and posted links that say nothing to back you up


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> We program the stem cells from scratch? Damn we're good.
> 
> If so, we knew what we were doing and killed that Russian kid on purpose.
> 
> That's just evil!


You know stem cells can be harvested and cloned from a patients own bone marrow?

Pray, do tell good sir...why would the body reject its own cells? Containing the exact same genetic material?

Stem cells are THE future. 

"What'll it be today sir?"

"Well the ticker is getting a bit old, can you grow me a new one then Ill come back in a few weeks?"

"No problem sir, Interstellar Credits or Card?" 

Eventually, it'll be cheaper than modern day getting your car serviced.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 31, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> What do you people actually think Genetic Modification ACTUALLY involves?
> 
> *Genes are just arrangements of 4 molecules whose SOLE job is to build proteins and perform mitosis/meiosis*...then the cell dies.
> 
> ...


The bolded is obsolete. DNA base methylation imposes a new data layer whose mechanisms aren't as neat&tidy as DNA transcription. This new epigenetic layer screws the simple concept of genetic information we learned in school. cn


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> The bolded is obsolete. DNA base methylation imposes a new data layer whose mechanisms aren't as neat&tidy as DNA transcription. This new epigenetic layer screws the simple concept of genetic information we learned in school. cn


Link me up brother, Iv read nothing of that sort in quite a while, it's time to update obviously.

EDIT: People still arnt going to start randomly exploding tho


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 31, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> What do you people actually think Genetic Modification ACTUALLY involves?
> 
> Genes are just arrangements of 4 molecules whose SOLE job is to build proteins and perform mitosis/meiosis...then the cell dies.
> 
> ...


It's a couple years old so I apologize if you have already seen it.
[video=youtube;ovV7v2XYJAI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovV7v2XYJAI[/video]


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 31, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Link me up brother, Iv read nothing of that sort in quite a while, it's time to update obviously.
> 
> EDIT: People still arnt going to start randomly exploding tho



This isn't much but it's a start. 

It also sheds some light on what's missing from stem cell therapies. When our bodies were young, we produced transient hormone gradients that regulated the growth and cell population sof our organs. In adult bodies, we don't make those regulatory molecules. Stem cells arrive on the scene without instructions. To use them properly, we'll need to relly understand the epigenome as well as the just-plain genome. cn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 31, 2012)

Grandpapy said:


> I would feel better about fucking with nature, once they show some responsibility, but until they can round up the frogs they introduced in Australia it's just reckless abondon.


Their plan would've worked had it been a GMO frog.

Just like those Africanized bees from Brazil. GMO would've removed their aggression. Like no stinger. 

The other problem is both those nations are backwards nations. If it was conducted in Japan and with GMO, these would be hailed a success.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

Grandpapy said:


> It's a couple years old so I apologize if you have already seen it.
> [video]http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_question_bio_engineer ing.html[/video]


Who gets to decide how much we're to limit (ultimately, holy grail style) our evolutionary advancement on the basis of the divided ethics of "now"?

The ethical discussion is and will be difficult, I suppose it really depends on what you think the risk/reward ratio is, which at the minute is entirely subjective, because neither side is currently quantifiable. 

One thing is for sure, it'll be interesting to see that discussion considering the polarisation that currently exists on both sides. 

I do see us throwing away a HUGE opportunity in this technology tho if its abandoned prematurely.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 31, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> This isn't much but it's a start.
> 
> It also sheds some light on what's missing from stem cell therapies. When our bodies were young, we produced transient hormone gradients that regulated the growth and cell population sof our organs. In adult bodies, we don't make those regulatory molecules. Stem cells arrive on the scene without instructions. To use them properly, we'll need to relly understand the epigenome as well as the just-plain genome. cn
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics


You're telling me stem cells alone aren't the golden ticket? You just crushed a poor leprechaun's world. What's next, you gonna tell him Santa ain't real?


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> No ginja not at all, the first people of this place we now call California (for example) had a better notion of 'who and what we are' than the existing culture, especially when tainted with the 'get the gold' motives that we still have yet to evolve past.
> What I'm saying is that we as a species need to slow down long enough to see more clearly and know better what is starring back at us from our mirrors before we do irreparable harm heading off in a direction that unlike your average consumer products where the harm that is done is usually limited to the particular consumers and possibly the investors and so on, this is quite possibly a more permanent and broad reaching type of harm that can possibly result, a result that can effect us all whether we are consumers of the particular 'products' or not.
> So the proposal simply seeks to establish the fact that there is an original natural evolutionary track that has gotten us to 'here' and is everywhere one can see or cannot see. Now there is human technology that seeks to create evolutionary tracks that are 'custom' and would/could not normally happen in the original tracks.
> The question simply becomes does one want that to be or not to be.
> ...


My main beef with this is that you are declaring "natural" (without artifice) to be "better". And the closest you come to justifying this is an oblique mention of religion. This is not in line with it being "all about the numbers", since the numbers do not make such judgments of doctrine. cn


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 31, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Who gets to decide how much we're to limit (ultimately, holy grail style) our evolutionary advancement on the basis of the divided ethics of "now"?
> 
> The ethical discussion is and will be difficult, I suppose it really depends on what you think the risk/reward ratio is, which at the minute is entirely subjective, because neither side is currently quantifiable.
> 
> ...


I agree, this knowledge will be needed, and soon if we don't curb the population growth, I just feel the lab shouldn't be backyard Kansas, or profit the motive.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> what claims have i made in this thread other than "your full of shit" or "your lying thru your teeth"?
> 
> you have been asked to show evidence that backs up what you say and instead you have lied and posted links that say nothing to back you up


To the contrary turtlewarrior' you've only claimed that I have 'lied', you have not backed that up with anything.
I have only presented things for your consideration and your only response always is limited to the likes of this "your full of shit" or "your lying thru your teeth", but never any substance.
If your so respectful of what you call 'evidence' then why haven't you presented any that might present a different or give any reason whatsoever for a different conclusion or view from mine and that which I have presented?
I'm not here to 'prove' anything to you tw, I'm only here to present a circumstance that I feel deserves peoples attention and consideration and that I feel people deserve and have the right to consider.
It is always the Franks and the keen dr's and the tw's of the world that try to keep folks from thinking, for me humans thinking is a wonderful thing even if one needs to display the thinking of the Franks and keen dr's and dd's and tw's of the world to induce critical thinking in others.


----------



## Grandpapy (Dec 31, 2012)

If we we're to advertize like the Auto industry, but with lower birth rates, free vasectomy, tubes ties, voluntary suicide ect., would we even need GMO?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> To the contrary turtlewarrior' you've only claimed that I have 'lied', you have not backed that up with anything.
> I have only presented things for your consideration and your only response always is limited to the likes of this "your full of shit" or "your lying thru your teeth", but never any substance.
> If your so respectful of what you call 'evidence' then why haven't you presented any that might present a different or give any reason whatsoever for a different conclusion or view from mine and that which I have presented?
> I'm not here to 'prove' anything to you tw, I'm only here to present a circumstance that I feel deserves peoples attention and consideration and that I feel people deserve and have the right to consider.
> It is always the Franks and the keen dr's and the tw's of the world that try to keep folks from thinking, for me humans thinking is a wonderful thing even if one needs to display the thinking of the Franks and keen dr's and dd's and tw's of the world to induce critical thinking in others.


you say "monsanto & uc davis are plotting to kill cannabis and breed the only legal weed"
i say "wheres your evidence"
you post bullshit and claim it backs you up
i look and bullshit and call you a liar

i demand that people think and that they dont fall for bullshit special pleading emotional arguments like the shit your trying to pull here


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> My main beef with this is that you are declaring "natural" (without artifice) to be "better". And the closest you come to justifying this is an oblique mention of religion. This is not in line with it being "all about the numbers", since the numbers do not make such judgments of doctrine. cn


What I think your missing from your view of my perspective is that I trust 'the numbers' = my perception of a natural evolutionary track = unspliced other than by the natural abilities of procreation minus biotech gene splicing, that got us this far to get us a little bit further before we start messing with the basic frame work of the giant equation in ways that were not possible by us before now...I currently trust 'the numbers' more than I trust humans to 'add up' the numbers correctly' at this point in our evolution.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> you say "monsanto & uc davis are plotting to kill cannabis and breed the only legal weed"
> i say "wheres your evidence"
> you post bullshit and claim it backs you up
> i look and bullshit and call you a liar
> ...


Tw you are again quite incorrect, its the gov that contracted for the fungal pathogens, the universities and corporate interests simply were contracted to help do the work.
After that I simply posed the question about what would a corporation do with the genetic maps that resulted from such work, and my guess is that they would use them in the GMO process which results in unique patentable DNA sequencing...while you on the other hand 'think' (I used that word loosely) that calling someone a 'liar' is a sufficiently thoughtful response...


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> What I think your missing from your view of my perspective is that I trust 'the numbers' = *my perception* of a natural evolutionary track = unspliced other than by the natural abilities of procreation minus biotech gene splicing, that got us this far to get us a little bit further before we start messing with* the basic frame work of the giant equation* in ways that were not possible by us before now...I currently trust 'the numbers' more than I trust humans to 'add up' the numbers correctly' at this point in our evolution.


To me, the bolded is not about numbers but a sort of mystical perception. And one of the basic features of mysticism is the sense of moral communication ... a revelation of right/wrong. Jmo. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> To me, the bolded is not about numbers but a sort of mystical perception. And one of the basic features of mysticism is the sense of moral communication ... a revelation of right/wrong. Jmo. cn


I can definitely understand what your saying cn as well as how one might see it that way, but its not really like that for me...its more like gravity, you can count on it, I don't know that I'm yet ready enough to count on human judgements and the motives behind such at this point. Not mysticism, just 'playing the odds', much the same way a genetic engineer would because that's the best they can do at this point.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> I can definitely understand what your saying cn as well as how one might see it that way, but its not really like that for me...its more like gravity, you can count on it, I don't know that I'm yet ready enough to count on human judgements and the motives behind such at this point. Not mysticism, just 'playing the odds', much the same way a genetic engineer would because that's the best they can do at this point.


Our perception of "the odds" is heavily influenced by our premises. I am getting an irreducible sense from your writings to date that exceeds "natural = safe; artificial = dangerous" and enters "natural = right; artificial = wrong" territory. 
I am operating from the premise that we are nature and thus exempt from this sort of dichotomy. 

I think it's possible that the birth and infancy of a technical species like ours is more than a planetary surface can easily handle. It involves a mass extinction at the very least. A that point I could posit a moral duty to get our industrialized asses off the mother rock. Engineering ourselves for the new environment will be a key to making it. Spacy thoughts for a lazy New Year's Eve. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> My main beef with this is that you are declaring "natural" (without artifice) to be "better". And the closest you come to justifying this is an oblique mention of religion. This is not in line with it being "all about the numbers", since the numbers do not make such judgments of doctrine. cn


Exactly cn<3
The numbers or (for the sake of the discussion) the naturals numbers are indiscriminate and lacking the chains and anchors that currently our species is still struggling to evolve through which taints our judgements with judgements no matter what probably insufficient data the judgements are based on, not to mention the basic un'yet resolved traits of greed = hunt and kill for gold and the born prejudice that is usually hand in hand to help justify the means to the end.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Tw you are again quite incorrect, its the gov that contracted for the fungal pathogens, the universities and corporate interests simply were contracted to help do the work.
> After that I simply posed the question about what would a corporation do with the genetic maps that resulted from such work, and my guess is that they would use them in the GMO process which results in unique patentable DNA sequencing...while you on the other hand 'think' (I used that word loosely) that calling someone a 'liar' is a sufficiently thoughtful response...



assertion 1:
*the government contracted certain universities and corporate interests to create "fungal herbicides"*
the government was approached by cats who had an idea for designer fungus for weed control in lawns and whatnot, which had flopped in the market, since nobody with a brain in their head wants to hose their yard with FUNGUS to eliminate dandelions since FUNGUS makes people imagine their yard covered with giant quivering mutated mushrooms instead of a few dandelions peeping up through the lawn. even those in the know didnt weant it, since the hazard is in the nature of fungus. they are independent organisms, when they flourish they flourish like a motherfucker (see previous quivering mutant mushrooms comment) and when they do not flourish they change themselves to find a way to flourish. spraying your lawn with designer fungus that feeds exclusively on dandelions MIGHT work, but if even one minor mutant strain decides Fescue is more delicious than dandelions, now youve got a whole new problem, one that cannot be handled by pulling up a few stray weeds, or even re-sodding. fungus reproduce, and when they reproduce they do it on their own schedule, unlike roundup, Weed B Gone or any of a variety of chemical weed killers which can be used once, and never again, or used regularly at the discretion of the user. once you throw out the fungi, THEY decide when they grow, when they spore and what they kill. fungal weed control is a NON STARTER. so the scientists who researched this shit went looking for other funding to continue their research. since these scientists already think this is a great idea (they are already invested financially, intellectually and emotionally) they still want to pursue it, even just as an exercise. who will they approach with their idea to target and kill specific plants with a persistent fungal infestation making a particular area uninhabitable for that target plant possibly forever? the good people at the DEA. The same guys who though spraying mexico with paraquat defoliant without mentioning this genius idea to mexico... 

assertion 2:
*research into fungal pathogens to kill plants necessarily results in "Genetic Maps"*
the fungal herbicide programs at issue, the ones in the market already and the poroposed dope-killing fungi were NOT GMO fungi, and they did NOT use genetic mapping of plants. youi may be interested to know that Roundup doenst use genetic maps and does not target genetic material, it targets a specific enzyme which some plant do not need, by slipping the "dont need this enzyme" feature into a crop plant you make that new crop plant cultivar largely immune to roundup. the same idea is used in the fungal pathogens. breed the fungus to target a particular and unique feature of a coca plant, and you could eliminate coca production in any area you introduce this fungus. Forever. needless to say the DEA got boners over this idea. its stilll not GMO or genetic engineering. if the plan had gone forward you can bet your asss some enterprising genetecist would be working on fungus resistant coca already. 

assertion 3:
*"Genetic Maps"** are the means by which GMO's are patented 
*GMO's are patented in the same way a railway coupling is patented:_* "this is my idea and my design, this is the existing design, and here is why mine is different..."*_ mapping out a genome doesnt give the mapper a proprietary interest in the organism any more than taking a picture of your neighbor's Toyota lets you claim patent rights over all Corollas 

previous unfounded assertion group 4: (which we have not forgotten)
*UC Davis, Monsanto and the Federal Government hatched a plot to exterminate weed using GMO fungi, so Monsanto could produce the Patent Protected Last Doobie On Earth*
and not a scrap of truth for any of those VERY specific and VERY wrong claims was found.


----------



## kelly4 (Dec 31, 2012)

I think that, like guns, some 'common sense' regulations are needed. 

Regulations are the key, 'common sense' regulations...and everyone will live forever.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Dec 31, 2012)

kelly4 said:


> I think that, like guns, some 'common sense' regulations are needed.
> 
> Regulations are the key, 'common sense' regulations...and everyone will live forever.


You don't need the intelligence of a god to assemble and shoot a gun properly. 

Just ask this guy:


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> assertion 1:*...*
> ...and not a scrap of truth for any of those VERY specific and VERY wrong claims was found.


Doc you remind me of the wind because I can never really see ultimately where your coming from or going to...but also more like the hot air variety that one should probably plug ones nose for.
Maybe some roll playing would be fun for you and me if we must interact here.
How about you be C.F, shouldn't at all be a stretch for ya doc, just be yourself, and I'll play doc S.F...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj-4CKegHLQ

There, that was fun, now check out these two spots and see if it helps you connect a couple more dots?


[PDF] 
[h=3]Control of _Coca_ with a Plant _Pathogenic Fungus_ - Public Policy Press[/h]publicpolicypress.com/Sands_Final_White_Paper.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
provide enough inoculum to cover _Colombia's coca_ growing regions. *...* natural plant _pathogenic fungi_ that are _used_ to selectively attack and kill a target plant *...

*[h=3]cannabisnews.com: _Colombia_ Agrees To Test Herbicide On _Coca_[/h]cannabisnews.com/news/thread6306.shtml
If the _fungus_ is found in _Colombian_ varieties of _coca_, _Colombian_ scientists would go on to *...* What we want is a program of research--and only research--on the _use_ of *...* to _Colombia_ to _fight_ drug traffickers and the insurgents who protect their trade. *...* working to develop Fusarium _fungus_, plant bacteria and other _pathogens_ to *...*


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> Doc you remind me of the wind because I can never really see ultimately where your coming from or going to...but also more like the hot air variety that one should probably plug ones nose for.
> Maybe some roll playing would be fun for you and me if we must interact here.
> How about you be C.F, shouldn't at all be a stretch for ya doc, just be yourself, and I'll play doc S.F...
> 
> ...


yes. i already PROVED that there was a short lived, ultimately doomed premature abortion of a plan to hose down colombia with fusarium to wipe out coca.it never got off the ground. 

That Plan Did Not Include Monsanto, UC Davis, Or Cannabis. 
I Am Unable To Find Any Proof That There Has Ever Been A Plan To Use Fusarium On Cannabis.
 Nor Have I Found Any Program Between Monsanto And UC Davis To Destroy Cannabis, Much Less Patent It. 

Your claims Are Entirely Wrong, Unsupported, Insupportable (theres a difference) And 100% False. 

Posting More "Proof" Of This Single Halfassed Idiotic, Pie In The Sky, Dimwitted Brainfart Of A Plan To Eliminate Cocaine By Eradicating Coca Proves Nothing 
One Jackoff In The DEA Who Thinks Spraying Deadly Pathogens On Colombia Will End Cocaine Trafficking Doesn't Mean The Idea Was Anything But a Brainfart. Nor Does It Indict Monsanto Or UC Davis Of Plotting To Make Cannabis Extinct. It Certainly Doesn't Prove That They Planned To Patent Weed.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> yes. i already PROVED that there was a short lived, ultimately doomed premature abortion of a plan to hose down colombia with fusarium to wipe out coca.it never got off the ground.
> 
> That Plan Did Not Include Monsanto, UC Davis, Or Cannabis.
> I Am Unable To Find Any Proof That There Has Ever Been A Plan To Use Fusarium On Cannabis.
> ...


As much as your response is good, he's clearly a Bible bashing fuck-wit with his head in the sand. 

We should just let this thread go to page 425, where the rest of the shit threads go to die.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 31, 2012)

yeah but i live in cali, so imma need to see what kind of bullshit the proponents of this waffle will offer so i can shoot em down. 

damn i think im gonn ahve to get my suit out of storage. for some reason nobody takes political advice from a dude in overalls.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> yeah but i live in cali, so imma need to see what kind of bullshit the proponents of this waffle will offer so i can shoot em down.
> 
> damn i think im gonn ahve to get my suit out of storage. for some reason nobody takes political advice from a dude in overalls.


People like DNAprotection, I fucking HATE misguided do-gooders trying to save the world from imaginary bullshit. 

Hes genuinely stupid tho, he just posts the same irrelevant and factually false links and a bunch of ad hominim.

He didn't even blink when I said to campaign for more strict control of antibiotics, which is gonna be a SERIOUS crisis in the next 10 years...a crisis that ironically could potentially be solved by the very Genetic Engineering he's trying to have banned.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> yes. i already PROVED that there was a short lived, ultimately doomed premature abortion of a plan to hose down colombia with fusarium to wipe out coca.it never got off the ground.
> 
> That Plan Did Not Include Monsanto, UC Davis, Or Cannabis.
> I Am Unable To Find Any Proof That There Has Ever Been A Plan To Use Fusarium On Cannabis.
> Nor Have I Found Any Program Between Monsanto And UC Davis To Destroy Cannabis, Much Less Patent It...


The only thing you've really 'proved' is your inability to use your common sense and logic and read between the lines.
These were all antibioterrorism projects done for and funded by the US gov who found early on that most had a bad response to even the notion of such projects even with regards to coca and poppy, but most especially with cannabis, since then the info well has all but dried up and it almost takes being an insider or knowing one to even learn or know anything of the projects due to national security classifications.
I happen to have reach into both categories. 
Whether you believe any of this or not is none of my concern, but I do truly appreciate each and every post you and everyone here makes so don't get yourself sick thinking I don't doc...in fact tonight at the stroke of the new year I will gift every post on this thread with a 'like' as a showing of gratitude and new beginnings and better communications, thinking and understanding in this new year.
Do you think you can support that statement I am alleging CF?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLW_Lldw-gg


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> People like DNAprotection, I fucking HATE misguided do-gooders trying to save the world from imaginary bullshit.
> 
> Hes genuinely stupid tho, he just posts the same irrelevant and factually false links and a bunch of ad hominim.
> 
> He didn't even blink when I said to campaign for more strict control of antibiotics, which is gonna be a SERIOUS crisis in the next 10 years...a crisis that ironically could potentially be solved by the very Genetic Engineering he's trying to have banned.


You should start a thread on that Frank, its a good topic.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 31, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> yeah but i live in cali, so imma need to see what kind of bullshit the proponents of this waffle will offer so i can shoot em down.
> 
> damn i think im gonn ahve to get my suit out of storage. for some reason nobody takes political advice from a dude in overalls.


Oh C.F. lol if you and the other sweat hogs (i can say that cuz ima pig) are in any way representative of the opposition I simply couldn't be more pleased. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkyw_d6X6i0


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> The only thing you've really 'proved' is your inability to use your common sense and logic and read between the lines.
> These were all antibioterrorism projects done for and funded by the US gov who found early on that most had a bad response to even the notion of such projects even with regards to coca and poppy, but most especially with cannabis, since then the info well has all but dried up and it almost takes being an insider or knowing one to even learn or know anything of the projects due to national security classifications.
> I happen to have reach into both categories.
> Whether you believe any of this or not is none of my concern, but I do truly appreciate each and every post you and everyone here makes so don't get yourself sick thinking I don't doc...in fact tonight at the stroke of the new year I will gift every post on this thread with a 'like' as a showing of gratitude and new beginnings and better communications, thinking and understanding in this new year.
> ...









Unfortunately he is Antoine, unfortunately he is...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 31, 2012)

DNAprotection said:


> The only thing you've really 'proved' is your inability to use your common sense and logic and read between the lines.
> These were all antibioterrorism projects done for and funded by the US gov who found early on that most had a bad response to even the notion of such projects even with regards to coca and poppy, but most especially with cannabis, since then the info well has all but dried up and it almost takes being an insider or knowing one to even learn or know anything of the projects due to national security classifications.
> I happen to have reach into both categories.
> Whether you believe any of this or not is none of my concern, but I do truly appreciate each and every post you and everyone here makes so don't get yourself sick thinking I don't doc...in fact tonight at the stroke of the new year I will gift every post on this thread with a 'like' as a showing of gratitude and new beginnings and better communications, thinking and understanding in this new year.
> ...


you havent proved your case vis a vis the GMO= Bad shit apocalypse mutant Attack of the Killer Tomatoes scenarios:
[video=youtube;Wfm3_BMinhg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfm3_BMinhg[/video]

nor have you proved your indictments of Monsanto and UC Davis regarding a plot to use fusarium in what i am choosing to call "Doobie Doomsday"

in fact all the citations and "evidence" you have brought forth sems to prove conclusively that selective breeding is the cause of all the ills you seek to prevent,, and thus, genetic modification would be a solution not a problem. so far nobody has used genetic modification to create anti-biotic resistant flesh eating bacteria, trans-species viruses that kill 3% of the word's population (google "La Grippe" for more information) or viruses from central african monkeys that make you shoot blood from evedry orifice before you die... 

maybe you should tryu banning evolution and natural selection first. i bet that gets some traction without even slandering Monsanto. 

or you could command the seas retreat, and the tides stop their cyling. thats a CLASSIC crazyperson move.






Canute the Great
"King of all England and Denmark and the Norwegians and of some of the Swedes"


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 1, 2013)

If your idea was to be 'liked' extra more, congrats...
but like I said before...


DNAprotection said:


> Oh C.F. lol if you and the other sweat hogs (i can say that cuz ima pig) are in any way representative of the opposition I simply couldn't be more pleased.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkyw_d6X6i0


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 1, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> If your idea was to be 'liked' extra more, congrats...
> but like I said before...


Do we have a sheriff on board?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 1, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Do we have a sheriff on board?


No Frank, I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 1, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Do we have a sheriff on board?


Frank since your out trolling, it might be a good opportunity to try and explain the difference between a "bill" as you keep insisting and a ballot proposition or initiative as is the case with The DNA Protection Act of 2013.
A 'bill' is proposed legislation that is trying to get passed by a vote of any particular legislative body, and if passed by such, it can then be signed into law usually by a Governor or a President or can also be vetoed by the same.
A ballot proposition or initiative or Act proposal is that which is presented directly to the voters and needs no signature by a Governor etc. Of course I'm referring to specifically the cali ballot process where once a ballot measure is passed, no legislative body or executive measure of the state can amend such.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 1, 2013)

Happy New Year RIU...someone 'likes' you all<3


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 1, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> As much as your response is good, he's clearly a Bible bashing fuck-wit with his head in the sand.
> 
> We should just let this thread go to page 425, where the rest of the shit threads go to die.


Frank, that's fine do as you wish, but it seems as though you are truly retreating in defeat as the poll results reflect which are currently 13 votes in your column and 31 for no genetically engineered cannabis.
How about a fun New Years challenge? 
You and your other caged minded brain washed into the notion that 'humans know best' class mates here get with all your friends here and or those who you think would poll in your column, and I will simply write a neutral or unbiased invite for others to come and vote in the poll and I will post it in a few other forums here that seem appropriate for such and lets see how democracy plays out when a more concerted effort is made for participation.

From the numbers as they stand I can understand how your column might fear 'democracy', but just in case you 'believe' in democracy and have confidence in your own views being reasonable to others, the challenge is on the table.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Jan 1, 2013)

So I wake up today and find 24 likes from DNA. I have a dilemma. I don't know if I should feel flattered or get a restraining order.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 1, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> So I wake up today and find 24 likes from DNA. I have a dilemma. I don't know if I should feel flattered or get a restraining order.


lol no just a New Years gift for your participation in the evolution of this human DNA thread...all posts got stars on thars...


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 1, 2013)

lol! Does that explain the traceless Like bombing I found this morning? cn


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 1, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> lol! Does that explain the traceless Like bombing I found this morning? cn


I got 76 new likes from him. 

Its good to see he has nothing better to do than post Bills noone supports (he still can't figure out the whole Bill/Act thing) and sit on his computer "liking" every post like some kind of savant.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 1, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I got 76 new likes from him.
> 
> Its good to see he has nothing better to do than post Bills noone supports (he still can't figure out the whole Bill/Act thing) and sit on his computer "liking" every post like some kind of savant.


Everything is relative and relevant Frank even you, for example some folks like cn and CS got stars because they are special, and some folks got stars because they are special ed...your in the second category Frank...


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 1, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> lol! Does that explain the traceless Like bombing I found this morning? cn


The stars on thars reflect an indiscriminate = 'lack of judgement' lol by the numbers issuance of stars to all who posted here...if I had been gene splicing I might have chosen (not saying I would have) to cut out the distribution of stars to certain posters.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 1, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Everything is relative and relevant Frank even you, for example some folks like cn and CS got stars because they are special, and some folks got stars because they are special ed...your in the second category Frank...


I'm not the one who sat there and liked 45 pages of posts that were calling me stupid...

Just saying.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 1, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Everything is relative and relevant Frank even you, for example some folks like cn and CS got stars because they are special, and some folks got stars because they are special ed...your in the second category Frank...


Ahh, so the people who agreed with you are cool, and the ones that disagreed you ignored their informed and relevant comments and called them stupid? 

I even called a truce on the flaming you to see if you could have an actual discussion, you couldn't. 

Seriously, grow up.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 1, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> The stars on thars reflect an indiscriminate = 'lack of judgement' lol by the numbers issuance of stars to all who posted here...if I had been gene splicing I might have chosen (not saying I would have) to cut out the distribution of stars to certain posters.


Let me explain Like bombing. I woke up with 56 new Likes but only three Liked posts. That means somebody Liked and Unliked a post of mine 53 times. This little maneuver was taught to me by one of this forum's most prolific and creative trolls. 
I will demonstrate, but (as is my nature and calling) in moderation.  cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 1, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Let me explain Like bombing. I woke up with 56 new Likes but only three Liked posts. That means somebody Liked and Unliked a post of mine 53 times. This little maneuver was taught to me by one of this forum's most prolific and creative trolls.
> I will demonstrate, but (as is my nature and calling) in moderation.  cn


Not sure I understand cn?
When I 'liked', I just 'liked' not unliked?


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 1, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Not sure I understand cn?
> When I 'liked', I just 'liked' not unliked?


 That exonerates you. My playful tormentor was another.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 1, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Ahh, so the people who agreed with you are cool, and the ones that disagreed you ignored their informed and relevant comments and called them stupid?
> 
> I even called a truce on the flaming you to see if you could have an actual discussion, you couldn't.
> 
> Seriously, grow up.


Wrong Frank, I can only guess your referring to cn's posts and I have responded in kind to such.
Where in the all of this thread have I ever called anyone 'stupid'? I haven't Frank,
that's a sweat hog debate team tactic and you know that as well as any sweat hog.
Stop crying Frank and take your stars like a man.
Take the poll challenge Frank, I double dare ya lol... 

ps...you called a truce?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 1, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Wrong Frank, I can only guess your referring to cn's posts and I have responded in kind to such.
> Where in the all of this thread have I ever called anyone 'stupid'? I haven't Frank,
> that's a sweat hog debate team tactic and you know that as well as any sweat hog.
> Stop crying Frank and take your stars like a man.
> ...


Yep, I said I'd stop trolling if you'd have an honest discussion, you responded with more of the same so I called it off. 

As Iv said before, I'm done with the topic. 

That leaves me with just this to say... you're retarded.

Btw your poll means shit, if you re-posted it now and people actually read our content before voting I know it would go the other way.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 1, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Yep, I said I'd stop trolling if you'd have an honest discussion, you responded with more of the same so I called it off.
> 
> As Iv said before, I'm done with the topic.
> 
> ...


Frank all you have said to me over and over along with pics lol is stuff like this "you're retarded", so I have responded in kind, just more kind and with humorous intent.
Twice before to be exact is the number of times you claimed you were done here as a fact and look how that panned out Frank.
As far as the poll goes, your very confident Frank so why not just back it up with action?
In terms of what you call a 'truce', I would be more than pleased to discuss with you any topic if that's what you really wanted to do Frank. but you have made clear by your postings that you were just here to play...so I obliged.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jan 1, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> And they thought DDT was a godsend because Monsanto put out deliberately misleading studies indicating it's safety. Kind of just like what's happening today.
> 
> In 99 they were convicted of negligence, outrage, wantonness, nuisance, and trespass as well as ordered to pay 700,000,000 to the residents of Anniston Alabama because they had poisoned the hell out of them with PCBs.
> 
> ...


Despite DD's blatantly dishonest deception, Monsanto was a leader in pro DDT propaganda.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 1, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Despite DD's blatantly dishonest deception, Monsanto was a leader in pro DDT propaganda.


Monsanto has NOTHING TO DO with the Bill posted by the OP, in truth it's a blanket ban on all GMO's for the State of California. 

Dont believe his paranoid hyperbole, he's mis-selling a Bill to suit his personal agenda.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 1, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Despite DD's blatantly dishonest deception, Monsanto was a leader in pro DDT propaganda.


Why would they champion the competition's product? 'Twas Geigy, no? cn


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Jan 1, 2013)

I won't be happy until: natural and artificial flavors, corn syrup, color numbers and added msg (as an extract too), are all banned. Only if used in food.

If this bill was only a ban on GMO for things we ingest(drink, eat, smoke, inject, etc) I'd be 100% for it.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 1, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Monsanto has NOTHING TO DO with the Bill posted by the OP, in truth it's a blanket ban on all GMO's for the State of California.
> 
> Dont believe his paranoid hyperbole, he's mis-selling a Bill to suit his personal agenda.


Frank aside from your showing up again in spite of your pledge as 'fact' that you were not going to do so, and regardless of your usual M.O. and inaccurate assumptions, how in the world could you possibly state that the proposed ballot measure has nothing to do with Monsanto?
That could be the wackiest or most inaccurate thing you've written so far.
I wonder what corporation would be more opposed to this proposal Frank? Maybe the corporation for public broadcasting sounds more plausible to you?
Of course your assertion the proposed measure would be a "blanket ban on all GMO's for the State of California" is again and also inaccurate Frank because of section 3(c)...I thought we already had this talk?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 1, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> I won't be happy until: natural and artificial flavors, corn syrup, color numbers and added msg (as an extract too), are all banned. Only if used in food.
> 
> If this bill was only a ban on GMO for things we ingest(drink, eat, smoke, inject, etc) I'd be 100% for it.


The thing for me though CS is that human health and safety is not my only concern, there are great possible risks of unforeseen consequences to the rest of nature.
When our knowledge and understanding is better, then such technologies might be 'ready for prime time', but at this point we are for the most part guessing all the way, so from my view its better to approach with extreme caution.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 2, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Frank aside from your showing up again in spite of your pledge as 'fact' that you were not going to do so, and regardless of your usual M.O. and inaccurate assumptions, how in the world could you possibly state that the proposed ballot measure has nothing to do with Monsanto?
> That could be the wackiest or most inaccurate thing you've written so far.
> I wonder what corporation would be more opposed to this proposal Frank? Maybe the corporation for public broadcasting sounds more plausible to you?
> Of course your assertion the proposed measure would be a "blanket ban on all GMO's for the State of California" is again and also inaccurate Frank because of section 3(c)...I thought we already had this talk?


You misrepresented the Bill as a way to stop Monsanto gaining Patents on Cannabis Strains.

When in truth it's a total ban* on all GMOs in the State of California. Sure it might potentially effect Monsanto, but they don't even produce cannabis plants or seeds, do they? 

AND even if they did, you Bill would still allow them to patent a strains genetic structure that they cross bred themselves, just they wouldnt be allow genetically modify them. 

Your Bills link to Cannabis is so indirect it doesn't even exist except in your head. 

My best guess, you're an organic farmer or some other vested interest who stands to gain from a ban on GM Food?

CS: Your opinion is meaningless in this, you'd ban anything that comes from an animal too.

*Section C is so restrictive and specifically says "...these regulations will be liberally construed..." making research for medical reasons full of red tape and UNPROFITABLE thus meaning it won't happen.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 2, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> You misrepresented the Bill as a way to stop Monsanto gaining Patents on Cannabis Strains.
> 
> When in truth it's a total ban* on all GMOs in the State of California. Sure it might potentially effect Monsanto, but they don't even produce cannabis plants or seeds, do they?
> 
> ...


Truly Frank I'm beginning to have serious concern for either your eye sight or your ability to understand what your reading?
When did I ever write that the proposed Act in any way would "stop Monsanto gaining Patents on Cannabis Strains"? It didn't happen Frank, only in your wet dreams maybe.
I would never claim that this proposal in ant way stops the Monsanto patenting process because it doesn't.
This to we also covered in a past discussion here when a poster (I think it was you Frank?) said they would support banning the patenting of DNA sequences and why didn't the "bill" do that...and in response I explained exactly why it cannot and why such a law would need to come from the federal congress. 
As far as sec3(c), you are assuming again Frank, I would imagine that most folks would want the controls on research and further I don't think any amount of controls will stop any research in this area whatsoever...it would be like regulating digging at the mother-load gold mine Frank, such could never stop the quest for gold...only humans evolving beyond such notions would ever stop such.
But thanks for being so consistently inconsistent in all that you say and do here Frank, otherwise I would have stopped seeing you here 3 threats back lol...and I'm starting to like seeing you...gives me my first laugh in the morning...kind of like some soldiers use to 'love' the smell of napalm in the morning


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 2, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Why would they champion the competition's product? 'Twas Geigy, no? cn


Just wanted to post this for consideration...(not as 'fact'...for Frank)
*Welcome To The Spin Machine*
By Michael Manville

SNIP

The oldest and most aggressive of the food biotech companies, Monsanto deserves a close look from anyone interested in genetic engineering. It was founded in 1901, as Monsanto Chemical, to make saccharin, a substance whose production was at that time monopolized by Germany. It began as a small concern--the initial investment was $5,000--but grew rapidly and diversified. In 1929 it began to produce polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, and eventually became the world's largest supplier of them. PCBs had a variety of uses, but were used mostly to insulate electrical transformers. Evidence of their toxicity was first reported in the 1930s, and in the 1960s Swedish scientists documented high levels of them in dying wildlife. PCBs were finally banned in 1979, and the United States has classified them as a "probable human carcinogen." PCBs have left a broad legacy of environmental degradation; they are the major pollutant at a number of Superfund sites, and most notoriously in the Hudson River, where years of PCB discharge from General Electric has left 2.6 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment.

Like other chemical companies, Monsanto was also a producer of DDT, the pesticide famously indicted by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring. Monsanto had actually stopped making the pesticide by the time Carson's book was first serialized in the New Yorker, but the company, fearful that public attitudes would turn against pesticides in general, took action nevertheless. Rather than confront Carson's evidence, however, it hired a ghostwriter to pen The Desolate Year, a parody of Silent Spring that depicted a pesticide-free America being ravaged by insects. The Desolate Year was mailed free to over 5,000 media outlets, and applauded by Walter Sullivan in the New York Times.

The late 1960s would bring other problems, however. In the company's 1977 official history, Faith, Hope and $5,000: The Monsanto Story, the author--a former Monsanto PR director--looks back wistfully at the tumult of the sixth decade, and notes with sympathy that while Dow was being castigated for its involvement with napalm, Monsanto had little to do with war-related controversy. The author does concede, however, that the company was "occasionally mentioned as a manufacturer of 2,4,5-T weed and brush killers, some of which were identified as defoliants used during the war in Vietnam."

This sentence could be called disingenuous, or more accurately an astounding act of omission. It is, in truth, an extremely oblique way of saying that Monsanto made Agent Orange. The world's most notorious defoliant is indeed created by combining the herbicides 2,4,5-T and 2,4,D, and frankly Monsanto sells itself short by using such sterile language to describe its product (the sentence I just quoted is the most the book says about AO, and the defoliant is never named). Although a number of corporations made Agent Orange, and all assured the Defense Department that it was perfectly safe for humans, Monsanto's version was significantly more potent than those of its competitors. When a coalition of Vietnam Veterans successfully sued the manufacturers of AO, a judge ordered that Monsanto pay 45.5 percent of the damages, in recognition of its product being so much more heavily laden with dioxins. 

http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.php?id=234


----------



## dabumps (Jan 2, 2013)

I'm pretty sure I've heard they have already done it. What it's going to come down to is when the federal ban on MJ is lifted it will be like the wine industry. There will be the 90% of the U.S. pop that just wants to get high off of what GM super high THC monsonto has created and then there will be your connoisseurs that only smoke non gmo, organic, dirt grown, budskies.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 2, 2013)

dabumps said:


> I'm pretty sure I've heard they have already done it. What it's going to come down to is when the federal ban on MJ is lifted it will be like the wine industry. There will be the 90% of the U.S. pop that just wants to get high off of what GM super high THC monsonto has created and then there will be your connoisseurs that only smoke non gmo, organic, dirt grown, budskies.


Or just as proudly non-GM, hydroponic, synthetic-nute bud. I am not disparaging soil grows but will demand moral parity for the other way, which is also good. cn


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Jan 2, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Or just as proudly non-GM, hydroponic, synthetic-nute bud. I am not disparaging soil grows but will demand moral parity for the other way, which is also good. cn


I have excellent taste. Done properly, there's zero difference between organic and synthetic grown bud.

Sativa is very harsh, no matter how it's grown. My Afghani Kush is just as minty as the best organic. Mine is actually better, hardly any cough. My bud's organic OG always make me cough up a lung.

I have no explanation for this, but pure Afghani actually gives me no paranoia. Yet all OG does.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 2, 2013)

From foreverflyhi...


foreverflyhi said:


> Lol too high to get into that conversation. Interesting topic tho. Read a couple pages, people seem to be either in favor or the complete opposite, barley in between.
> 
> Im a paranoid person when it comes down to GMOs or Monsanto/government. Mix that with weed, FUCK that haha
> 
> I say fuck Monsanto/government/monocultures/GMOs, we need sustainable communities and no government. ANARCHY


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 2, 2013)

My immediate response is "anarchy, ewww". cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 2, 2013)

From mwooten102...



mwooten102 said:


> I dont care as long as the seeds are viable.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 2, 2013)

Why bump quotes without comment or elaboration? cn


----------



## dabumps (Jan 2, 2013)

Well GMOs have been shown to cause cancer in rats and now there bugs "armyworms" that are immune to the GM in the corn and will start to destroy crops world wide. There are reoccuring weeds called "superweeds" and they have adapted to the pesticides (the reason they genetically modify the veggies in the first place) and are having to be treated with heavier and heavier pesticides. If you look into systemic resistance you will see that any chemical you put in or on your plants eventually becomes more or less "part of your plant" so even if you wash your soy and corn it still has pesticides in it. There is no positive side to GMOs. I'm sorry there is one side. A few people get incredibly rich and run a monopoly on our food supply. GMOs are wrong even in a world based on a guilty pleasure such as weed.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 2, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Why bump quotes without comment or elaboration? cn


I guess to simply post others view points to the poll question.
I've come to understand that many folks stay clear of 'politics' in life and in the RIU forum because of the...well lets say S.H.D.T.'s usual banter.

From ProfessorPotSnob...


ProfessorPotSnob said:


> No thanks , I dont fuck with Monsanto gear even in my Vegetable Garden , strictly non GMO and nothing but old school genetics for me in all ways .. I have a feeling that in time we will see much worse than this , the fem Industry is leading the way now ......


From 2d9s...


2d9s said:


> Monsanto is only in for the money and that alones means you're on the low end.
> i'd rather be my own geneticist ...
> : )


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 2, 2013)

dabumps said:


> Well GMOs have been shown to cause cancer in rats and now there bugs "armyworms" that are immune to the GM in the corn and will start to destroy crops world wide. There are reoccuring weeds called "superweeds" and they have adapted to the pesticides (the reason they genetically modify the veggies in the first place) and are having to be treated with heavier and heavier pesticides. If you look into systemic resistance you will see that any chemical you put in or on your plants eventually becomes more or less "part of your plant" so even if you wash your soy and corn it still has pesticides in it. There is no positive side to GMOs. I'm sorry there is one side. A few people get incredibly rich and run a monopoly on our food supply. GMOs are wrong even in a world based on a guilty pleasure such as weed.


I couldn't agree more, and with terminator gene technology readily available and deducing that the best case scenario for Monsanto et al is to monopolize cannabis by way of simply making sure that naturally occurring varieties remain schedule 1 = illegal while GMO varieties are approved as safe by the FDA and federal laws passed to make them available for everything from 'medicine' to industry etc...the future looks grim for cannabis...


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 2, 2013)

dabumps said:


> *Well GMOs have been shown to cause cancer in rats* and now there bugs "armyworms" that are immune to the GM in the corn and will start to destroy crops world wide. There are reoccuring weeds called "superweeds" and they have adapted to the pesticides (the reason they genetically modify the veggies in the first place) and are having to be treated with heavier and heavier pesticides. If you look into systemic resistance you will see that any chemical you put in or on your plants eventually becomes more or less "part of your plant" so even if you wash your soy and corn it still has pesticides in it. There is no positive side to GMOs. I'm sorry there is one side. A few people get incredibly rich and run a monopoly on our food supply. GMOs are wrong even in a world based on a guilty pleasure such as weed.


I have searched for evidence of the claim in the bolded, and found none outside anti-BigAg echo chambers. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 2, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> I guess to simply post others view points to the poll question.
> I've come to understand that many folks stay clear of 'politics' in life and in the RIU forum because of the...well lets say S.H.D.T.'s usual banter.
> 
> From ProfessorPotSnob...
> ...


But as they've already posted, can you convince me that this isn't a sort of spamming? Unless you "add value" with some sort of informative comment, I think you're simply padding your post count. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 2, 2013)

dabumps said:


> Well GMOs have been shown to cause cancer in rats and now there bugs "armyworms" that are immune to the GM in the corn and will start to destroy crops world wide. There are reoccuring weeds called "superweeds" and they have adapted to the pesticides (the reason they genetically modify the veggies in the first place) and are having to be treated with heavier and heavier pesticides. If you look into systemic resistance you will see that any chemical you put in or on your plants eventually becomes more or less "part of your plant" so even if you wash your soy and corn it still has pesticides in it. There is no positive side to GMOs. I'm sorry there is one side. A few people get incredibly rich and run a monopoly on our food supply. GMOs are wrong even in a world based on a guilty pleasure such as weed.


GMO's have NOT been shown to cause cancer in rats, either the study is flawed, or Roundup spiked drinking water is a magic health potion, since the non-GMO roundup dosed "control" group lived longer and was healtheir than the GMO, non GMO and GMO + Roundup groups. 

the studyt was flawed, and not even a study. it was an excuse to take pictures of mice which were GMO's themselves, which were specifically designed to get cancer, when they shockingly enough GOT CANCER. 

all that study proves is, Onco-mice tend to get cancer, no matter what you feed them, but they SEEM to get cancer less when dosed with Glyphosate in their water. 

you dont know shit about agriculture, you know even less about herbicides, and you know nothing at all about how, and why GM organism are created. 

armyworms my ass.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 2, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> GMO's have NOT been shown to cause cancer in rats, either the study is flawed, or Roundup spiked drinking water is a magic health potion, since the non-GMO roundup dosed "control" group lived longer and was healtheir than the GMO, non GMO and GMO + Roundup groups.
> 
> the studyt was flawed, and not even a study. it was an excuse to take pictures of mice which were GMO's themselves, which were specifically designed to get cancer, when they shockingly enough GOT CANCER.
> 
> ...


Let me guess, he'll respond with "Dr you're wrong, GMOs are BAD! Ban them, ban them now! WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 2, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> I couldn't agree more, and with terminator gene technology readily available and deducing that the best case scenario for Monsanto et al is to monopolize cannabis by way of simply making sure that naturally occurring varieties remain schedule 1 = illegal while GMO varieties are approved as safe by the FDA and federal laws passed to make them available for everything from 'medicine' to industry etc...the future looks grim for cannabis...


all this talk about "terminator genes is *Ridonkulous. *

GMO's and Monsanto are not the first group to put out a cultivar that can only be grown from purchased seeds

Triticale failed as a cereal crop for developing nations for just that reason, and it was simply a hybrid. 

the need for cash money to buy seeds prevented any but the wealthy nations' farmers from planting it,, and all things considered wheat was more profitable. 

these days the "wondergrain" triticale is almost exclusively a forage/pasturage crop and even in that capacity, white clover and sorghum are better choices since they self-seed.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 2, 2013)

They fixed all that with quadrotriticale. cn


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 3, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> all this talk about "terminator genes is *Ridonkulous. *
> 
> GMO's and Monsanto are not the first group to put out a cultivar that can only be grown from purchased seeds
> 
> ...


Perhaps this Terminator gene forces people to speak like Austrians, body build and go back in time stealing people's motorcycles?

Other side effects may include; compulsion to run for Governor of California.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 3, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Let me guess, he'll respond with "Dr you're wrong, GMOs are BAD! Ban them, ban them now! WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!


Actually Frank that was one of the keen dr's more coherent posts and I thank him for it, your post here on the other hand is...well its typical for you Frank so you are at par for your course. I wonder if it was this post that got the 'no' on GMO cannabis 8 more votes while the 'yes' vote on such only got 1...was that one vote yours from another account Frank?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Actually Frank that was one of the keen dr's more coherent posts and I thank him for it, your post here on the other hand is...well its typical for you Frank so you are at par for your course. I wonder if it was this post that got the 'no' on GMO cannabis 8 more votes while the 'yes' vote on such only got 1...was that one vote yours from another account Frank?


Freedom to smoke (or not smoke) cannabis/GM cannabis for all!

Why are you such a fucking facist?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Actually Frank that was one of the keen dr's more coherent posts and I thank him for it, your post here on the other hand is...well its typical for you Frank so you are at par for your course. I wonder if it was this post that got the 'no' on GMO cannabis 8 more votes while the 'yes' vote on such only got 1...was that one vote yours from another account Frank?


Btw, your poll is GMO Cannabis? Yes or no. 

Not "ban all GMOs from within the State of California". 

So much fail and you don't even realise.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 3, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Freedom to smoke (or not smoke) cannabis/GM cannabis for all!
> 
> Why are you such a fucking facist?


I love when you show up in the morning Frank...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPXVGQnJm0w

Kilgore: I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 3, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> But as they've already posted, can you convince me that this isn't a sort of spamming? Unless you "add value" with some sort of informative comment, I think you're simply padding your post count. cn


cn, this is the first post of yours that I have found questionable in terms of integrity.
When reading this thread its hard to imagine anyone outside of the 'S.H.D.T' choosing me as the spammer.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> I love when you show up in the morning Frank...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPXVGQnJm0w
> 
> Kilgore: I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...


Reported as spam. 

Address the topic, lady-pants.


----------



## Grandpapy (Jan 3, 2013)

The Chemical Industry is careless and irresponsible. imo.
When my 4 yr old spilled his milk, he tried to clean it up, when he was 5 he would tell me he made a mess, when he was 6, he could do it himself.

Millions of Tax Dollars are spent picking these "job creators" up by their ear, walking them over to the mess and ask " Did you make this mess? Then like the spoiled child, they pout, blame others, and reluctantly face responsibility.

They don't mind defecating in your living room, kitchen or bedroom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_the_United_States

We have this mess here in the US, with laws that are suppose to prevent things like this, just think what it's like with less stringent laws with little oversight.

When they stop acting kids, and more like adults, well, maybe then I'll consider them trustworthy enough to entrust the future of my children.

Side note: Dow Chemical feels your life to be worth around $2200.00 That what they managed to get the fine down to for the victims of Bhopal India. That mess has yet to be cleaned up, and it was 30 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

If you are going to take the old man's car out for a joy ride, you best not bring it back dirty and dented.

I realize this is stereotypical thinking, but I'm having a hard time getting the taste out of my mouth, my toothpaste has been tainted.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> cn, this is the first post of yours that I have found questionable in terms of integrity.
> When reading this thread its hard to imagine anyone outside of the 'S.H.D.T' choosing me as the spammer.


I can't argue with this post's propriety, as it has a message. Naked quote reposts don't. Do you see the difference? 
My principal request and motive is to minimize clutter, which is how i see the naked quote bumps. cn


----------



## Bigtacofarmer (Jan 3, 2013)

Monsanto is evil. Simple but true!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 3, 2013)

Bigtacofarmer said:


> Monsanto is evil. Simple but true!


define evil


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 3, 2013)

Define true.  cn


----------



## Bigtacofarmer (Jan 3, 2013)

In this case I could go on for days but..... When you discover things such as the terminator gene you should not continue research. Their entire business is to own food. Not just some of it but every last bit of it. Do some research. Monsanto is evil!



ginjawarrior said:


> define evil


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 3, 2013)

Bigtacofarmer said:


> In this case I could go on for days but..... When you discover things such as the terminator gene you should not continue research. Their entire business is to own food. Not just some of it but every last bit of it. Do some research. Monsanto is evil!


i have researched it they dont use the terminator gene


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 3, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Define true.  cn


lol touche


----------



## desert dude (Jan 3, 2013)

Bigtacofarmer said:


> Monsanto is evil. Simple but true!


define simple.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 3, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I can't argue with this post's propriety, as it has a message. Naked quote reposts don't. Do you see the difference?
> My principal request and motive is to minimize clutter, which is how i see the naked quote bumps. cn


Understood cn, will make no more posts of that variety, my apologies.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Understood cn, will make no more posts of that variety, my apologies.


Reported as spam. 

Can you not address the topic YOU started, at all, ever?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 3, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Reported as spam.
> 
> Can you not address the topic YOU started, at all, ever?





Harrekin said:


> Reported as spam.
> 
> Address the topic, lady-pants.


Ok Frank now I'm thinking you've developed a schoolboy crush...


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 3, 2013)

Bigtacofarmer said:


> In this case I could go on for days but..... When you discover things such as the terminator gene you should not continue research. Their entire business is to own food. Not just some of it but every last bit of it. Do some research. Monsanto is evil!


In cali we have had to fight off Monsanto backed efforts like the California Seed Preemption Bill, SB1056 :
http://environmentalcommons.org/preemption-undemocratic.html

Efforts like mine are simply in a race with efforts like The Monsanto Protection Act and you can predict fairly easily who or what will win that race...M&M = Monsanto money...

[h=1]&#8216;Monsanto Protection Act&#8217; would keep GMO crops in the ground during legal battles[/h] By Twilight Greenaway




It&#8217;s that exciting time of the year again when the Senate and House Appropriations Committees gets together to hash out the annual agriculture budget. I know, right? Really fun stuff.
This year, in addition to the usual underfunding of legislation that could make the food system more sustainable, the appropriations process has become especially charged, thanks to a one-paragraph addition called the &#8220;farmer assurance provision.&#8221; The provision &#8212; which the agriculture committee approved last week, but has yet to go to the full House &#8212; would allow farmers to plant and grow GMO crops before they&#8217;ve been deemed safe. Or, more accurately, if it passes, farmers will be able to plant these crops while legal battles ensue over their safety.
Groups ranging from the Center for Food Safety and the National Family Farm Coalition to the American Civil Liberties Union, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists are all opposing the provision. Food Democracy Now!, an online grassroots community, is calling it the &#8220;Monsanto Protection Act&#8221; and has collected over 300,000 signatures opposing the provision.
As it stands now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can suspend planting while the environmental impact of one of these crops is being assessed. Or that&#8217;s how it&#8217;s been in theory at least.
And it is what happened in 2007 when a federal judge overturned the USDA&#8217;s approval of GMO alfalfa, in response to a lawsuit filed by farmers and the Center for Food Safety. (Planting of alfalfa resumed again in 2011 when the USDA fully deregulated the crop.)
In the case of GMO sugar beets, another hotly contested crop, planting was supposed to be suspended, but by the point that suspension was ordered, the market had been cleared out and there were no longer enough non-GMO seeds. As we reported recently, &#8220;America faced the prospect of a 20-percent reduction in that year&#8217;s sugar crop. In response &#8212; and in defiance of the federal judge&#8217;s order &#8212; the USDA allowed farmers to plant GM sugar beets anyway.&#8221; Now, all this back and forth could be moot to most farmers (unless a crop is officially, finally deemed unsafe &#8212; and well, that hasn&#8217;t happened yet.)
Needless to say, producers of big commodity crops are excited at the prospect. As _Businessweek_ reports:
The American Soybean Association, one of nine U.S. agriculture groups supporting the House provision, said the legislation would give farmers assurance they can plant and harvest modified crops during legal challenges.
The Center for Food Safety, which has sued over USDA approvals of biotech crops, called the bill&#8217;s language a &#8220;Monsanto profit assurance provision&#8221; that interferes with judicial oversight of agency decisions and has the potential to disrupt the global grain trade.​ It only makes sense that the soybean industry would be glad to see these &#8220;legal challenges&#8221; disappear, since a whopping 94 percent of soybeans planted in this country are now genetically engineered to be herbicide resistant.
The sad fact is, the USDA&#8217;s oversight over the biotech industry has been eroding slowly for a while. If this provision makes it through the full House vote, the agency will have just about lost the reigns completely.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> In cali we have had to fight off Monsanto backed efforts like the California Seed Preemption Bill, SB1056 :
> http://environmentalcommons.org/preemption-undemocratic.html
> 
> Efforts like mine are simply in a race with efforts like The Monsanto Protection Act and you can predict fairly easily who or what will win that race...M&M = Monsanto money...
> ...


So 94% of all plants soya bean farmers CHOOSE to grow are GM is what you're saying. 

Do I even need to go on?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 3, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> So 94% of all plants soya bean farmers CHOOSE to grow are GM is what you're saying.
> 
> Do I even need to go on?


Frank you have assumed much again.
First I said nothing to that effect and the article didn't have farmer declarations, it only stated a % and then you ran it through your mental filters the only way you know how.
If there was interviews with all the farmers growing such, I think you would find a great many would 'choose' not to get into what inevitably results in the never ending contracts with Monsanto et al that leave them with dead land completely dependent on the chemical regiment required by Monsanto et al crops and which usually results in greater debt for the farmer rather than greater wealth from my understanding.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 3, 2013)

dna heres a link i know you wont read

anti gmo protester learns the science and changes his view

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Frank you have assumed much again.First I said nothing to that effect and the article didn't have farmer declarations, it only stated a % and then you ran it through your mental filters the only way you know how.If there was interviews with all the farmers growing such, I think you would find a great many would 'choose' not to get into what inevitably results in the never ending contracts with Monsanto et al that leave them with dead land completely dependent on the chemical regiment required by Monsanto et al crops and which usually results in greater debt for the farmer rather than greater wealth from my understanding.


Oh so the farmers can't plant soya beans from another source?
Monsanto sends round it's boys to "RoundUp" farmers that won't comply?

You're talking nonsensical shite again.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 3, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Oh so the farmers can't plant soya beans from another source?
> Monsanto sends round it's boys to "RoundUp" farmers that won't comply?


To a degree there is precendent. Bowman vs Monsanto In this case I'd be looking at supplier I purchased the seeds from, not the farmer. Cases like this aren't the first, most farmers just don't have the money to take on any multinational, not just Monsanto.

Would you get the shits if you ordered your favourite seeds from a seedbank, expecting quality for a legal commercial grow, instead you realise you've been given a different brand/strain etc..?? I'd be pretty pissed off especially after putting 4-5 weeks of time & $$$ growing a large batch from seed because I would'nt be able to tell the difference between strains when looking at a bag of 200+ seeds...


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 3, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Oh so the farmers can't plant soya beans from another source?
> Monsanto sends round it's boys to "RoundUp" farmers that won't comply?
> 
> You're talking nonsensical shite again.


As usual your missing the point again Frank.
When farmers start planting Monsanto crops for example, growing of such crops happens under contracts where not only is the farmer committing to growing only the seed contracted to grow, but also requires the use of whatever chemical regiment that particular crop calls for. After not long the land dies from this type of 'farming' and the farmers end up sort of like drug addicts because their land will no longer produce without the chemically induced crops. A farmer these days cannot afford the down time leaving land unplanted to heal in effort to attempt to escape the Monsanto et al soil killing drug addiction marry go round and so they must renew their contracts just to stay alive.
Our Monsanto et al farmers of today are best compared to heroin addicts.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> As usual your missing the point again Frank.
> When farmers start planting Monsanto crops for example, growing of such crops happens under contracts where not only is the farmer committing to growing only the seed contracted to grow, but also requires the use of whatever chemical regiment that particular crop calls for. After not long the land dies from this type of 'farming' and the farmers end up sort of like drug addicts because their land will no longer produce without the chemically induced crops. A farmer these days cannot afford the down time leaving land unplanted to heal in effort to attempt to escape the Monsanto et al soil killing drug addiction marry go round and so they must renew their contracts just to stay alive.
> Our Monsanto et al farmers of today are best compared to heroin addicts.


the whole point of buying the seeds is because they can tolerate the weedkiller just planting the GMO without them would be a waste of money

the soil isnt poisoned from it and the farmer is under no obligation of buying seeds and can (from a reputable source) get them from whoever they want


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 3, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> dna heres a link i know you wont read
> 
> anti gmo protester learns the science and changes his view
> 
> http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/


Yes ginja I read and have concluded that there still seems a misunderstanding on your part of what my view is.
I'm not saying this technology won't possibly be useful at some point further down our evolutionary line as a species.
What I'm saying is that we dont know enough about ourselves our environment or the technology to be using such responsibly at this point.
We don't even know enough about possible short term consequences to us or the environment at this point let alone long term possible consequences.
The race is still to get the gold just as it has been for this culture since it landed here...when the bottom line profit margins of a corporation is the overruling concern, all other concerns tend to be overlooked or avoided or denied etc...ginja I'm just saying that from my view our culture having and employing this technology is a little like a stampede of buffalo stomping through a mine field.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Yes ginja I read and have concluded that there still seems a misunderstanding on your part of what my view is.
> I'm not saying this technology won't possibly be useful at some point further down our evolutionary line as a species.
> What I'm saying is that we dont know enough about ourselves our environment or the technology to be using such responsibly at this point.
> We don't even know enough about possible short term consequences to us or the environment at this point let alone long term possible consequences.
> The race is still to get the gold just as it has been for this culture since it landed here...when the bottom line profit margins of a corporation is the overruling concern, all other concerns tend to be overlooked or avoided or denied etc...ginja I'm just saying that from my view our culture having and employing this technology is a little like a stampede of buffalo stomping through a mine field.


I've just finished the article, and the examples he used, like the "golden rice" (made by and for the public sector) and omega-3 oilseeds (to make fish farming less dependent on wild fish for feed) are working right now. Why push acceptance into the indefinite future? This technology is not the monopoly or hostage of the usual suspects like Monsanto and ADM. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 3, 2013)

I post this not because I claim it is 'truth', but because nothing is all 'lies' or all 'truth' and with respect to the subject of the interview, after you wear out your spam option imagine if only the personality splicing part has merit and then fast forward to the same sort of ops having gene splicing capabilities.
Frank you and your keen doctor will love this, cn I caution you not to watch/listen because towards the end might be upsetting for you 
One thing that is hard to deny is the existence of non-accountability within our system, especially when it comes to money and power and the nature of absolute power absolutely corrupting those who wield it. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MIUgThru7JY

[video=youtube;MIUgThru7JY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=MIUgThru7JY[/video]


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 4, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> They fixed all that with quadrotriticale. cn


goddamned tribbles ate the entire stock of that cultivar, and the latest reports indicate there may have been a klingon plot involved as well...


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> I post this not because I claim it is 'truth', but because nothing is all 'lies' or all 'truth' and with respect to the subject of the interview, after you wear out your spam option imagine if only the personality splicing part has merit and then fast forward to the same sort of ops having gene splicing capabilities.
> Frank you and your keen doctor will love this, cn I caution you not to watch/listen because towards the end might be upsetting for you
> One thing that is hard to deny is the existence of non-accountability within our system, especially when it comes to money and power and the nature of absolute power absolutely corrupting those who wield it.
> 
> ...


More "figures of speech" with a sprinkling of twat waffle. 

Youtube videos of hippies being interviewed is not a source. 

The Monsanto contract is they're not allowed REPLANT seed from this years crop, not that they're permanently forced to use Monsanto products. They can buy seeds anywhere, I buy my Cannabis seeds from lots of different sources and I'm just a small, indoor farmer. 

Give us some more hyperbole and paranoid ramblings, GAYprotection, we know you're good for it.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 4, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> So 94% of all plants soya bean farmers CHOOSE to grow are GM is what you're saying.
> 
> Do I even need to go on?


i stopped reading at "By Twilight Greenaway" 

after i stopped gagging on my own bile, i finished reading that piece of crap, only to discover the "author" has no clue what GMO crops are, how they are developed and that it's impossible to prove anything is safe. 

theres always some dimwit who can find a way to injure or kill himself with anything, including toilet seats. NOTHING is safe, and demanding anything be proven harmless before it cn be used will destroy all industry. 

but then thats the real goal isnt it?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 4, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i stopped reading at "By Twilight Greenaway"
> 
> after i stopped gagging on my own bile, i finished reading that piece of crap, only to discover the "author" has no clue what GMO crops are, how they are developed and that it's impossible to prove anything is safe.
> 
> ...


No man, we've to like totally save the planet, man. 

We cant be like, playing God, man.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> As usual your missing the point again Frank.
> When farmers start planting Monsanto crops for example, growing of such crops happens under contracts where not only is the farmer committing to growing only the seed contracted to grow, but also requires the use of whatever chemical regiment that particular crop calls for. After not long the land dies from this type of 'farming' and the farmers end up sort of like drug addicts because their land will no longer produce without the chemically induced crops. A farmer these days cannot afford the down time leaving land unplanted to heal in effort to attempt to escape the Monsanto et al soil killing drug addiction marry go round and so they must renew their contracts just to stay alive.
> Our Monsanto et al farmers of today are best compared to heroin addicts.


WRONG!!!!!

too many assumptions. 

not all farmers use roundup, not all farmers contract for crops, not all farmers use GMO crops, not all farmers use synthetic fertilizers, and many farmers DO let the ground lie fallow periodically, using their feilds as pasturage between cash crops. 

some farmers use a 3 crop rotation, some use a two crop rotation and some grow a particular crop under contract for steady cash. your argument is now a poorly thought out condemnation of farmers who sign contracts with evil corporations rather than trusting the local farmer's market and swanky restaurants to keep his mortgage paid. some farmers grow barley for anheiser busch, some farmers grow wheat for pillsbury (and those contracts require particular cultivars as well) some farmers grow livestock feed, and some grow "biofuel" crops for city slicker cash. contracts and corporations are not evil any more than GMO's are. your beliefs and prejudices about farming have no basis in reality, and if you were the secretary of agriculture, every small farmer in the US would be FUCKED by your faulty beliefs


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 4, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> WRONG!!!!!
> 
> too many assumptions.
> 
> ...


I'm 115.7% sure he's an "organic farmer" who'd stand to gain. 

Read the language in the bill, non-GM is "natural food"? 

Sounds like organic twat-waffle to me.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 4, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I'm 115.7% sure he's an "organic farmer" who'd stand to gain.
> 
> Read the language in the bill, non-GM is "natural food"?
> 
> Sounds like organic twat-waffle to me.


you giving DNA a level of competence that i don't think he deserves 

he man have a tomato plant on the balcony of his apartment block but he's no farmer


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 4, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i stopped reading at "By Twilight Greenaway"
> 
> after i stopped gagging on my own bile, i finished reading that piece of crap, only to discover the "author" has no clue what GMO crops are, how they are developed and that it's impossible to prove anything is safe.
> 
> ...


Keen but flawed perception doc, its not about 'proving' anything 'safe' as you say because nothing is 'safe' and I agree with you there.
This is about the level of possible consequences as I have explained before.
GMO's are not like putting a new model car on the market. If a car goes bad while driving the damage is limited, if a GOM goes bad while in the main stream the effects are impossible for us to even understand at this point and could be devastating to a great many people and who knows what effects over all in term of the environment.
The odds that genetic engineering technology will be used responsibly at this point in our evolution are probably something like billion$ to 1.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 4, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> you giving DNA a level of competence that i don't think he deserves
> 
> he man have a tomato plant on the balcony of his apartment block but he's no farmer


Oh tw me thinks you would crawl a mile through NY sewers to consume my organics...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh tw me thinks you would crawl a mile through NY sewers to consume my organics...


to get a slice of tomato for my cheese sandwich?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh tw me thinks you would crawl a mile through NY sewers to consume my organics...


And so you admit it. Case solved, he's lobbying for a Bill that'll benefit him. That explains the bullshit.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 4, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> And so you admit it. Case solved, he's lobbying for a Bill that'll benefit him. That explains the bullshit.


Frank no matter what I write it only helps you look foolish, trying to not help you look foolish is like trying to hold ones piss...
The problem for you on this one is that we only grow on less than a half acre and we don't sell any of it, we consume it.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Frank no matter what I write it only helps you look foolish, trying to not help you look foolish is like trying to hold ones piss...
> The problem for you on this one is that we only grow on less than a half acre and we don't sell any of it, we consume it.


Surez. 

Cool story bro.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 4, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Surez.
> 
> Cool story bro.


Frank why in the world would you want corporations to redesign your genetic existence?...That was hard for me to write Frank because it could be that your existence is the best argument for such.













*Our Humanity, Naturally*

A club for humanists 
by Dave Niose 

*Why Corporations Are Psychotic*


These "people" are not healthy 
Published on March 16, 2011 by David Niose in Our Humanity, Naturally 
Senator Bernie Sanders echoed the sentiments of many last week when he called for a constitutional amendment to repeal the notion of corporate personhood. This issue jumped into public consciousness last year after the Supreme Court, in its _Citizens United_ decision, effectively allowed unrestrained corporate influence in American politics, based partially on the idea that corporations are legally "persons" with constitutional rights. Sanders, in calling for the constitutional amendment, declared: "This is an enormously important issue, and how it is resolved will determine, to a significant degree, the future of American democracy."
What is it about corporate personhood that so concerns Sanders and many others? That question could be answered many ways, but perhaps this is most concise: Corporations are psychotic.
If corporations are indeed "persons," their mental condition can accurately be described as pathological. Corporations have no innate moral impulses, and in fact they exist solely for the purpose of making money. As such, these "persons" are systemically driven to do whatever is necessary to increase revenues and profits, with no regard for ethical issues that might nag real people.

_But, you say, corporations are owned and managed by real people, so surely immoral corporate actions might be inhibited by them?_ Well, not really. First of all, the officers and directors who run corporations are actually duty-bound to act in the corporation's best financial interest, and that means they are obliged to do whatever they can within the law to make money. Thus, this fiduciary duty requires corporate management to set aside ethical niceties when they get in the way of corporate profits. This is why tobacco companies market their products to kids when they can - only laws prohibiting such conduct will keep them from doing so.





This is especially true when we are dealing with large, publicly traded corporations. Whereas a small corporation could have local ownership, management, and community roots that might resist the drive for profit in certain situations, publicly traded corporations almost always answer to institutional investors and have tremendous pressure to produce short-term profits. The management chain in a publicly traded corporation is necessarily geared for profit, not ethics.Thus, the entity is a "person" with a totally self-absorbed psyche, a narcissistic "person" that has enormous resources to advertise and market itself to the public, to hire professionals of all types to influence public opinion, to litigate and lobby as needed, to ruthlessly pursue its goal of revenue and profit, and to join other corporations and industry associations in crushing any opposition posed by mere individuals or public interest groups.
_But hasn't it always been this way? Isn't that what capitalism is all about - corporate interests driving the economy?_
Actually, no. Corporate libertarians would have you believe that somehow corporate dominance is entirely consistent with the values and vision of the Founding Fathers, but this is pure myth. The framers believed in limited government and free markets, but corporations were almost non-existent in the early days of the Republic. Unlike today, one could not form a corporation simply by filing a few papers with a government office; instead, permission from the government was needed (usually via an act of the Legislature) and was granted only upon a showing that the proposed corporation would be in the public interest. When corporate formation was allowed, strict terms and limitations were demanded.
Corporate formation was viewed skeptically in those days because corporations were correctly recognized as dangerous. Unlike sole proprietorships or partnerships, corporations allow investors to pool huge sums of capital and pursue profits while remaining immune from personal liability. Thus, if I own shares of XYZ Corporation and the company breaches a $10 million contract obligation, there is no chance that I will be personally liable on the contract. If I own a sole proprietorship or partnership that breaches such a contract, my personal assets are at risk.
This immunity makes the corporate structure extremely attractive to investors, even absentee investors, which means publicly traded corporations can attract enormous amounts of capital, which in turn results in their wielding great economic power. In modern society where corporations are widespread and commonplace, this economic power enables them to have great social and cultural influence, defining to a large degree how we live our lives and even the values we hold as a society. And of course economic power easily translates to political power as well.
It wasn't until the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, long after the framers were dead, that corporate interests began to reshape the social, legal, and political environment so that their interests became paramount, far more important to politicians than the interests of ordinary citizens. Corporate personhood was a key part of this scheme.
Thus, while corporate libertarians are quick to point out that the framers and other intellectuals of the founding era were wary of excessive governmental power, they conveniently neglect to mention that concentrated corporate power was also viewed skeptically. In fact, Adam Smith, whose "Wealth of Nations" is often cited by corporate apologists as validating "free markets," warned against unrestrained, concentrated corporate power and instead encouraged small-scale, local economic activity. Published in 1776, "Wealth of Nations" predates the rise of corporate power, and suggestions by corporate libertarians that the book somehow supports the notion of corporate dominance are either mistaken or outright dishonest.
It's worth noting that libertarians have no right to claim that a _laissez-fair_e environment would allow unregulated corporate power. Since corporations themselves are a fictitious creation of government, a true libertarian environment (with minimal government) would find them unnecessary and somewhat repugnant. Thus, ironically, at their essence corporations are a creation of government meddling.
The pathological and narcissistic nature of corporate "persons" is reason enough to deny them fundamental constitutional rights that should be reserved for flesh-and-bone persons, but the fact that they also wield economic resources far in excess of those available to real persons magnifies the need to restrain them. Author David C. Korten calls the claim by corporations for constitutional rights equal to those of humans a "legal perversion," saying that "corporations should obey the laws decided by the citizenry, not write those laws."
Korten's statement alludes to why this issue is so critical to effective democracy. Because corporate interests have immense resources that enable them to participate in lobbying and litigation, they effectively control the governmental machine. If individual citizens today feel powerless and cynical about politics and government, who can blame them? Participatory democracy is not alive and well in America, because pathological corporate interests have complete control of the system. This is why Sanders's declaration, that the future of American democracy may rely on the outcome of this issue, is not an overstatement. What kind of "persons" will control democracy - corporate or human?
*The Tea Party and Corporate Power*

The call by Sanders for a constitutional amendment cries out for popular support, and any mention of populism nowadays calls to mind the Tea Party. Progressives tend to dismiss Tea Party activists as ignorant and/or deluded, but we should realize that the Tea Party has a few (very few) valid points. At a minimum, the Tea Party is correct in saying that American democracy today would be unrecognizable to the framers.
In their speculation of what the framers would think about today's America, however, Tea Party activists make the mistake of not considering the question fully. They focus almost exclusively on the singular issue of downsizing government, completely ignoring other aspects of modern America that would grab the framers' attention. Surely, if Adams, Jefferson and Madison could be magically transplanted to modern America, their actual assessment of society would be much more comprehensive than critiquing the tax system and size of government.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Frank why in the world would you want corporations to redesign your genetic existence?...That was hard for me to write Frank because it could be that your existence is the best argument for such.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why do you want to control what people choose to put into their bodies?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 4, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Why do you want to control what people choose to put into their bodies?


That's just nutty Frank, why in the world would I want to do that?
I've never written such nor do I believe in such a thing.
It is the biotech industry that seeks to remove your/our choices Frank...
They seek to uniform and distribute everything Frank...its just 'good' business in America to limit your choices while presenting the illusion that you are providing more choices lol...
Folks are trained for such thinking in the corporately sponsored Universities Frank...


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 4, 2013)

http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/12/anti-marijuana-resource.html


ginjawarrior said:


> while researching this morning i came across this site
> 
> populartechnology.net/2008/12/anti-marijuana-resource.html
> 
> ...




"andrew" might not, but I will...for the life of me I don't see how you don't connect the dots?

Tw, it is exactly efforts like this linked above which I retrieved from your thread on such, that will keep naturally occurring varieties of cannabis schedule 1 and illegal while genetically engineered cannabis approved as 'safe' by the FDA and 'legalized' by undoubtedly coming federal laws will become the 'industry'.
I wouldn't be surprised if corporations like Monsanto are paying folks like "andrew" to do exactly these sort of things in the count down to new federal laws concerning cannabis, or as they still intentionally call it, marijuana.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> That's just nutty Frank, why in the world would I want to do that?
> I've never written such nor do I believe in such a thing.
> It is the biotech industry that seeks to remove your/our choices Frank...
> They seek to uniform and distribute everything Frank...its just 'good' business in America to limit your choices while presenting the illusion that you are providing more choices lol...
> Folks are trained for such thinking in the corporately sponsored Universities Frank...


How exactly are they going to stop you buying your seeds from elsewhere?

The only truthful answer is they can't. 

Why do 97% of all soya bean farmers CHOOSE to use Monsanto products? And why do you choose to try pass these laws even tho you know it'd fuck 97% of soya producers?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 4, 2013)

I wrote:
*




Originally Posted by DNAprotection  
That's just nutty Frank, why in the world would I want to do that?
I've never written such nor do I believe in such a thing.
It is the biotech industry that seeks to remove your/our choices Frank...
They seek to uniform and distribute everything Frank...its just 'good' business in America to limit your choices while presenting the illusion that you are providing more choices lol...
Folks are trained for such thinking in the corporately sponsored Universities Frank...
*
Then you wrote:


Harrekin said:


> How exactly are they going to stop you buying your seeds from elsewhere?
> 
> The only truthful answer is they can't.
> 
> Why do 97% of all soya bean farmers CHOOSE to use Monsanto products? And why do you choose to try pass these laws even tho you know it'd fuck 97% of soya producers?


Goodness gracious Frank wtf are you talking about lol...your mixing metaphors...
Now would you like to discuss how biotech ultimately ends up limiting choices or the political and socioeconomic circumstances that herds farmers up just like so much cattle for biotech leaders like Monsanto?


----------



## desert dude (Jan 4, 2013)

Mark Lynas on GM crops:

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 4, 2013)

desert dude said:


> Mark Lynas on GM crops:
> 
> http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/


https://www.rollitup.org/politics/606902-anti-gmo-luddite-apologizes.html

dd, It seems that some how because you found a site (tw found such b4u btw, c DNA thread lol) where some person has switched sides as it were, not unlike an anti nuke suddenly being in favor of nuke plants because now sees as 'green', I am now suppose to apologize for my views and do the same, and you feel so proud and confident that you have some kind of 'proof' that you posted a thread entirely dedicated to getting me to do so. Do I have that part right?
Well dd the very first problem is that I'm not necessarily 'antiGMO' and if you had read the thread that apparently has you in such a tizzy you would know that.
In other words I did not post that thread to 'debate' about the positive or negative health effects of GMO's, I posted that thread to pose the question that you seem to be a good example for, shouldn't we get out of diapers in terms of our perspectives of and interactions with the rest of nature that we are a part of before we run about redesigning 4billion year old genetics in our further pursuit of gold, not feeding the hungry as you run about howling like a corporate dog.
The possible far reaching unforeseen consequences of technology such as this is not worth whatever perceived short term benefit to someones personal wealth might come of it.
People will eat again when govs and corps give them the land back and just let them go back to it.
You've only just begun to see the refugee camps around the world, that's what these corps really do, not feed the people.
I tell ya what dd, as soon as you can figure out all this people shooting each other and all this gun control stuff I will then concede that we maybe are ready for prime time genetic engineering.


----------



## dank smoker420 (Jan 4, 2013)

organics has works for many many centuries. why would you want to use something that is not old enough to even understand the side effects? there is no reason to use GM crops even for food production. we have the capability to produce our food closer to where it is consumed. there should be more local/urban farms around cities that can produce sustainable food for the people. there are alot of cities that produce a good amount of sustainable foods and if more people actually cared about where their food came from there would hopefully be more sustainable farms to produce it. it works in alot of cities so why cant there be even more cities that produce sustainable food? In austin TX there are atleast 30 local/urban farms that produce a good amount of food. in DFW there are about 5-10 in the whole 9,000 square miles.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 4, 2013)

dank smoker420 said:


> organics has works for many many centuries. why would you want to use something that is not old enough to even understand the side effects? there is no reason to use GM crops even for food production. we have the capability to produce our food closer to where it is consumed. there should be more local/urban farms around cities that can produce sustainable food for the people. there are alot of cities that produce a good amount of sustainable foods and if more people actually cared about where their food came from there would hopefully be more sustainable farms to produce it. it works in alot of cities so why cant there be even more cities that produce sustainable food? In austin TX there are atleast 30 local/urban farms that produce a good amount of food. in DFW there are about 5-10 in the whole 9,000 square miles.


To my understanding Corpses like Monsanto et al and big oil etc threatens or pay off governments around the world in effort to displace human populations in their quest for control of food and other resources as talked about in the 'economic hit man' interviews:
[video=youtube;yTbdnNgqfs8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=yTbdnNgqfs8[/video]

Also see:
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/15/self_described_economic_hit_man_john

This is really where the probs begin...

BRIA 23 4 c Patenting Life * CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Rights in Action
WINTER 2008 (Volume 23, No. 4) *​ Intellectual Property​ The Origins of Patent and Copyright Law  | Digital Piracy | Patenting Life | The Cheating Problem​ *Patenting Life** The U.S. Patent Office issues patents for new inventions. With the development of biotechnology, scientists are designing new bacteria, plants, and even animals for medical and other uses. The issue arises: Should patents be issued for these living things? 
* Patenting living things has always provoked controversy. Some of the controversy hinges on moral and ethical issues, and some on legal disputes. Another area of controversy is whether patenting cell lines, specific genes, and diagnostic tests actually helps or hinders medical care. 
The Supreme Court has not considered this issue since 1980. Since that time, many revolutionary discoveries in biotechnology have occurred. Scientists, lawyers, and businessmen agree that the law on patenting life has not kept up with new discoveries and that it is time for Congress to act. 
* Can Living Things Be Patented? 
* Ananda Mahan Charkrbarty grew up in India. After finishing his PhD, he came to the United States and in the1970s was working for General Electric in genetic engineering. Charkrabarty invented a new kind of bacteria to which he added plasmids (small pieces of DNA, separate from the chromosome) from other bacteria. His multiplasmid bacteria grew faster and better on crude oil than any of the single plasmid bacteria. His new bacteria were good at cleaning up oil spills because they consumed oil so quickly. After meeting with a patent attorney, he decided to apply for a patent on his oil-eating bacteria. 
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied Chakrabarty's patent application in 1973. The PTO ruled that Chakrabarty's bacterium was a "product of nature" and no one may get a patent for living things. Seven years later, the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overruled the PTO. 
In its decision, the Supreme Court analyzed the language of the Patent Act (35 U.S. Code 101), which states:Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter . . . may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
read more here:
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-23-4-c-patenting-life
​


----------



## desert dude (Jan 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> To my understanding Corpses like Monsanto et al and big oil etc threatens or pay off governments around the world in effort to displace human populations in their quest for control of food and other resources as talked about in the 'economic hit man' interviews:
> [video=youtube;yTbdnNgqfs8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=yTbdnNgqfs8[/video]
> 
> Also see:
> ...


Without patentability, why would any company engage in genetic engineering research? Remove the profit incentive and GM organisms go the way of the dodo.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 4, 2013)

desert dude said:


> Without patentability, why would any company engage in genetic engineering research? Remove the profit incentive and GM organisms go the way of the dodo.


It would only remove some of greatest majority of the profit potential in the area of monopolizing through patenting life and so be it...in there maybe we have a better chance of the technology being used responsibly in my opinion instead of being driven by profit motives.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Jan 4, 2013)

desert dude said:


> Without patentability, why would any company engage in genetic engineering research? Remove the profit incentive and GM organisms go the way of the dodo.


You're a creepy troll. You say that, yet you're against banning DNA patents.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 4, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> No man, we've to like totally save the planet, man.
> 
> We cant be like, playing God, man.


You can play God but only on a turntable, du'ude. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 4, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> You're a creepy troll. You say that, yet you're against banning DNA patents.


DNA is becoming big business. It is not a technology that can be undone by fiat. I would suggest a better tactic is to adapt patent law to cover the best compromise between corporate entitlement to protection of intellectual property (without which the engine for research goes away) ... and the fact the GM organisms multiply and carry copies of the proprietary bits in perpetuity. 
DNA patents are not intrinsically evil. They can be if they're allowed to not expire due to corporate sleight-of-lawyer. Imo the focus is not to kill GM as a lawful enterprise, but to circumscribe it in such a way that it cannot be forged into a durable monopoly. Jmo. cn


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 5, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> DNA is becoming big business. It is not a technology that can be undone by fiat. I would suggest a better tactic is to adapt patent law to cover the best compromise between corporate entitlement to protection of intellectual property (without which the engine for research goes away) ... and the fact the GM organisms multiply and carry copies of the proprietary bits in perpetuity.
> DNA patents are not intrinsically evil. They can be if they're allowed to not expire due to corporate sleight-of-lawyer. Imo the focus is not to kill GM as a lawful enterprise, but to circumscribe it in such a way that it cannot be forged into a durable monopoly. Jmo. cn


5 year patents. 

That is all.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 5, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> You can play God but only on a turntable, du'ude. cn


I think thats the point cn, that 'god' or 'whatever gets ya through your life its all right', is a place or thing that we as a species should not yet try to supplant.
Biotech genetic engineering, nano tech etc these are areas that seek to play 'god' for us all.
As I have written here before that for me its all a numbers game and the numbers need not be fixed by the guys who own the track and the jockeys and even the horses already.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 5, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> I think thats the point cn, that 'god' or 'whatever gets ya through your life its all right', is a place or thing that we as a species should not yet try to supplant.
> Biotech genetic engineering, nano tech etc these are areas that seek to play 'god' for us all.
> As I have written here before that for me its all a numbers game and the numbers need not be fixed by the guys who own the track and the jockeys and even the horses already.


Cock-waffle. 

If it was a "numbers" game for you, then you'd have noticed the TRILLIONS of GM crops grown that havnt resulted in a SINGLE problem. Instead you spout about supplanting natural design. 

Youre the sort of idiot that's slowing our species' advancement down.


----------



## dank smoker420 (Jan 5, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Cock-waffle.
> 
> If it was a "numbers" game for you, then you'd have noticed the TRILLIONS of GM crops grown that havnt resulted in a SINGLE problem. Instead you spout about supplanting natural design.
> 
> Youre the sort of idiot that's slowing our species' advancement down.


there are some problems with Gm crops. the weeds and bugs that they kill/ward off by producing insecticide and herbicides are becoming resistant to the insecticide and herbicides. this can result in a food drought since farmers are not spraying the crops anymore. it can be prevented by creating new insecticides and herbicides to fight the evolved bugs/ weeds but one would have to know when the bugs and weeds would be immune to the current cides and predict the future on what would ward/ kill them next. bugs can evolve very fast since their life span is alot shorter than other things. there are many concerns with GM crops and since they havent been about for that long we do not know the side effects. its kind of like the new pills that are always coming out, a few months later they have law firms running ads for suing the companies because the drug had side effects that were unknown. in the US and the capitalist economy people do not care about the side effect their product might have they only care about the money made from their product. people need to care more about the side effects on others and the environment instead of money. money cannot fix what humans have fucked up.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jan 5, 2013)

dank smoker420 said:


> in DFW there are about 5-10 in the whole 9,000 square miles.


I have to disagree. I travel all over the DFW metroplex and I have seen way more than 10 farms.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 5, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> DNA is becoming big business. It is not a technology that can be undone by fiat. I would suggest a better tactic is to adapt patent law to cover the best compromise between corporate entitlement to protection of intellectual property (without which the engine for research goes away) ... and the fact the GM organisms multiply and carry copies of the proprietary bits in perpetuity.
> DNA patents are not intrinsically evil. They can be if they're allowed to not expire due to corporate sleight-of-lawyer. Imo the focus is not to kill GM as a lawful enterprise, but to circumscribe it in such a way that it cannot be forged into a durable monopoly. Jmo. cn





cannabineer said:


> You can play God but only on a turntable, du'ude. cn


cn through the course of reading your posts and the presenting of your respectable thoughts from a seemingly well functioning sense of logic and open mindedness, I can't help but think that I gave you a ride one day a long time ago when you were at a crossroads and on your way into the University systems of higher edu?

[video=youtube;fgcWfVvT_UM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=fgcWfVvT_UM[/video]

*Tommy Johnson*: I had to be up at that there crossroads last midnight, to sell my soul to the devil. 
*Ulysses Everett McGill*: Well, ain't it a small world, spiritually speaking. Pete and Delmar just been baptized and saved. I guess I'm the only one that remains unaffiliated.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 5, 2013)

dank smoker420 said:


> there are some problems with Gm crops. the weeds and bugs that they kill/ward off by producing insecticide and herbicides are becoming resistant to the insecticide and herbicides. this can result in a food drought since farmers are not spraying the crops anymore. it can be prevented by creating new insecticides and herbicides to fight the evolved bugs/ weeds but one would have to know when the bugs and weeds would be immune to the current cides and predict the future on what would ward/ kill them next. bugs can evolve very fast since their life span is alot shorter than other things. there are many concerns with GM crops and since they havent been about for that long we do not know the side effects. its kind of like the new pills that are always coming out, a few months later they have law firms running ads for suing the companies because the drug had side effects that were unknown. in the US and the capitalist economy people do not care about the side effect their product might have they only care about the money made from their product. people need to care more about the side effects on others and the environment instead of money. money cannot fix what humans have fucked up.


The bugs dont develop a resistance to the crops, they develop a resistance to the pesticides used as generally GM crops are resistant to a specific type of pesticide and this can result in its overuse/improper use. 

The crops themselves arnt actually a factor, it overuse of one type of pesticide that is to blame.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 5, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> The bugs dont develop a resistance to the crops, they develop a resistance to the pesticides used as generally GM crops are resistant to a specific type of pesticide and this can result in its overuse/improper use.
> 
> The crops themselves arnt actually a factor, it overuse of one type of pesticide that is to blame.


Frank look I think its a Russian plot to invade and overthrow your masters...frikin comies...

*Russia bans all GM corn imports; EU may also ban Monsanto GMO in wake of shocking cancer findings*








Wednesday, September 26, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
 
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037328_Russia_GMO_Monsanto.html#ixzz27gJ4AQZc


(NaturalNews) Russia has now officially banned all imports of genetically modified corn, citing concerns from a recent study by French researchers showing rats grew massive cancer tumors when fed a lifetime of Monsanto's genetically modified corn.

Russia's consumer protection group, _Rospotrebnadzor_, said it was halting all imports of GM corn while the country's _Institute of Nutrition_ will be evaluating the results of the study.

The Russian ban is the latest blow to Monsanto, a company desperately clinging to the myth that its genetically modified crops are "no different" than traditional crops and therefore long-term safety testing is completely unnecessary. Monsanto has assaulted the French study, claiming it did not use enough rats and that the duration of the study was too short -- an absurd claim, given that Monsanto's own studies on animals are only *90 days* in duration, while the French study looked at the effects of rats eating GM corn (and drinking trace levels of Roundup herbicide) for two years.

Notably, the large cancer tumors did not begin to appear until after the rats reached adulthood. Monsanto's GM corn has been in the U.S. food supply for more than a decade, and its corn is found in many popular breakfast cereals.

*A European ban, too?*

In addition to the Russian ban, Monsanto may also soon be facing a *European ban*. France is reported asking for a European-wide ban on GM corn if its national health agency confirms the findings of French scientists.

On top of that, if Proposition 37 passes in California, food producers will be required to label GMO on foods sold in that state. This is widely expected to cause U.S. food producers to abandon to use of GMO in foods, since virtually all consumers who know anything about GMO would refuse to buy items labeled as containing genetically engineered ingredients.

*Toxicity of GMO now scientifically established*

CRIIGEN.org has issued a statement summarizing its findings of the recent rat study, saying:

_The implications are extremely serious. They demonstrate the toxicity, both of a GMO with the most widely spread transgenic character and of the most widely used herbicide, even when ingested at extremely low levels, (corresponding to those found in surface or tap water). In addition, these results call into question the adequacy of the current regulatory process, used throughout the world by agencies involved in the assessment of health, food and chemicals, and industries seeking commercialization of products._

Here's one of the photos released by researchers in the recent study, demonstrating the massive cancer tumors found in rats who were fed GM corn:







*Government regulators have been infiltrated by Monsanto; scientists bought off*


In truth, Monsanto has managed to influence food regulators all around the world. It has paid money to numerous scientists in the USA, and it has essentially "placed" GMO-pushing individuals such as Michael Taylor into influential positions in government.

The European Union's Food Safety Agency (FSA) is also staffed by decision makers with financial ties to genetic engineering seed companies.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich has called for a *national GMO labeling law*. He says: "The FDA has received over a million comments from citizens demanding labeling of GMOs. Ninety percent of Americans agree. So, why no labeling? I'll give you one reason: The influence and the corruption of the political process by Monsanto. Monsanto has been a prime mover in GMO technology, a multi-million dollar GMO lobby here and a major political contributor."

[video=youtube;4J_YvtbSSqg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=4J_YvtbSSqg[/video]

*Sources for this story include:*
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/09/25/russia-suspends-import-use...

http://www.english.rfi.fr/americas/20120920-monsanto-gm-maize-may-fac... English Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037328_Russia_GMO_Monsanto.html#ixzz27gJU3j5g


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 5, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Cock-waffle.
> 
> If it was a "numbers" game for you, then you'd have noticed the TRILLIONS of GM crops grown that havnt resulted in a SINGLE problem. Instead you spout about supplanting natural design.
> 
> Youre the sort of idiot that's slowing our species' advancement down.


Frank, I hope people can read this quote for what it is.
Imagine Frank or worse like Monsanto et al who all 'want to build a smarter planet' having control over the gene pool...reminds me of springtime for Hitler.
[video=youtube;K08akOt2kuo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=K08akOt2kuo[/video]


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 5, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Frank, I hope people can read this quote for what it is.
> Imagine Frank or worse like Monsanto et al who all 'want to build a smarter planet' having control over the gene pool...reminds me of springtime for Hitler.
> [video=youtube;K08akOt2kuo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=K08akOt2kuo[/video]


Lol, its fucking sad the depths you sensationalists will go to to try force your bullshit into peoples heads.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 5, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Lol, its fucking sad the depths you sensationalists will go to to try force your bullshit into peoples heads.


Whats really sad Frank is not your inaccurate conclusions and lack of critical thinking, but its your all out efforts to keep others from considering the most basic and logical questions one could ask in the face of such technologies...like these simple common sense considerations:

*Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering in Humans*

By John London, eHow Contributor 


​    Many people are opposed to genetic engineering. 
Genetic modification can seem breathtakingly complex but also breathtakingly simple. People use their advancements in science and technology to the ultimate purpose, namely to improve the lives of humans who suffer. People also try to bequeath future generations freedom from illness and disability. Atomic and then nuclear power was heralded in the past as a solution to another profound human need -- for almost limitless and sustainable energy. 
*Natural Selection*



 One argument within the wider debate about genetic engineering and genetic modification is that it is a speeding up of the process of natural selection. This means that what would take millions of years in terms of evolution, scientists and test tubes can manage and achieve. But that is surely the point of the problem. What takes place in nature is a holistic process that includes all of the possible variables. What takes place in a laboratory holds, by definition, all other factors equal, but nature does not hold them equal. Every action has a consequence. 
 *Human Body*



 People know that the human body is very complex and, in a general sense, can be said to be made up of a combination of good and bad genes. The basis of genetic engineering is that the bad genes can be altered so that these no longer pose a threat to the well-being of their owner. The technology exists to do this at the level of sperms and eggs but most governments see this as unacceptable. 
 
*Viral Vectors*



 Genetic engineering uses a viral vector to carry the functional -- replacement -- genes into the human body. However, two problems result. The first is that the effect that these viral genes may have on the human body is not yet known. The second is that it is not yet known where the functional genes will be placed, so they may replace genes other than the mutated ones. This could cause other as yet unknown illnesses. 
 *Genetic Diversity*



 If all defective genes are replaced with functional ones, future generations will all have the same genome. This will mean that while on the one hand everybody will be immune to existing illnesses, everybody will be equally susceptible to as yet unknown diseases or viruses. In the worst-case scenario, this could lead to the extinction of humans. 

Read more: Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering in Humans | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8643156_disadvantages-genetic-engineering-humans.html#ixzz2H9oG1hVb


----------



## desert dude (Jan 5, 2013)

I can't believe this thread is still going. DNAprotection is certifiably insane. Stop talking to him.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 5, 2013)

"

If not for a virus, none of us would ever be born.
In 2000, a team of Boston scientists discovered a peculiar gene in the human genome. It encoded a protein made only by cells in the placenta. They called it syncytin.
The cells that made syncytin were located only where the placenta made contact with the uterus. They fuse together to create a single cellular layer, called the syncytiotrophoblast, which is essential to a fetus for drawing nutrients from its mother. The scientists discovered that in order to fuse together, the cells must first make syncytin.
What made syncytin peculiar was that it was not a human gene. It bore all the hallmarks of a gene from a virus.
Viruses have insinuated themselves into the genome of our ancestors for hundreds of millions of years. *They typically have gotten there by infecting eggs or sperm, inserting their own DNA into ours. There are 100,000 known fragments of viruses in the human genome, making up over 8% of our DNA.* Most of this virus DNA has been hit by so many mutations that it&#8217;s nothing but baggage our species carries along from one generation to the next. Yet there are some viral genes that still make proteins in our bodies. Syncytin appeared to be a hugely important one to our own biology. Originally, syncytin allowed viruses to fuse host cells together so they could spread from one cell to another. Now the protein allowed babies to fuse to their mothers."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/#.UOjhsKxq2M0

dna you need to study evolution more


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 5, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Whats really sad Frank is not your inaccurate conclusions and lack of critical thinking, but its your all out efforts to keep others from considering the most basic and logical questions one could ask in the face of such technologies...like these simple common sense considerations:
> 
> *Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering in Humans*
> 
> ...


"Ehow contributor"

Do you have some lame list of unscientific bullshit as your "go to" on this topic?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 6, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> "
> 
> If not for a virus, none of us would ever be born.
> In 2000, a team of Boston scientists discovered a peculiar gene in the human genome. It encoded a protein made only by cells in the placenta. They called it syncytin.
> ...


Tw, everything you wrote about here happens everywhere in 'nature' in 'natural' processes and in 'natural' time, and while it is of course true that humans are a part of 'nature' and therefore human actions are 'natural', that doesn't mean that we 'humans' know it all or anywhere near what we would need to know to understand the collective automatic responses based on the pure and simple numbers and seemingly infinite variables that influence the 'natural' processes of evolution.
To supplant or highjack the collective natural processes of evolution by way of genetic engineering or gene splicing is to assume that our limited and unduly influenced by irrelevant and prejudicial thinking is now superior to the rest of the collective abilities of nature and its processes, good luck with that.
Even that basic fundamental tip'o the ice burg info you posted above was only realized in legitimacy in "2000"...
For me this technology can in some ways be likened to having a time machine, and while the notion is intriguing and seems irresistible, would it be wise for one to really use such? Time lines are a very delicate thing, one tiny miniscule seemingly irrelevant change causes a chain reaction that could result in for example a person not being born that was born in a different time line etc or the simple action of turning left lets say instead of going right or even strait ahead etc can result in an entirely different chain of events from that point on.
Who would control this time machine you lobby for tw? Maybe folks like govs and corps? Or maybe just 'harmless' haters like the SHDT?
I'd rather not play those odds tw, I hold my trust in the natural evolutionary processes at this time line thnks.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Tw, everything you wrote about here happens everywhere in 'nature' in 'natural' processes and in 'natural' time, and while it is of course true that humans are a part of 'nature' and therefore human actions are 'natural', that doesn't mean that we 'humans' know it all or anywhere near what we would need to know to understand the collective automatic responses based on the pure and simple numbers and seemingly infinite variables that influence the 'natural' processes of evolution.
> To supplant or highjack the collective natural processes of evolution by way of genetic engineering or gene splicing is to assume that our limited and unduly influenced by irrelevant and prejudicial thinking is now superior to the rest of the collective abilities of nature and its processes, good luck with that.
> Even that basic fundamental tip'o the ice burg info you posted above was only realized in legitimacy in "2000"...
> For me this technology can in some ways be likened to having a time machine, and while the notion is intriguing and seems irresistible, would it be wise for one to really use such? Time lines are a very delicate thing, one tiny miniscule seemingly irrelevant change causes a chain reaction that could result in for example a person not being born that was born in a different time line etc or the simple action of turning left lets say instead of going right or even strait ahead etc can result in an entirely different chain of events from that point on.
> ...


I respond to your words tw, but you almost never respond directly to mine?



ginjawarrior said:


> while researching this morning i came across this site
> 
> populartechnology.net/2008/12/anti-marijuana-resource.html
> 
> ...



This one in particular...

*"Tw, how in the world is it that you don't connect the dots on this kind of stuff?
There is a count down to new federal laws happening and if you were Monsanto lets say and knowing how you had manipulated the corn markets for example, wouldn't it make sense to you to do the same with cannabis only even more so?
Corn didn't start from a position of being illegal.
If corporate interests can keep naturally occurring varieties of cannabis to be considered 'dangerous' and schedule 1 while they step forward with genetically engineered varieties or the promise of such, then congress could act in response to the wa,co laws by passing federal laws that would require states to conform to the new regulated 'source' of the seed etc...
Its simply 'good' business practice for biotech leaders like Monsanto.
Shoot for it all is what I would do if I were them right now, in other words the best case business scenario in a cut throat capitalist culture.
It only makes sense that a corps like Monsanto would also fund efforts like "andrew"s etc in the count down to such laws.
Its exactly the tactics of Hurst and DuPont et al back in the count down to the marijuana tax act.
After the tax act was passed some of those same corporate interests were involved with the USDA's effort to contract farmers and supply hemp seed to be grown for the war effort in 1942, and one had to contact and grow federal approved/distributed seed.
Now with patentable genetics in reach, the corporate and federal interests could take over the entire source of 'legal' seed to be then supplied to the states who desire to use cannabis in whatever way... *"
?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 6, 2013)

desert dude said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going. DNAprotection is certifiably insane. Stop talking to him.


Its not only still going dd, but people are still voting...and by your standards there are 53 people saying no to GMO cannabis so far that it could be said are ALMOST (give or take error margin lol) as "insane" as me, and only 16 people marked yes votes on GMO cannabis who's thinking on this could maybe be likened to being as 'sane' as yours.
That's better than 3-1 odds so far...gives one hope that some day we might actually be evolved enough to use the technology responsibly if need be...


----------



## desert dude (Jan 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Its not only still going dd, but people are still voting...and by your standards there are 53 people saying no to GMO cannabis so far that it could be said are ALMOST (give or take error margin lol) as "insane" as me, and only 16 people marked yes votes on GMO cannabis who's thinking on this could maybe be likened to being as 'sane' as yours.
> That's better than 3-1 odds so far...gives one hope that some day we might actually be evolved enough to use the technology responsibly if need be...


I have been here a while. I am not at all surprised that the crazies outnumber us 3:1.

Welcome to the asylum. Pick up a safety restraint harness and proceed to your keyboard.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Tw, everything you wrote about here happens everywhere in 'nature' in 'natural' processes and in 'natural' time, and while it is of course true that humans are a part of 'nature' and therefore human actions are 'natural', that doesn't mean that we 'humans' know it all or anywhere near what we would need to know to understand the collective automatic responses based on the pure and simple numbers and seemingly infinite variables that influence the 'natural' processes of evolution.
> To supplant or highjack the collective natural processes of evolution by way of genetic engineering or gene splicing is to assume that our limited and unduly influenced by irrelevant and prejudicial thinking is now superior to the rest of the collective abilities of nature and its processes, good luck with that.
> Even that basic fundamental tip'o the ice burg info you posted above was only realized in legitimacy in "2000"...
> For me this technology can in some ways be likened to having a time machine, and while the notion is intriguing and seems irresistible, would it be wise for one to really use such? Time lines are a very delicate thing, one tiny miniscule seemingly irrelevant change causes a chain reaction that could result in for example a person not being born that was born in a different time line etc or the simple action of turning left lets say instead of going right or even strait ahead etc can result in an entirely different chain of events from that point on.
> ...


enough with your overuse of "nature" 

the way evolution works is either something works or it dies

if it works well then it thrives 

nature has no plan when a virus injects its dna's into ours the stuff that worked survived the stuff that didint killed them

in the case of dna manipulation in humans its being done in cases where people need it and i applaud that effort

to ban treatment to people because you have the Heebie jeebies about it is plan evil in my eyes


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> T...
> To supplant or highjack the collective natural processes of evolution by way of genetic engineering or gene splicing is to assume that our limited and unduly influenced by irrelevant and prejudicial thinking is now superior to the rest of the collective abilities of nature and its processes, good luck with that.
> ...


Dissenting opinion. "Superior" is too hard a criterion ... it's punitive. A more balanced one would be "compatible" in the practical sense. And we're making headway there. The only way to learn is to try. And the prize is so enormously huge that I am all for the trying, and learning. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 6, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> enough with your overuse of "nature"
> 
> the way evolution works is either something works or it dies
> 
> ...


Of course tw you as usual divert into areas of assumptions in effort to avoid responding to the post I specifically ask you to respond to.
Your diversion assumption though seems lacking a proper reading of sec 3(c).


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 6, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Dissenting opinion. "Superior" is too hard a criterion ... it's punitive. A more balanced one would be "compatible" in the practical sense. And we're making headway there. The only way to learn is to try. And the prize is so enormously huge that I am all for the trying, and learning. cn


I'm not against learning and 'trying' as you state you are in support of cn, I'm simply stating that in my opinion these efforts necessarily should be extremely regulated and highly contained at this time so as to not 'accidentally' or otherwise infringe on the inherent rights of all.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Of course tw you as usual divert into areas of assumptions in effort to avoid responding to the post I specifically ask you to respond to.
> Your diversion assumption though seems lacking a proper reading of sec 3(c).


every single post of yours in this thread is an assumption

who is tw?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 6, 2013)

desert dude said:


> I have been here a while. I am not at all surprised that the crazies outnumber us 3:1.
> 
> Welcome to the asylum. Pick up a safety restraint harness and proceed to your keyboard.


Somehow I question the sincerity of your "Welcome" dd so I tell ya what, how about a new SHDT challenge that should smell like cheese to a 'rat' as UB might say...
We only need 100 votes in this poll to make it a viable sampling.
That means about 27 more votes is all the SHDT needs to make me 'go away' forever as you seem to indicate is your desire.
In other words if the poll hits 100 votes I will exit your virtual playground and your team can go running about kicking virtual sand into the virtual abyss as usual.
So if anyone feels like dd and Frank and their keen doctor who's wacky genetic engineering experiments probably resulted in tw, and want's to be DNAprotectionless/free then by all means 'get out the vote' and lets be done with it.
The only rule I can think of that seems applicable would be that all lobbying efforts must remain within the RIU site. 
Vote early and often...

tw asks who is tw? turtlewarrior = tw = mutant from gmo experiment = ginjaturtles


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> I respond to your words tw, but you almost never respond directly to mine?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thats a bunch of assumptions

answered are you happy now?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 6, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> thats a bunch of assumptions
> 
> answered are you happy now?


No tw that was a bunch of relevant questions...your answer is also relevant even in its assumption...so yes you have made me happy now. thnks


----------



## greenswag (Jan 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Somehow I question the sincerity of your "Welcome" dd so I tell ya what, how about a new SHDT challenge that should smell like cheese to a 'rat' as UB might say...
> We only need 100 votes in this poll to make it a viable sampling.
> That means about 27 more votes is all the SHDT needs to make me 'go away' forever as you seem to indicate is your desire.
> In other words if the poll hits 100 votes I will exit your virtual playground and your team can go running about kicking virtual sand into the virtual abyss as usual.
> ...


Does he use the staff or the nunchucks?


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> I'm not against learning and 'trying' as you state you are in support of cn, I'm simply stating that in my opinion these efforts necessarily should be extremely regulated and highly contained at this time so as to not 'accidentally' or otherwise infringe on the inherent rights of all.


Ultimately _quis custodiet custodes_? Extreme regulation by whom? How do we assure that these regulators are and remain fair, benign and without antitechnical bias? I see great liability of regulation by decree, like they do with discretionary intoxicants. cn


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> No tw that was a bunch of relevant questions...your answer is also relevant even in its assumption...so yes you have made me happy now. thnks


relevant to what, your imagination?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Somehow I question the sincerity of your "Welcome" dd so I tell ya what, how about a new SHDT challenge that should smell like cheese to a 'rat' as UB might say...
> We only need 100 votes in this poll to make it a viable sampling.
> That means about 27 more votes is all the SHDT needs to make me 'go away' forever as you seem to indicate is your desire.
> In other words if the poll hits 100 votes I will exit your virtual playground and your team can go running about kicking virtual sand into the virtual abyss as usual.
> ...


Your poll isn't in any way relevant to the thread title, and seriously, it counts as viable sampling? No wonder your arguments are based in fantasy land rather than cold, hard science.

An anonymous online poll doesn't count as shit bro.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 6, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Ultimately _quis custodiet custodes_? Extreme regulation by whom? How do we assure that these regulators are and remain fair, benign and without antitechnical bias? I see great liability of regulation by decree, like they do with discretionary intoxicants. cn


The odds seem better that one could trust the cautionary approach even to its greatest extreme then the odds that self interest or profit driven motivation wont get our cart ahead of our horse in terms of the greater risk.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 6, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Your poll isn't in any way relevant to the thread title, and seriously, it counts as viable sampling? No wonder your arguments are based in fantasy land rather than cold, hard science.
> 
> An anonymous online poll doesn't count as shit bro.


Oh Frank here we go again lol...hard science? Who ever said this sampling was for such?
Its not meant as that kind of representation Frank and why would the reason for the poll matter to you if achieving the 100 votes gets this pig to fly?
Your starting to make me think you want me to stay?
Awe thats sweet Frank, but whats the use of escaping from a Monsanto lab if only to be trapped here with you...please help this pig fly frank...if you really love me you will.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> The odds seem better that one could trust the cautionary approach even to its greatest extreme then the odds that self interest or profit driven motivation wont get our cart ahead of our horse in terms of the greater risk.


So tell us (in your own words), what specifically is this "greater risk" you keep speaking of?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 6, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> So tell us (in your own words), what specifically is this "greater risk" you keep speaking of?


Short version, chain reaction Frank...accidental or not.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Short version, chain reaction Frank...accidental or not.


I don't want the short version, the "devil is in the details".


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 6, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I don't want the short version, the "devil is in the details".


Ok Frank, but as you know I am an early riser and therefore i hit the sack early as well, getting to tired to type so promise I will get that worm for ya tomorrow...till then think time machine and the possible different consequences of turning right or left or going strait ahead and the entire chain of events which is then transformed by any particular decision in any given moment and how a time machine might be a dangerous thing if one didn't know exactly what one was doing every second...such is as genetic engineering, it can create a domino effect that can be irreversibly devastating.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Ok Frank, but as you know I am an early riser and therefore i hit the sack early as well, getting to tired to type so promise I will get that worm for ya tomorrow...till then think time machine and the possible different consequences of turning right or left or going strait ahead and the entire chain of events which is then transformed by any particular decision in any given moment and how a time machine might be a dangerous thing if one didn't know exactly what one was doing every second...such is as genetic engineering, it can create a domino effect that can be irreversibly devastating.


We'll discuss it more when you have time. 

Till then.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 7, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> We'll discuss it more when you have time.
> 
> Till then.


Ok Frank I'm retested and ready postulate.
One thing I've learned about the nature that we are a part of is that there are evolutionary reasons for all life and all the behaviors of such life which in turn means that over billions of years life has evolved and in that process the DNA sequencing of any particular life form is continually transforming based on the demands of the environment that any particular life form struggles to survive in. 
Think of the living organisms that make the soil 'alive' or viable in terms of ability to support plant life etc, we apparently don't think of such when we dump things into the soil that would kill such organisms and then we wonder why plants won't grow etc, in response we then add fertilizers etc to try and make plants grow but all the while instead we are just furthering the soils inability to naturally supply the plant, the chain reaction began because we simply didn't understand the soil well enough to start with.
Killing soil is like playing with Lagos compared with genetic engineering and the possible chain reactive effects such could have on life here on earth.
Some might decide that a particular gene etc is of no importance or of no consequence if removed or manipulated in whatever way or replaced with some other gene from a different species of creature or plant etc, yet like with the soil, we simply don't know enough yet to understand what these genetic manipulations might ultimately result in when then put back into the natural processes of evolution.
Nature does what it does in an automatic response based on the 'numbers' it confronts in any given moment and such responses are linked in perpetuity with every other evolving 'number' etc...that calculations of that giant equation are still to us as trying to see and understand the center of our galaxy, let alone the universe.
In other words we are running almost blind into an area that is fraught with land mines and the possibilities that if one mine blows it then will like domino's start setting many more off in the chain reaction.
Don't know the words to use to get this to be understood by you Frank, not saying you should agree, just saying I hope you understand what I'm saying.
One day we might have evolved to a point of better understanding the consequences of our own behavior in all aspects of human life, its then that I believe we will be in a place of possible viable potential to engage this technology if need be to survive.

Try reading this paper, its not as dry as many and gives a certain incite that I think might be helpful.


http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/chapter4.html


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 7, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Ok Frank I'm retested and ready postulate.
> One thing I've learned about the nature that we are a part of is that there are evolutionary reasons for all life and all the behaviors of such life which in turn means that over billions of years life has evolved and in that process the DNA sequencing of any particular life form is continually transforming based on the demands of the environment that any particular life form struggles to survive in.
> Think of the living organisms that make the soil 'alive' or viable in terms of ability to support plant life etc, we apparently don't think of such when we dump things into the soil that would kill such organisms and then we wonder why plants won't grow etc, in response we then add fertilizers etc to try and make plants grow but all the while instead we are just furthering the soils inability to naturally supply the plant, the chain reaction began because we simply didn't understand the soil well enough to start with.
> Killing soil is like playing with Lagos compared with genetic engineering and the possible chain reactive effects such could have on life here on earth.
> ...





Harrekin said:


> I don't want the short version, the "devil is in the details".


I came back to write more on this to you because you are exactly correct above, the "devil" is in the details or lack there of one might say.
Frank, I keep mentally going through ways to better explain this...maybe think in physical terms of us and everything else living as 'interactive chemical factories' (for lack of better words lol) and that every little thing about us no matter how miniscule from behavior to you name it can be represented by an 'interactive chemical reaction' lets say and that if converted into numbers it represents an equation that is seemingly endless...every life form represents a number...everything about every and each particular life form represents 'chemical numbers' that in each case are in total still beyond our ability to count...everything about each particular life form in terms of 'chemical numbers' then interacts with the 'chemical numbers' of whatever other particular life forms 'chemical numbers' which then creates more new numbers based on all the previous numbers interacting and so on into seemingly infinity one might say.
So now here we are trying to build genetic equations from a position first of not even beginning to know all the numbers in the existing equation of ourselves, let alone the numbers of all else that exists which we live in symbiotic dependent relationships with, and then we are still missing all the chemical numbers representing those symbiotic relationships which in turn are dependent on other like relationships in a seemingly endless chain of life etc. 
If we expect to get the equation right or viable then we need to know all the numbers first Frank because missing one seemingly insignificant number in this equation could have devastating effects. I hope I'm making sense to ya at least whether you agree or not because not sure how else to explain at this point...


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 8, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> We'll discuss it more when you have time.
> 
> Till then.


Haven't heard back from you on this and wondering if your still thinking on it or if maybe have just abandoned your effort here?
In case your still contemplating your response to my response, I thought I would toss in just a bit more on chain reaction...
There was a time when the usa gov policy was to kill bison because many 'Indians' were dependent on such for life, the notion was if you kill the bison the Indians will die in turn.
Of course the most obvious result of such behavior is that you lose both the bison and the Indians and whatever they had to bring to the table of survival and viability etc.
The usa gov continued such thinking in efforts to aid ranchers to safeguard 'cattle' from predators and so placed bounties on wolf ears and such...chain reactive result was that the rodent population explodes and such critters, especially rabbits then deplete the grass lands that the ranchers cattle were to have eaten, thus creating a shortage of food for all etc.
The point is that such thinking and approaches are still in play today whether speaking of govs or corps and if such reasoning is then applied to genetic engineering the chain reactive effects can be far greater in terms of possible harm to us all.
Here are some examples of modern day considerations of the 'bad' gene or 'predator problem' and how the thinking has not changed:



[h=3]Wildlife Services' deadly force opens Pandora's box of - The *...*[/h]www.sacbee.com/2012/04/30/.../wildllife-services-deadly-force.html
Apr 30, 2012 &#8211; But like a mirage, the dream of protecting deer by _killing predators_ has *...* set off a _chain reaction_ of unintended, often negative consequences.



 

[h=3]_Predator_ Defense - The USDA Wildlife Services' War on Wildlife[/h]www.*predator*defense.org/USDA.htm
USDA Wildlife Services is the only federal program that _kills_ native _predators_ at *...* a _chain reaction_ of unintended, often negative, _environmental_ consequences.



 

[PDF] [h=3]Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks as _Predators_ Prey - Oceana[/h]oceana.org/sites/default/.../*Predators*_as_Prey_FINAL_FINAL.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by WHON Sharks
Each year, humans _kill_ more than 100 *...* Sharks are often the &#8220;apex&#8221; or top _predators_ in their ecosystems because they have *.....* as a result of disruptions resulting from _chain reactions_ in the ecosystem.79 *...* densities in a natural _environment_.



 

[h=3]Wildlife Services' deadly force brings _environmental_ problems *...*[/h]m.spokesman.com/stories/2012/may/27/*predation*-predicament/
May 27, 2012 &#8211; But like a mirage, the dream of protecting deer by _killing predators_ has *...* set off a _chain reaction_ of unintended, often negative consequences.



 

[h=3]War on Wildlife - Whatcom Watch Online - Story Display[/h]www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=1502
Millions of animals, disproportionately _predators_, are _killed_ on public land each *....* a _chain reaction_ of unintended, often negative, _environmental_ consequences.



 

[h=3]Wildlife Services' deadly force brings _environmental_ *...* - McClatchy[/h]www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/.../wildlife-services-deadly-force.html
May 1, 2012 &#8211; But like a mirage, the dream of protecting deer by _killing predators_ has *...* set off a _chain reaction_ of unintended, often negative consequences.



 

[h=3]Kruger _Kill_: _Chain Reaction_ | Safari Interactive Magazine Blog.[/h]blog.africageographic.com &#8250; ... &#8250; Photography
May 21, 2012 &#8211; Excitement rushed over us at the thought of a nearby _predator_ so we hurried over for ... *...* Kruger _Kill_: _Chain Reaction_. By Marlon du Toit on 21 *...*



 

[PDF] [h=3]Barcoding generalist _predators_ by polymerase _chain reaction_ *...*[/h]ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/182/1/ind43743239.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by MH Greenstone - 2005 - Cited by 60 - Related articles
Barcoding generalist _predators_ by polymerase _chain reaction_: carabids and spiders. M. H. GREENSTONE,* D. L. ROWLEY,* U. HEIMBACH,&#8224; J. G. LUNDGREN *...*



 

[h=3]Camilla Fox: _Killing_ Coyotes Not the Solution - Project Coyote[/h]www.projectcoyote.org/newsreleases/news_culling.html
Bob Grandchamp, in his Op-Ed "Deer herds the victim of a foreign _predator_" ( BDN, April *...* to each other and the natural _environment_ is shortsighted and unscientific. *...* _Killing_ coyotes in large numbers can set off ecological _chain reactions_ with *...*



 

[h=3]What are some effects of _killing_ animals[/h]wiki.answers.com &#8250; Wiki Answers &#8250; Categories &#8250; Animal Life
*...* a _chain reaction_ starts and many other creatures and _environmental_ elements *...* The food web is a chain where the top _predator_ keeps the lower animals or *...


*


----------



## potpimp (Jan 9, 2013)

It's not just "no" from me but HELL NO!! Nothing that Monsanto has ever touched has ever done anything but harm. They have poisoned thousands of people in third world countries. Just look at what their SHIT seeds have done to the soybean, wheat, barley and other farmers. They have the worst blood-sucking lawyers in the law business. If I could put a bullet in the heads (metaphorically speaking of course) of every single Monsanto employee, I would and not have one single regret over it.


----------



## CSI Stickyicky (Jan 9, 2013)

I didn't see an option for "Hell mother fucking no!!!!!!!!" so i had to go with "no".


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 9, 2013)

potpimp said:


> It's not just "no" from me but HELL NO!! Nothing that Monsanto has ever touched has ever done anything but harm. They have poisoned thousands of people in third world countries. Just look at what their SHIT seeds have done to the soybean, wheat, barley and other farmers. They have the worst blood-sucking lawyers in the law business. If I could put a bullet in the heads of every single Monsanto employee, I would and not have one single regret over it.


But if you read the OP, the cannabis in the title is a lure. The proposal is much wider-ranging than that and boils down to "stop all genetic engineering". cn


----------



## ceiph (Jan 9, 2013)

this should be a simple no unless everyone wants to buy new seeds every year like the farm industry does, Monsanto lawyers would own you if you tried to clone and keep there strain alive without paying them


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 9, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> But if you read the OP, the cannabis in the title is a lure. The proposal is much wider-ranging than that and boils down to "stop all genetic engineering". cn


Not at all cn, firstly it doesn't "stop all genetic engineering" and anyone who reads sec3(c) can plainly see that.
Secondly the title of the poll is clearly a separate but equal issue, in other words even though it is clear that the poll is separate from the proposal, at the end of the day which comes first the chicken or the egg on that deal...in other words can you really expect one without the other?


----------



## potpimp (Jan 9, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> But if you read the OP, the cannabis in the title is a lure. The proposal is much wider-ranging than that and boils down to "stop all genetic engineering". cn


I read it all and I'm against anything Monsanto is for. If you have watched their tactics and history, you know they are purely EVIL. They are the greediest bastards in the world and think nothing of destroying peoples lives for profits.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 9, 2013)

potpimp said:


> I read it all and I'm against anything Monsanto is for. If you have watched their tactics and history, you know they are purely EVIL. They are the greediest bastards in the world and think nothing of destroying peoples lives for profits.


I am not arguing for Monsanto. I am arguing against a blanket ban on genetic engineering. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 9, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I am not arguing for Monsanto. I am arguing against a blanket ban on genetic engineering. cn


Then you are arguing against the wrong proposal if you are arguing against this one cn, because as you should well know by now sec3(c) makes your statement very much incorrect.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 9, 2013)

potpimp said:


> I read it all and I'm against anything Monsanto is for. If you have watched their tactics and history, you know they are purely EVIL. They are the greediest bastards in the world and think nothing of destroying peoples lives for profits.


from every account i have read people have tried to profit for free of of monsanto's work they destroyed themselves by disregarding monsanto's IP

can you show me an instance where this isnt the case?


----------



## potpimp (Jan 9, 2013)

I don't care about their intellectual property. The most common case involves farmers buying their GMO "Roundup Ready" seeds. They are under contract when they buy the seeds that they will not use any seeds from their harvest. If seeds are blown into a neighbors field and grows voluntarily, Monsanto's lawyers go after him with all the force the can muster - as if they had stolen the seeds and planted them. Nobody has the money to beat these bastards and they know it. They will not hesitate to destroy anyone that stands in their way. There has never been a problem with corn, wheat, soybeans, barley or any other natural seed. We do not need a company holding patents for seeds just because they changed a chromosome to benefit their products use (such as Roundup). I have watched this company for years; I have watched videos of farmers that lost everything fighting them. Nobody *needs* their seeds. Nobody *wants* GMO foods. If it's so great why are they themselves not eating it? Because it's fucking poison. Don't know what your motive is for defending them but you might as well forget it here.


----------



## buckaroo bonzai (Jan 9, 2013)

I can tell you absolutely that this conspiracy conjecture IS true--

after having lived deep within the cannabis culture in Mendocino for years....Monsanto has ALL the patents and turpenes patented within cannabis--

they have a 'kill' gene cannabis plant that will effectively wipe out any outdoor cannabis growing and cross pollinate with their genetically modified version--thus giving them ownership rights like they pulled on Percy schmeiser in Canada 
they are going to follow the path they took with corn--
it is common knowledge in and around mendo and some of these UC folks used to come around talking about it --a lot of them enjoy erb too

i also have a very close friend who's brother is a very high profile and at the top of his field Dr. that told us about the meetings he was privileged to in Colorado where the tax and regulate folks were networking on strategies and Monsanto was bringing the donuts to the meetings---he thought it was funny when he told us and he is a closet 'head'

monsanto is definately at the top of the nefarious corporations list and an extreme threat to humanity and our existence with their control of our food and food supplies---

if you think GMO is good look at how Russia 'banned' it and Europe now made it mandatory to label it and India is now in a huge battle over gmo food as most of the country is vegetarian

GMO food has excito toxins and neuro toxins in it and is the reason the average IQ has went from 120 in the 70s to below 100 now
the dumbing down of the population 

i mean would you spray round up on your salad and then eat it? or on your cannabis and then smoke it?

keep drinking soda with GMO corn syrup or your fast foods that areuthanasia for the masses--
most of the sugar beets that we use to extract sugar for most of the food we it is GMO--

what floors me is all the people that still believe this is benign and harmless and actually a good thing--

its NWO stuff and with all the facts it ain't no conspiracy--

beware Monsanto !


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 9, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> from every account i have read people have tried to profit for free of of monsanto's work they destroyed themselves by disregarding monsanto's IP
> 
> can you show me an instance where this isnt the case?


I've provided links... And how does monsanto actually know a farmer is growing any of their GMO seed? Does the farmer let Monsanto's employees on his property to inspect his crop?


----------



## Sand4x105 (Jan 9, 2013)

Lawyers run the country...
The legal system is f up... 
If a bad law is written, it must be corrected by another BS law ....
We are forever over run by bad laws....
Raise your hand if you want more government [put your middle fingers down]...
Now raise your hands if you want less government ....
Law of unintended consequences....Bad laws must be written, so more lawyers can charge more billable hours, to re-write the bad laws....
You lost my vote, when you said: "Kalifornia"


----------



## buckaroo bonzai (Jan 9, 2013)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^here-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

is your moniker mean your a Brit?

and why would you think Canada is now banning all home grows??

is there any writing on the wall anyone sees here??


make particular notice that Monsanto is a Canadian company--


----------



## buckaroo bonzai (Jan 9, 2013)

my gaawwed man !!

does no one understand that Monsanto is genetically modifying and ' patening' every edible medicinal and consumable plant on the planet and the seeds !!

what would ONE company that has loyalties towards the Queen want with owning ALL the rights to every plant usable to man......???


i hope folks are aware also that the 'mine' company that recently was in michigan promoting state regulated underground corporate mine production of 'medicine' for "patients"------ who would you guess 'might' be behind that??

or how about someone of our Canuck brothers tell us about the Canadian owned state grows?

hows that working for ya??


----------



## unknown1231 (Jan 9, 2013)

cfgdfhdhjfghjhdtysrty berytn rtyn wsrtyn eryt enrytnydrny


----------



## potpimp (Jan 9, 2013)

It's not extreme at all. Look at what happened with the Africanized "killer" bees. I'm not sure who is behind it but some company has been dicking around with GMO salmon, releasing them into the wild only to find that the males are much more aggressive than the natural males but the GMO ones are sterile, so the eggs are not getting fertilized and the stocks are failing. Screwing with something so important as our LIVES is unthinkable, and for the sake of making more money??? Desert Dude just showed what a complete moron he is.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 9, 2013)

potpimp said:


> It's not extreme at all. Look at what happened with the Africanized "killer" bees. I'm not sure who is behind it but some company has been dicking around with GMO salmon, releasing them into the wild only to find that the males are much more aggressive than the natural males but the GMO ones are sterile, so the eggs are not getting fertilized and the stocks are failing. Screwing with something so important as our LIVES is unthinkable, and for the sake of making more money??? Desert Dude just showed what a complete moron he is.


The Fox (Monsanto) Buys the Chicken Coop (Beeologics)

Monsanto buys leading bee research firm after being implicated in bee colony collapse


_edit - sorry didn't realise they were the same link fixed now_


----------



## potpimp (Jan 9, 2013)

Great, now they can modify the "science" too. One of these days everyone is going to wish they had burned to the ground. I'm glad some people know what's going on.


----------



## The Growery (Jan 9, 2013)

scary world we live in


----------



## hydrogregg (Jan 9, 2013)

Monsanto is a huge conglomerate with over 100 companies that it owns. They are responsible for genetically altering most US crops (corn, wheat, etc.) and then letting their crops seed into other farmers crops. Do they apologize to the small farm for messing up 100's years of seeds passed down from generation to generation. NOPE, they patent the seed, then attack the farmers in court and wipe them out because their crops have their patented crops (yes they got patents on seeds!)

http://www.hulu.com/watch/255609

wikopedia on what monsanto produces: 

and biggie, Food Inc. how they have taken over American farms with their DNA altered seeds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh8c9OUti4c


----------



## The Growery (Jan 9, 2013)

it's too bad that 90% of americans don't care about what is going on, bring up this information to a typical crowd and they just get a glazed look in their eye. some people even get mad. sheep are stupid.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 9, 2013)

The Growery said:


> it's too bad that 90% of americans don't care about what is going on, bring up this information to a typical crowd and they just get a glazed look in their eye. some people even get mad. sheep are stupid.


The problem is compounded by the nature of the Internet. The info on it is either mass media or blogs ... pure opinion with very little researchable fact. The keepers of the real libraries use pay gates. Citing a blog is no way to conduct a discourse on society. cn


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jan 9, 2013)

potpimp said:


> Great, now they can modify the "science" too. One of these days everyone is going to wish they had burned to the ground. I'm glad some people know what's going on.


That's all Monsanto does. All through their history. Find new inventive ways to invent destructive products and make money while lying and covering up the science.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 10, 2013)

potpimp said:


> I don't care about their intellectual property. The most common case involves farmers buying their GMO "Roundup Ready" seeds. They are under contract when they buy the seeds that they will not use any seeds from their harvest. If seeds are blown into a neighbors field and grows voluntarily, Monsanto's lawyers go after him with all the force the can muster - as if they had stolen the seeds and planted them. Nobody has the money to beat these bastards and they know it. They will not hesitate to destroy anyone that stands in their way. There has never been a problem with corn, wheat, soybeans, barley or any other natural seed. We do not need a company holding patents for seeds just because they changed a chromosome to benefit their products use (such as Roundup). I have watched this company for years; I have watched videos of farmers that lost everything fighting them. Nobody *needs* their seeds. Nobody *wants* GMO foods. If it's so great why are they themselves not eating it? Because it's fucking poison. Don't know what your motive is for defending them but you might as well forget it here.


yeah the farmers didnt give a fuck about their ip either

i see you've watched some emotive video's about just how evil monsanto is but you arent able to provide any links to cases where the farmer hasnt deliberately tried to grow round up ready seeds when they havent paid to


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 10, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> yeah the farmers didnt give a fuck about their ip eitheri see you've watched some emotive video's about just how evil monsanto is but you arent able to provide any links to cases where the farmer hasnt deliberately tried to grow round up ready seeds when they havent paid to


Monsanto putting all their customers out of business doesn't seem like the prudent business choice to me. I wonder why they're so "evil" and un-business like, they must hate profits.


----------



## fatboyOGOF (Jan 10, 2013)

it was close but no wins out by a ...

oh nevermind.


----------



## Bigtacofarmer (Jan 10, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Monsanto putting all their customers out of business doesn't seem like the prudent business choice to me. I wonder why they're so "evil" and un-business like, they must hate profits.


After their land is all Round up to death and nothing else will grow but Monsanto crops who do you think will be selling the seeds to whoever has the farm next year. They don't care who they get there money from just as long as no one else gets any!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 10, 2013)

Bigtacofarmer said:


> After their land is all Round up to death and nothing else will grow but Monsanto crops who do you think will be selling the seeds to whoever has the farm next year. They don't care who they get there money from just as long as no one else gets any!


utter drivel 

roundup has a half life of 30 days

it does not permanently kill the soil


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 10, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> lies lies and more lies.
> 
> UC davis making cannabis targeting fungal diseases... LIES
> "genohm" maps of cannabis varieties being used to patent cannabis varietals ... MORE LIES
> ...


Glad to know it's all lies just because this guy {and a few other trolls} says so and who continue to make personal attacks and false statements his {their} rebuttal. I know I feel better. "NOT!!!"


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 10, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Glad to know it's all lies just because this guy {and a few other trolls} says so and who continue to make personal attacks and false statements his {their} rebuttal. I know I feel better. "NOT!!!"



ahh the rise of the sock puppet 

let me guess your vote has just been added


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 10, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> ahh the rise of the sock puppet
> 
> let me guess your vote has just been added


Diverse-jizzy-mc-jizz-sock?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 10, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Are you actually so stupid that you can't see you're getting trolled to bits by everyone who weighs in on this except Canna who's a vegan-tard?
> 
> Wow, a loan vegan and a retard standing against Genetic Engineering.
> 
> What a smelly, hippy-like spectacle that'd be to behold.


as far as I know TROLLS ONLY APPEAR FOR 2 REASONS

1) PSYCH-OPS = YOUR RIGHT ON THE MONEY AND PRESENT A THREAT TO A BIG BUSINESS AGENDA, SO THEY SHOW UP TO DISCREDIT THE TRUTH OR TO TRY TO ENRAGE, PROVOKE, SIDETRACK... THE ISSUE...

2) AS HACKIVIST, TO TAKE DOWN AND EXPOSE LIES, EVIL PRACTICES OF GOVERNMENTS, LARGE CORPORATIONS,...


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 10, 2013)

by the way I am not a vegan


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 10, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> as far as I know TROLLS ONLY APPEAR FOR 2 REASONS
> 
> 1) PSYCH-OPS = YOUR RIGHT ON THE MONEY AND PRESENT A THREAT TO A BIG BUSINESS AGENDA, SO THEY SHOW UP TO DISCREDIT THE TRUTH OR TO TRY TO ENRAGE, PROVOKE, SIDETRACK... THE ISSUE...
> 
> 2) AS HACKIVIST, TO TAKE DOWN AND EXPOSE LIES, EVIL PRACTICES OF GOVERNMENTS, LARGE CORPORATIONS,...


you forgot

3. for the LULZ

and the most important

4. to point and laugh at stupid people who lap up every stupid idea they hear on the internet


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 10, 2013)

Well the poll went to 100 votes and beyond so it is time for me to keep my word to the SHDT and fly like a Monsanto pig, first though just a few ends to tie up.

\


buckaroo bonzai said:


> I can tell you absolutely that this conspiracy conjecture IS true--
> 
> after having lived deep within the cannabis culture in Mendocino for years....Monsanto has ALL the patents and turpenes patented within cannabis--
> 
> ...


Just thought the above was worth reposting for those who seek truth.




cannabineer said:


> The problem is compounded by the nature of the Internet. The info on it is either mass media or blogs ... pure opinion with very little researchable fact. The keepers of the real libraries use pay gates. Citing a blog is no way to conduct a discourse on society. cn


Truth is everywhere and nowhere cn, and with a corporate gov like ours one must find the 'truth' where one can...everything is relative and relavent and represents a number you could say.



Harrekin said:


> Your poll isn't in any way relevant to the thread title, and seriously, it counts as viable sampling? No wonder your arguments are based in fantasy land rather than cold, hard science.
> 
> An anonymous online poll doesn't count as shit bro.


Frank I can now answer that bit about 'scientific' which in part I have already answered within this thread and even just now above to cn.
After recapping what I posted in response to this bit which you have still yet to respond to then go on and read the rest and bring your wits cuz you'll need your best:



Harrekin said:


> So tell us (in your own words), what specifically is this "greater risk" you keep speaking of?





DNAprotection said:


> ...
> *Try reading this paper first, its not as dry as many and gives a certain incite on the evolution of behavior that I think might be helpful.
> http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/chapter4.html*
> 
> ...


*In summery, I want to simply reiterate that life itself and all that exists if seen as numbers represents a 'great' or the greatest equation.*
*Every behavior, physical appearance and everything about everything and anything is represented by a number in that equation.*
*Everything everywhere survives in symbiotic relationships with everything else either directly or indirectly.*
*Each and every symbiotic interaction also creates and represents new numbers in the greatest equation.*
*The numbers are seemingly endless and simply beyond our calculative abilities at this point in our growth as a species.*
*When the collective nature designs DNA it automatically knows the numbers of the entire equation and thereby can properly design genetic maps in ways and for reasons that we have only just begun to understand, we have stepped on the first step of the ladder on the way to understanding one might say.*
*Humans and our still untamed quest for 'gold' or what we still equate as 'riches' are attempting to design DNA and or solve genetic equations that we simply don't know all the numbers for and even one wrong number or one missing number or one out of order number could result in a devastating chain reaction of events that could prove terminal for our species as well as many others.*
*So it is not and has never been a debate on whether or not GMO's are 'good or bad', that's the debate govs and corps need us to be having because it is unresolvable with the currently known numbers and we will chase each others tails while the corporate run gov keeps on down this dangerous road unchecked by the people.*
*Currently whether in court or getting something approved by the FDA the corps only needs show that their products or creations are 'not harmful', which is a fairly easy task when neither the corps or the FDA have all the numbers to really prove or disprove such a thing in the short term let alone long term.*
*The real court and FDA test would be to require that the corps show that they know all the numbers and because of such they know how to design and are convinced that all numbers will interact in non harmful and beneficial ways in the short terms and for generations to come, but they can't give any such showing because they simply don't have the numbers at this point and that point is simply undeniable and non-debatable. Thus all who have jumped on this thread to 'prove' their points about GMO's not being proved harmful have spent every post in drowning irrelevance to the real question we are faced with as a species and the question this thread and the DNA Act proposal seeks to address: 
**Do we know enough yet? *
*and,
**Are we mature enough yet?*
*This thread and all its many links to available info and including as 'evidence' the bs and SHDT spam banter reflects as good a representation of all sides and all concerns in the GMO issue as I have seen anywhere.
The only non debatable point though is the one that prevails in the end, 'we don't know all the numbers to the equation' and beyond that we are still clearly unduly motivated by dangerous prejudicial traits already influence everything we do or say or write. 
**So based on this thread alone the unavoidable answer to bot questions above would clearly be:*
*No.*
*and,*
*No.
**It is actually the people who insist we are ready and do know enough, by their very position and disposition 'prove' we are not ready and still lack the knowledge and maturity to engage such technologies, much as a child rushes into a circumstance that they had no idea would turn out to be disastrous simply for lack of information and the maturity to be self-aware of such.*
*With the awareness of the lack of knowledge, the more mature child would be very much more cautious in approaching and thereby show a greater readiness to engage such technology responsibly when all the numbers of life's seemingly endless interactive equations are known, and, if need be.*
*Most on this poll have voted 'no' to genetically engineered cannabis, over 3-1, that exhibits a self awareness that if one was attempting to add 10 numbers and yet it was clear that you only had or knew 1 or 3 of those numbers at best, there is no way to add correctly yet, worse is we don't even know the number we are trying to add up to, we only guess its a 10. Still further there are numbers between the numbers and numbers between those and so on and none of which have we even begun to understand.*
*In terms of survival and preservation of all we symbiotically must survive with, a thinking self aware human would naturally be scrambling all hands on deck to protect this planets DNA offspring from the on going redesigning of such by the corps and their puppet govs who clearly and undeniably know not what they do when adding anything but money and power and control and the prejudices that are required to help perpetuate such behaviors.*
*So in other words this thread was an exercise/test/challenge in self awareness. 
**The folks who instantly reflex into assuming, accusing, spamming and demanding 'facts' in their apparent blindness to the undeniable 'fact' of the lack of 'facts' are much like Custer charging on into the little big horn shall we say and paying no mind to adding or even having all the numbers to add first, and so the yes votes on this threads poll can be seen in part as representing the non-viability traits of our species.*
* Conversely the 'no' votes on this threads poll in their recognition or awareness of the lack of 'facts' can in part be seen as representing the viability traits of our species.*
*The 'no' votes should give us all encouragement that we can survive and grow and the 'yes' votes and lack of self awareness and other traits within there as exampled by the postings within this thread should show us how hard we need to work to get to a place of continued survival and evolution.
**The 'yes' votes and the people here who cast them are mostly 'benign' compared to the 'malignant' people making corporate/gov policy in the USA on this and every other issue.*
*Every other issue can and does have bad enough consequences as the state of the economy, wars and health or cancer rates etc currently reflects, but this issue of genetic engineering can make the consequences of all other policies put together seem miniscule in comparison.*
*Life cannot be 'recalled' once that chain of numbers is set in motion, we are not talking about a product failing etc...this effects us all in every way and can easily effect us into extinction if we act as Custer and his crew did.*
*The corporate gov is charging ahead as we speak just like Custer did.*
*Your inherent rights to access the commons of nature for your survival and your rights and responsibilities to defend the genetics of yourself and all else in this nature that we are all part of, far outweighs any reach a corp or gov has to destroy such whether intentionally or not in their quest and the motives for such. 
**Now is the short timed window chance you have to stand up and protect your genetics and the blueprints of all life on this planet before Custer gets to far into the all out charge ahead.*
*That battle in part will be fought here in cyberspace, but the real fight is outside of these virtual walls and is at hand. 
**Your choice, even 'if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice' (as RUSH would say), still represents a number, all those numbers will add up to whatever they may be...I hope the sum total is as viable as this thread and poll have been in helping to determine the aforementioned conclusions.*
*My undying thanks to all who participated and or viewed.*
*To all who voted 'no', "so shines a good deed in a weary world"...
**Good luck, Sincerely,
**DNAprotection
*

[video=youtube;d6wRkzCW5qI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=d6wRkzCW5qI[/video] 

* ps. My advice for the SHDT and all the other 'yes' voters who have displayed traits not unlike all the other Wonka gold ticketed kids, goes to that which was discussed earlier in this thread about the hard working bird v the easy street bird and when each is faced with a test, task or challenge not unlike this thread posed and is as follows:*
* While your banging your beaks on the glass hopelessly attempting to eat the grub or find the 'facts' that simply are yet missing from the collective cognitive knowledge of human kind, maybe at least observe those who voted 'no' and there reasoning, even if only interpreted as caution, because it is those birds who knew to use basic critical thinking to push beyond the glass centered washers illusion of assumptions based on 'what you know' and push it to the side so they could get to the grub or see beyond any known 'facts' in awareness or in the knowledge of the existence of the unknown 'facts' (lol...and that's not a Rumsfeld quote) which results in a cautious trouble shooting process in gaining that needed knowledge and thereby increasing the odds of survival to evolve another day, especially when speaking to the large scale main stream employment of such potentially chain reactive technologies.
Each moment in life is an opportunity to look around and reevaluate, this thread is nothing less than another one of those opportunities.
*

*pss. The poll remains open for future voters here if there be such and changing your vote in the poll is within the variables of the parameters of this threads challenge and so is always an option simply by posting such, that applies especially to you dd because though you fight blindly for GMO's, somehow your vote was placed as a 'no' vote...lol trying to cover all the bases I guess, good for you...hope it all adds up for us all. 
*

*View Poll Results: Genetically Engineered Cannabis yes or no?*

Voters123. 


 yes 

22 17.89% 

BBbubblegum, 
BlazedMonkey, 
Carne Seca, 
ChesusRice, 
Dr Kynes, 
FootballFirst, 
ftrfta, 
ginjawarrior, 
Harrekin, 
john5841, 
JoshTheMadTitan, 
Kite High, 
locoezon, 
loquacious, 
NoxMetus, 
O'Shit, 
PurpleBuz, 
Sand4x105, 
Stellah, 
Stillbuzzin, 
Taviddude, 
tibberous 
 
 no 

94 76.42% 

abandonconflict, 
abe supercro, 
AltarNation, 
anno5, 
ASMALLVOICE, 
Azweepei, 
Bad Karma, 
beardofzeus, 
Bigtacofarmer, 
brimck325, 
Bud Brewer, 
budlover13, 
budman111, 
burwoodkush, 
Cann, 
Canna Sylvan, 
cannawizard, 
CashCrops, 
ceiph, 
chef c, 
Chemdog1989, 
Chimone, 
corneypoos, 
CSI Stickyicky, 
D3monic, 
dabumps, 
dank smoker420, 
deprave, 
desert dude, 
Dic Penderyn, 
Dirty Harry, 
DiverseSanctuary, 
djfrosty, 
Dr. Greenhorn, 
echelon1k1, 
echlectica, 
ElfoodStampo, 
fatboyOGOF, 
friendlyperson92, 
Grandpapy, 
greenswag, 
greywind, 
Grojak, 
hazeville302, 
HTP, 
ilikecheetoes, 
jaymosen, 
jigfresh, 
justanotherbozo, 
kelly4, 
kinetic, 
LeafGnosis, 
leather lungs, 
Limosnero, 
mae, 
malwaremagnet, 
mgasper0, 
mobP, 
mrbungle79, 
Murfy, 
neosapien, 
NERKY, 
NightOwlBono, 
nobody670x, 
NoDrama, 
NW2AZ, 
OGEvilgenius, 
Perfextionist420, 
PixiDustr, 
pmumbry, 
poind3xter, 
potpimp, 
psari, 
puffntuff, 
RyanTheRhino, 
Samwell Seed Well, 
Sativasfied, 
SavageSurg, 
sensisensai, 
shrigpiece, 
st0wandgrow, 
superfoxwon, 
sworth, 
theQuetzalcoatl, 
treetopmmmp, 
TroncoChe, 
uncompahgre, 
unknown1231, 
unohu69, 
vapor85, 
WattSaver, 
Winter Woman, 
ziggaro, 
zrsh 
 
 undecided 

6 4.88% 

aknight3, 
canndo, 
HippySmoke, 
swaggersDlite, 
TheKansasCityChiefer, 
wally smokes 
 
 what is GE cannabis? 

1 0.81% 

Dislexicmidget2021


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 10, 2013)

*Mr Speaker, or in this case Mr Moderator (cn), the time has come for this pig to fly, therefor I yield the remainder of my time to this filthy little brainwashed scripted hippie communist from the godless state of who knows where:*

*
*[video=youtube;nndEZBQ9bds]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=nndEZBQ9bds[/video]*
*


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 10, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Let me explain Like bombing. I woke up with 56 new Likes but only three Liked posts. That means somebody Liked and Unliked a post of mine 53 times. This little maneuver was taught to me by one of this forum's most prolific and creative trolls.
> I will demonstrate, but (as is my nature and calling) in moderation.  cn



Admits he has had troll training and that it is his calling


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 10, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Admits he has had troll training and that it is his calling


~giggle~ cn


----------



## beginner.legal.growop (Jan 10, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Just to be clear, this is not 'spam' nor is it an 'advertizement' or anything of the sort.
> This is a honest outreach for needed discussion on this urgent topic and we are counting on feedback as to how folks would amend the text of the act if they thought it should be etc.
> 
> The DNA Protection Act would ban all genetically engineered cannabis from California before it 'legally' (as in federally mandated) starts and stop whatever may have already begun.
> ...


EVERYONE! LEND ME YOUR EARS!

Do not vote for this stupid shit... Humans are part of nature and technology was the product of humans, therefore it was the product of nature... THEREFORE genetic engineering is standing side by side with nature screaming I WANT CANNABIS WITH HIGHER THC LEVELS!

Who knows, maybe if the US legalizes cannabis and every other country does too we could get THC levels higher than 50% or even plants that put out pure thc nugs (Not sure if that is possible but it sounds good)

Why is everyone so afraid to try new things, this is the 21st century. We have flying cars... Google made a car for blind people that drives it self, perfectly! Maybe with genetic engineering there wont be anymore babies born blind... Or maybe they can make us more resistant to diseases and birth defects... People might be saying, how do you know they can do that? Well how the f**k will we ever know if we havent tried, they can make plants and cattle more resistant to things so why not us? Because you retards who are against it are stopping them from ever trying. Everybody needs to put on their big boy pants and buckle up for the ride that is the future. Everyone needs to stop looking at what bad things could happen, because a lot of the time more good can come then bad.

So screw the 71.54% of people who said no to genetically engineered cannabis! (haha didnt notice its only like 80 people...)


----------



## potpimp (Jan 10, 2013)

beginner.legal.growop said:


> So screw the 71.54% of people who said no to genetically engineered cannabis! (haha didnt notice its only like 80 people...)


It's 94 people, math genius. And screw you and the horse you rode in on. The people have voted and you lost. You have no idea what Monsanto is doing; you've had your head in the ground or you, like the other trolling moron that I refuse to even address again, are a paid Monsanto shill or have relatives that work for them.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jan 10, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Monsanto putting all their customers out of business doesn't seem like the prudent business choice to me. I wonder why they're so "evil" and un-business like, they must hate profits.


It's actually about slavery.

Because make no mistake, they're putting themselves in position to be the Masters.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 10, 2013)

potpimp said:


> It's 94 people, math genius. And screw you and the horse you rode in on. The people have voted and you lost. You have no idea what Monsanto is doing; you've had your head in the ground or you, like the other trolling moron that I refuse to even address again, are a paid Monsanto shill or have relatives that work for them.


~test~ if you reply to this, that won't be me. ~/test~ cn


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jan 10, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> utter drivel
> 
> roundup has a half life of 30 days
> 
> it does not permanently kill the soil


When glyphosate comes into contact with the soil, it can be rapidly bound to soil particles and be inactivated.[SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][45][/SUP] Unbound glyphosate can be degraded by bacteria.[SUP][50][/SUP]
In soils, half-lives vary from as little as three days at a site in Texas to 141 days at a site in Iowa.[SUP][49][/SUP] In addition, the glyphosate metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid has been found in Swedish forest soils up to two years after a glyphosate application.[SUP][51][/SUP] Glyphosate adsorption to soil varies depending on the kind of soil.[SUP][52][/SUP]
It has been suggested that glyphosate can harm the bacterial ecology of soil and cause micronutrient deficiencies in plants,[SUP][53][/SUP] including nitrogen-fixing bacteria,[SUP][54]

[/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 11, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> yeah the farmers didnt give a fuck about their ip either
> 
> i see you've watched some emotive video's about just how evil monsanto is but you arent able to provide any links to cases where the farmer hasnt deliberately tried to grow round up ready seeds when they havent paid to


As full of wind and hot air as you are... I must ask??? Are you an idiot??? Do you not get their intellectual property blows on the wind. This is also how hemp is pollinated. On the wind!!!

If your intellectual property blows on to the real property that is in my name... I won't commit suicide like all those weak ass farmers did and I can fight a better court case. Promise you that!!! Just a Notice to Monsanto and anyone else who wants to PHUCK with what G-d/Nature/the Universe/the Great Spirit... has intrusted me to be responsible for!!! GOT IT?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 11, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> WRONG!!!!!
> 
> too many assumptions.
> 
> ...


As someone who has farmed under contract. Let me say that if Campbell gives me a contract, that contract has other smaller contracts attached through their agreements with other companies like Monsanto. For instance, Campbell's might contract me to raise chickens. That contract specifies what grains, medicines, other company products I will be supplied through that contract.

If I raise soy beans under contract {and I have done both}. That contract dictates what seed I use and what sprays, fertilizers,... are used. It is all designed to keep the farmer dependent on the Corps

Corps = means dead body

The Result as we have seen!!!

By the way??? did you know that the first Corps was established by the Jewish/Roman Church and their corporate governments and that each one established since is just and extension of the first. A big pyramid scheme. Like the one depicted on their "In God We Trust"


----------



## The Growery (Jan 11, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> The problem is compounded by the nature of the Internet. The info on it is either mass media or blogs ... pure opinion with very little researchable fact. The keepers of the real libraries use pay gates. Citing a blog is no way to conduct a discourse on society. cn


not sure what you're getting at but if what I said happened to be in a blog it's just coincidence, my statement is just from personal experience


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 11, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> ahh the rise of the sock puppet
> 
> let me guess your vote has just been added


EXCUSE ME??? You must have me phucked up with your reflection. I think for and speak for Myself. Yet, it is funny that you would recognize me as being connected to this. When DNA hasn't revealed who they are. To say I am a Sock Puppet insinuates that DNA is mastering me or my master or pulling my strings. 

Yes I am connected to this initiative. It was written by a member or members of Diverse Sanctuary who wish to remain nameless because they have no ego or intellectual need for personal profit... Who knows, maybe I wrote it. ???

Yet, there are no puppets here on this side of the fence. Promise you that!!!

YES! MY VOTE WAS ADDED! GUESS WHAT IT IS??? OR CAN YOU????????????


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 11, 2013)

The science??? That everyone keeps demanding that backs this argument up is very elementary 

http://www.kidsplanet.org/wol/page_1.html




DNAprotection said:


> Well the poll went to 100 votes and beyond so it is time for me to keep my word to the SHDT and fly like a Monsanto pig, first though just a few ends to tie up.
> 
> \
> 
> ...


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 11, 2013)

beginner.legal.growop said:


> EVERYONE! LEND ME YOUR EARS!
> 
> Do not vote for this stupid shit... Humans are part of nature and technology was the product of humans, therefore it was the product of nature... THEREFORE genetic engineering is standing side by side with nature screaming I WANT CANNABIS WITH HIGHER THC LEVELS!
> 
> ...


WRONG!!!!!!!! The THC Stopper Gene is designed to ensure low levels of THC in order to ensure Industrial Hemp Crops in the field and D.E.A.'s C.S.A. regulations in order to control THC Levels like alcohol levels are controlled. THC Levels increase the closer to the sun = equator it is planted. It is in fact the Plants SUN SCREEN that protects it from drought. Believe this, Engineering is NOT to ensure High Levels of THC. SORRRRRY!!!

Interesting side note here that is connected:

Alcohol is Legal, and there are over 70 dry counties here in Kentucky alone where it has been Prohibited as a result. Here in Bowling Green Ky {wet} you have to purchase a Keg Permit to possess a Keg of Beer, you pay special tax on. Regulations and more regulations... Proof Legalize = Legal Lies as I have been quoted saying many times. 

Legalize by definition ONLY validates and sanctions their authority to prohibit... Why they prohibited it in the first place! CONTROL!

It is your Sovereign, Inalienable, Constitution Legal Right! 

Yet, No One has the right to mutate, risk harm, risk injury, place at risk,... The Life of an Entire Species. Which only creates a chain effect. 

So that is where your Freedom to Choose ENDS!!!!!!!! and that is the Laws of the Courts.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 11, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> ~test~ if you reply to this, that won't be me. ~/test~ cn


LOL! From reading the conversation. I really don't think you are on the top of my list, when I think of the trolls here. I understand your moderating  Peace


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 11, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> LOL! From reading the conversation. I really don't think you are on the top of my list, when I think of the trolls here. I understand your moderating  Peace


Yah, but notice potpimp did not respond? I am now convinced he meant me. That is sad and a bit amazing to me; I thought we got along. cn


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 11, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> LOL! From reading the conversation. I really don't think you are on the top of my list, when I think of the trolls here. I understand your moderating  Peace


What exactly is the problem with GM Cannabis out of interest? In a free market, you don't have to buy it...so why stop the people who want the 75% THC mega-plant?


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jan 11, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> What exactly is the problem with GM Cannabis out of interest? In a free market, you don't have to buy it...so why stop the people who want the 75% THC mega-plant?


Read the thread.

Good luck inventing a 75% THC mega plant. It won't happen in our life times for many reasons, most of them probably biological. If 75% of the plant were THC that wouldn't leave much for anything else.

No one would do it on a free market because you couldn't patent it and you can breed amazing cannabis far more easily and and with fewer potential lawsuits (because the FDA wouldn't be protecting GMO producers from their pollution).


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 11, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Read the thread.
> 
> Good luck inventing a 75% THC mega plant. It won't happen in our life times for many reasons, most of them probably biological. If 75% of the plant were THC that wouldn't leave much for anything else.
> 
> No one would do it on a free market because you couldn't patent it and you can breed amazing cannabis far more easily and and with fewer potential lawsuits (because the FDA wouldn't be protecting GMO producers from their pollution).


Don't be so childish, obviously I meant 75% of the resin content would be THC. 

Good luck in life if your reading comprehension on a simple sentence is so poor.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jan 11, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Don't be so childish, obviously I meant 75% of the resin content would be THC.
> 
> Good luck in life if your reading comprehension on a simple sentence is so poor.


The way some people are talking in this thread you can't assume anything. Thanks for the insult though. 

I think the science lesson for children posted earlier is something you should review, perhaps it will shrink your ego down about 100 sizes.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 11, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> The way some people are talking in this thread you can't assume anything. Thanks for the insult though.
> 
> I think the science lesson for children posted earlier is something you should review, perhaps it will shrink your ego down about 100 sizes.


There is no "science lesson" in this thread thus far, science determines Genetic Engineering to be safe...you know, the way the folks who usually do it fit the description of "scientist" pretty well. 

This thread is full of pseudo science (at best) and paranoid hyperbole (at worst) from the anti-GM side. 

Sure Monsanto might have unfair business practices at times and you may disagree with bioengineering in general, but the above Bill stops all research or makes research difficult and unprofitable (thus making it impossible). 

It does NOTHING to stop Monsanto patenting DNA sequences/their crosses either.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 11, 2013)

I love the tags below btw, "playing God"...LOL!

So whoever wrote that has no faith in science but believes in a Jewish Zombie who died for their sins, was resurrected and will save you when you die. 


Cool fucking story bro.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jan 11, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> There is no "science lesson" in this thread thus far, science determines Genetic Engineering to be safe...you know, the way the folks who usually do it fit the description of "scientist" pretty well.


I fully believe we're going to become extinct. It will be our own fault. Because our egos are way too big. 



> In 1992, the US Food and Drug Administration claimed they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown foods. Therefore they were safe to eat &#8211; absolutely no safety studies were required. Companies like Monsanto, that told us Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe, are in charge of determining if their GM foods are safe. This is the current FDA policy.
> 
> But internal memos made public by a 1998 lawsuit reveal that their position was staged by political appointees who were under orders from the White House to promote GMOs. In addition, the FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto&#8217;s former attorney, later their vice president, and now the FDA&#8217;s US Food Safety Czar.
> 
> ...



There's an extended summary available here and photos of the documents on the same website elsewhere: 
http://www.biointegrity.org/ext-summary.html





> This thread is full of pseudo science (at best) and paranoid hyperbole (at worst) from the anti-GM side.


You mean like claims that GMO's are safe? Maybe a few are. It's unlikely most are. Because we have no fucking idea what we're doing and we have no idea what the unknown byproducts actually do (we know they exist) because we have no serious studies done. 



> Sure Monsanto might have unfair business practices at times and you may disagree with bioengineering in general, but the above Bill stops all research or makes research difficult and unprofitable (thus making it impossible).


I'm not really in favor of banning the research. I am a libertarian. But if you put a gun to my head and say 'liberty or no release of IP GMO's everywhere' I'd choose the latter. It's one of the rare times I would. But that's mostly because IP law exists. Get rid of patent law and I suspect GMOs are nowhere near the danger they present both liberty and the environment as a whole. 



> It does NOTHING to stop Monsanto patenting DNA sequences/their crosses either.


If you'd been reading what I've written constantly I'd say that abolishing patent law is one of the most important things that has to happen today for the betterment of all (even those who think they benefit from this, they are ultimately fucking themselves over in the long run).


----------



## potpimp (Jan 11, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Yah, but notice potpimp did not respond? I am now convinced he meant me. That is sad and a bit amazing to me; I thought we got along. cn


No, it was ginsuwarrior.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 12, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> I fully believe we're going to become extinct. It will be our own fault. Because our egos are way too big.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok well in that case cannabis is a demon drug, it should be banned, it has unknown effects on the brain! Forget the fact people have been smoking it for years with no harmful effects, ban it out of fear!

Change "cannabis" to "GM food", "drug" to "food" and "smoking" to "eating".


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jan 12, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Ok well in that case cannabis is a demon drug, it should be banned, it has unknown effects on the brain! Forget the fact people have been smoking it for years with no harmful effects, ban it out of fear!


Talk about disjointed logic. I didn't say anything should be banned, first off (except if forced gun to head option a or b, neither or which is preferrable). MJ has quite well known effects on t he brain actually. It's been used for thousands of years and is well proven. GMO organisms? Not quite.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 12, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Talk about disjointed logic. I didn't say anything should be banned, first off (except if forced gun to head option a or b, neither or which is preferrable). MJ has quite well known effects on t he brain actually. It's been used for thousands of years and is well proven. GMO organisms? Not quite.


There are over 400 cannabinoids of which we directly understand the action of maybe 10, and we barely understand the synergistic effects of them working in situ with one another. 

Its the same stupid logic that calls for GMOs to be banned due to their "unknown and unpredictable risks". 

Wtf are these risks anti-GM campaigners fear so much?! 

They're gonna grow mouths (with fangs, obviously) and eat us? They're gonna have some cyanide producing gene? People are gonna start being able to climb walls?


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jan 12, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> There are over 400 cannabinoids of which we directly understand the action of maybe 10, and we barely understand the synergistic effects of them working in situ with one another.
> 
> Its the same stupid logic that calls for GMOs to be banned due to their "unknown and unpredictable risks".
> 
> ...


My concern is that to protect their profits the GM seeds become non-viable after 3 or 4 generations of crops. If these plants cross pollenate with wild versions it might cause them to become non-viable thus altering the normal genetic makeup of nature. Extrapolation could indicate that this process could lead to the extinction of wild varieties of crops.

I dont really trust a private organization with that much power.


----------



## desert dude (Jan 12, 2013)

Change my vote to "yes".


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 12, 2013)

NLXSK1 said:


> My concern is that to protect their profits the GM seeds become non-viable after 3 or 4 generations of crops. If these plants cross pollenate with wild versions it might cause them to become non-viable thus altering the normal genetic makeup of nature. Extrapolation could indicate that this process could lead to the extinction of wild varieties of crops.
> 
> I dont really trust a private organization with that much power.


Before being let grow in a field they should be sterilised, whether it by GE or some other chemical action, etc. 

I'm not implying we should let the technology run free, there needs to be regulation, however the original purpose of this thread is lobbying for a total ban on all GMOs from the State of California.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jan 12, 2013)

Fuck California...

And you can quote me on that...


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 12, 2013)

NLXSK1 said:


> Fuck California...
> 
> And you can quote me on that...


That is irrelevant to the discussion. 

This is about the Libtard state of California wanting to stall scientific advancement because "natural is better".

Your response was intelligent before, why just resort to "Fuck California" now?


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jan 12, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> That is irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> This is about the Libtard state of California wanting to stall scientific advancement because "natural is better".
> 
> Your response was intelligent before, why just resort to "Fuck California" now?


Because California is causing costs to go up on products based on their out of control EPA standards.

You see new labelling on many things to state they are California compliant...

So fuck them.... fuckers.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 12, 2013)

Syngenta Charged for Covering up Livestock Deaths from GM Corn

Good luck to anyone who wants to eat this shit. 

All those in favour for GMO's put your money where your mouth is - start feeding it to yourselves and your children. 

If your so sure they're safe then lead the way for the rest of us.

WIDESPREAD GMO CONTAMINATION: Did Monsanto Plant GMOs Before USDA Approval?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 12, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Syngenta Charged for Covering up Livestock Deaths from GM Corn
> 
> Good luck to anyone who wants to eat this shit.
> 
> ...


Lots of places eat GM food.

I as of yet havnt developed any powers or such, is there a "bedding in" period?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 12, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Lots of places eat GM food.
> 
> I as of yet havnt developed any powers or such, is there a "bedding in" period?


Don't know how a "place" can eat... 

Like I said start feeding it to your kids if you feel they're safe. Cannabis oil will cure the cancer...


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 12, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Don't know how a "place" can eat...
> 
> Like I said start feeding it to your kids if you feel they're safe. Cannabis oil will cure the cancer...


PEOPLE EAT GM FOOD ALL THE TIME. 

Wow you Aussies are fucking stupid.

EDIT: It really isn't a wonder to me now why your country has to issue work visas for foreigners to come in to do simple shit like driving forklifts if you're representative of the typical Australian.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 12, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> PEOPLE EAT GM FOOD ALL THE TIME.
> 
> Wow you Aussies are fucking stupid.
> 
> EDIT: It really isn't a wonder to me now why your country has to issue work visas for foreigners to come in to do simple shit like driving forklifts if you're representative of the typical Australian.





Harrekin said:


> Lots of places eat GM food.


Are you serious? You display, at best, an infantile grasp on the english language, were not speaking cock-throat gaelic you illiterate drunk...

We have to import people to drive forklifts because our citizens seek higher education, which equates to higher paying jobs & higher standards of living. We leave driving forklifts to the irish, since they owe about a 150 billion in bailouts & unemployment is in excess of 14%...


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jan 13, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> There are over 400 cannabinoids of which we directly understand the action of maybe 10, and we barely understand the synergistic effects of them working in situ with one another.
> 
> Its the same stupid logic that calls for GMOs to be banned due to their "unknown and unpredictable risks".
> 
> ...



Cannabis has been used for tens of thousands of years extensively with no apparent major negatives (and we have lots of study recently indicating this too). GMO's have been used for 20, during which period a huge number of diseases have dramatically increased in incidence and where studies that have been done by independents have revealed major cause for concern.

If you can't understand the difference, I can't help you.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Are you serious? You display, at best, an infantile grasp on the english language, were not speaking cock-throat gaelic you illiterate drunk...
> 
> We have to import people to drive forklifts because our citizens seek higher education, which equates to higher paying jobs & higher standards of living. We leave driving forklifts to the irish, since they owe about a 150 billion in bailouts & unemployment is in excess of 14%...


No it's cos most of your people are too stupid to do anything even vaguely productive. 

Get back to pouring pints of Fosters for rich tourists you Kangaroo-rapist.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 13, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Cannabis has been used for tens of thousands of years extensively with no apparent major negatives (and we have lots of study recently indicating this too). GMO's have been used for 20, during which period a huge number of diseases have dramatically increased in incidence and where studies that have been done by independents have revealed major cause for concern.
> 
> If you can't understand the difference, I can't help you.


Disease has risen dramatically due to over prescription of anti-biotics and unhealthy lifestyles. 

Are you the only one who hasn't noticed over 50% of the population in places are fucking whale-people?

GM food is consumed every single day, keep your paranoid delusions where they belong...in your tinfoil hat.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 13, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> No it's cos most of your people are too stupid to do anything even vaguely productive.
> 
> Get back to pouring pints of Fosters for rich tourists you Kangaroo-rapist.


Only ignorant irish drunks _(Translation = county of ireland) _drink Fosters & Guinness, while watching their economy go down the toilet, with their hands out for bailout money to keep them in a permanent state of inebriation.

We also have too many of you dumb fucks here who think the charming irish larrikin is an endearing quality but don't realise their an annoyance who will talk the ears off a dead dog... 

Oh and Australians don't consider it "vaguely productive" for our main export to be pederast catholic priests unlike ireland...
Entire nation of Ireland exposed as vast paedophile ring


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Only ignorant irish drunks _(Translation = county of ireland) _drink Fosters & Guinness, while watching their economy go down the toilet, with their hands out for bailout money to keep them in a permanent state of inebriation.
> 
> We also have too many of you dumb fucks here who think the charming irish larrikin is an endearing quality but don't realise their an annoyance who will talk the ears off a dead dog...
> 
> ...


Hey hold up, I'm not Catholic (anymore), I got my official baptismal cert with "Defected" stamped on it, so yeah, go fuck yourself. 

The only reason you dumb shits are doing so well is your huge mineral deposits, which you can't even mine yourselves, you've to bring people in from abroad. 

Too dumb to dig their own rocks...you guys rule.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 13, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Hey hold up, I'm not Catholic (anymore), I got my official baptismal cert with "Defected" stamped on it, so yeah, go fuck yourself.
> 
> The only reason you dumb shits are doing so well is your huge mineral deposits, which you can't even mine yourselves, you've to bring people in from abroad.
> 
> Too dumb to dig their own rocks...you guys rule.


yep we're rockin and you guys are BACK in the toilet. Wasn't a very long trip.

You were Excommunicated for stretching out kids arseholes...I can do this all day... Seriously there's no shortage of punchlines with the irish you make it too easy... You are the standard in all that is backward and retarded.

silly little leprechaun, get a job as there's no gold under the rainbow, nor can your bankrupt shithole of a country even scramble together a pot of pennies 

You of all people should care about GM food considering your love affair with the potato! Bunch of wannabe poms... Go dance a fuckin jig


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> yep we're rockin and you guys are BACK in the toilet. Wasn't a very long trip.
> 
> You were Excommunicated for stretching out kids arseholes...I can do this all day... Seriously there's no shortage of punchlines with the irish you make it too easy... You are the standard in all that is backward and retarded.
> 
> ...


Pathetic...you seem angry.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 13, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Pathetic...you seem angry.


Then don't start arguments you can't finish.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Then don't start arguments you can't finish.


I think you're mad cos your country was founded as a penal colony and we sent all out criminals over there.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 13, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I think you're mad cos your country was founded as a penal colony and we sent all out criminals over there.


Half the people the brits sent were poor drunk irish peasants... 200 years later whats changed in ireland? obviously not a thing 

learn your own history fucktard _(the scary thing is you'll pass on your irish ignorance to all 20 of your children since you breed like rabbits)

_


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 14, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Half the people the brits sent were poor drunk irish peasants... 200 years later whats changed in ireland? obviously not a thing
> 
> learn your own history fucktard _(the scary thing is you'll pass on your irish ignorance to all 20 of your children since you breed like rabbits)
> 
> _


Kids are great, don't think I could eat more than one tho. 

You mad bro?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 14, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> PEOPLE EAT GM FOOD ALL THE TIME.
> 
> Wow you Aussies are fucking stupid.
> 
> EDIT: It really isn't a wonder to me now why your country has to issue work visas for foreigners to come in to do simple shit like driving forklifts if you're representative of the typical Australian.


Frank, in my absence I have received multiple emails telling me of your continued postings here as you and echelon1k1 go back and forth cutting at each others genetics, I can only be thankful you aren't in a lab doing such.
I only came back for a moment Frank to try and help further nurse you through this if possible...








First though Frank you never responded to my fulfillment of your request of wanting to see 'my words' etc lol...maybe you should go back and review on page 70:

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/602854-monsanto-cannabis-yes-no-dna-70.html

I gave you not only a good bit of my own verbiage on the subject, but I also provided you with the 'scientific' conclusions of this thread, truly Frank please review before you keep running about like a pms afflicted ferret. 
When your through reviewing my words, then maybe come back and hear the words provided by some others and see if that helps any...k?

http://www.prx.org/pieces/90083-human-rights-not-just-for-humans-corporations

*Piece Description*


The courts have ruled that in the US, Corporations have the same rights as people. But do our communities and natural ecosystems have any rights? How about our bodies, right down to our cells and genetic material? Do they have rights? And how can we defend them? On this edition, Thomas Linzey and Katherine Davies argue that in order to defend our bodies and our environment, they must be given rights under the law. 
Special Thanks to Pirate TV and the Sustainable Path Foundation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB8re_OIWrE
.

*Published on Mar 7, 2012  
*
Expanding the rights of individuals, communities, and nature as a key strategy for sustainability. The rights over a person's genes, tissues, and environmental health is near to non-existent. Over 20% of human genome is patented by corporations and universities. Toxic trespass is a condition where human tissues contain unwanted toxins via unregulated food supply, water supply, air conditions and environmental factors. Lead in blood, mercury in hair, and contamination in mother's milk are examples of toxic trespass. As of now we do not have the right to a healthy environmental living condition. The current activism is not working to stop environmental problems. Although environmental law firms have judicial victories, most permits that were fought against end up being reestablished. Many established environmental issues should be seen as human rights issues.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 14, 2013)

Your Bill doesn't address patenting of genetic material. 

Try harder.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 14, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Your Bill doesn't address patenting of genetic material.
> 
> Try harder.


Oh Frank it is certainly not me who wants for lack of trying...my goodness we went over this issue any number of times in the evolution of this thread.
Once more for old times sake I guess won't hurt.
The patenting issue has been settled by the Supreme Court as of yet, and Congress works for those who are deemed working for 'national security' so there is no hope in needed laws arising from that feathered nest. Outside of a really good federal civil court challenge that could overturn current patent law (and none exists), the only way for 'the people' to respond in any meaningful way is at the ballot box and with respect to where possible legal reach exists in that area.
Does that about cover it for ya Frank or are you going to ask again after another ten pages or so?
Let's try and be real for a moment if that's possible in your world.
Frank you lost the vote (more than 4-1 now), you lost the 'debate' you thought you were having, you lost all credibility, you lost your dignity and you even lost your anonymity, the only thing I can think of you might yet still posses is your puberty, so for the life of me I can only conclude that you are still posting on this thread because you are exhibiting a veiled cry for help...in which case I'm here for ya Frank, you do count in this world and you do still have value even with all you seem to have lost...so turn that frown upside down and try to perceive this whole experience in the light that you have not lost it all but instead gained knowledge about yourself and the world you live in.













At last we are all nailed to the wood in some sense or some way Frank so what say we belt out a couple verses of this one together a'? 



[video=youtube;jHPOzQzk9Qo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=jHPOzQzk9Qo[/video]


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 14, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh Frank it is certainly not me who wants for lack of trying...my goodness we went over this issue any number of times in the evolution of this thread.
> Once more for old times sake I guess won't hurt.
> The patenting issue has been settled by the Supreme Court as of yet, and Congress works for those who are deemed working for 'national security' so there is no hope in needed laws arising from that feathered nest. Outside of a really good federal civil court challenge that could overturn current patent law (and none exists), the only way for 'the people' to respond in any meaningful way is at the ballot box and with respect to where possible legal reach exists in that area.
> Does that about cover it for ya Frank or are you going to ask again after another ten pages or so?
> ...


Tl;dr 

Good luck with your Bill buddy, honestly, I realised that if you succeed, more of your Biotech companies will move over here to take advantage of our highly educated workforce and low corporate tax rates. 

Also we encourage scientific research, not stifle it. 

So best of luck!

EDIT: I lost my anonymity? Pray good sir, do tell.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 14, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Tl;dr
> 
> Good luck with your Bill buddy, honestly, I realised that if you succeed, more of your Biotech companies will move over here to take advantage of our highly educated workforce and low corporate tax rates.
> 
> ...


In Ireland? Bro that's fuckin halarious... Your country is BANKRUPT

Don't think the rest of the irish will like biotech companies fuckin around with their potatoes...


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 14, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> In Ireland? Bro that's fuckin halarious... Your country is BANKRUPT
> 
> Don't think the rest of the irish will like biotech companies fuckin around with their potatoes...


Yeah cos Pfizer doesn't have huge operations here or anything. 

Our growth is expected to be 1.1% this year, not bad considering we've cut our deficit by over 80% in the last 4 years. 

And we'd to accept the bailout cos our banks acted irresponsibly and we'd to bail them out by decree of the EU. 

If you're gonna try insult someone, at least be accurate. 

Was your teacher a kangaroo?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 14, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Tl;dr
> 
> Good luck with your Bill buddy, honestly, I realised that if you succeed, more of your Biotech companies will move over here to take advantage of our highly educated workforce and low corporate tax rates.
> 
> ...


Frank everyone knows who you are now...why else would I always be addressing you by your real name?
Remember you said you dont need my help to look foolish and so I've been trying not to help, but you make it so hard...















*










Angry reaction to GM potatoes go-ahead*

Friday, July 27, 2012
Top names from the food, restaurant, and tourism sectors have sharply criticised the Environmental Protection Agency for potentially destroying Irelands clean, green agricultural image by allowing GM potatoes to be grown in Ireland. 


By Claire OSullivan, Rachel Power and Joe Dermody 
The agency has given consent to the Department of Agricultures research arm, Teagasc, to carry out field trials on a genetically modified potato that could improve resistance to blight. The trial is to be carried out over the next four years, at Oak Park in Co Carlow, on an area up to two hectares. 

Speaking as a member of Slow Food Ireland, the European Chefs Association, Eurotoques, and the Taste Council, chef and owner of Ballymaloe House, Darina Allen, said she felt so let down by what she described as a deeply regrettable decision. 

The Bridgestone Food Guides said there is nothing in the decision for Ireland, while the Restaurants Association said the decision is not good for the Irish food industry. 

However, IFA potato committee chairman Thomas Carpenter said the added costs of spraying potatoes to protect them from blight, coupled with the lower crop yield, will see consumers having to pay more for potatoes this year. 

Tommy Cooke, a Tipperary farmer, ICMSA council member, and Teagasc board member, said his and his neighbours potato crops have been decimated by the rain and the resulting blight. 

Commercial potato farmers are spraying on a weekly basis to combat the weather, he said. It is impossible to protect the crop from blight this year. If the country was depending only on that crop, we would be starving right now. 

However, Ms Allen said the consequential risk for Irelands food business is much greater than any potential benefits in reducing crop costs. 

Huge investments have been made in building the islands reputation as a green, clean, good-food island by Fáilte Ireland, Aer Lingus, Bord Bia, Diageo, Irish Distillers, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, and many others. This strategic benefit is being devalued and undermined by policies that pander to the owners of unproven, patented technologies that can cause unforeseen consequences to the environment and Irelands future as a pristine producer. 

John McKenna, publisher of the Bridgestone guides, also attacked the decision. 

What makes the food culture in Ireland special is its purity and distinctiveness. With GM foods there is no distinctiveness, no difference between a potato grown in Tipperary or Down or Iowa. I think that we have seen from the worldwide growing of GM foods that everything it promised has failed to come true. 

The GM potatoes were developed at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. No biotechnology or GM company was involved. The EPA gave the project the green light after examining more than 83 submissions from interested parties after Teagascs plans were submitted. They also consulted with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the Department of Agriculture. 

A judicial review of the decision must be sought within three months.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 14, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Frank everyone knows who you are now...why else would I always be addressing you by your real name?
> Remember you said you dont need my help to look foolish and so I've been trying not to help, but you make it so hard...
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, you're quoted a newspaper so unpopular, it's skimming bankruptcy. 

Also, our Government approved the research. 

Love you too


----------



## potpimp (Jan 14, 2013)

This would be a really good thread for a mod to close. It's really gotten off course and the self-appointed voice of the "losing side" will not let it go and refuses to acknowledge truth when it is presented. With the permission of the OP I will PM a mod of this forum to close it.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 14, 2013)

Before it's closed up - loved trading insults with you harrekin lets do it again soon... I don't take it heart hope you didn't...


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 14, 2013)

potpimp said:


> This would be a really good thread for a mod to close. It's really gotten off course and the self-appointed voice of the "losing side" will not let it go and refuses to acknowledge truth when it is presented. With the permission of the OP I will PM a mod of this forum to close it.


If the OP could actually address the points it would've been over a long time ago. 

However he continues to decieve people with his spin and lies, and you suckers are taking it hook, line and sinker. 

Some "academics" you douche canoes turned out to be, can't even check references or read a Bill before voting on a poll...


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 14, 2013)

Either way, I say Vote Yes on the DNA Protection Bill (AKA the "send well paid, skilled jobs out of California Bill")!


----------



## potpimp (Jan 14, 2013)

Yep, we got that.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 15, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Before it's closed up - loved trading insults with you harrekin lets do it again soon... I don't take it heart hope you didn't...


Yeah was good, till next time


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 15, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> If the OP could actually address the points it would've been over a long time ago.
> 
> However he continues to decieve people with his spin and lies, and you suckers are taking it hook, line and sinker.
> 
> Some "academics" you douche canoes turned out to be, can't even check references or read a Bill before voting on a poll...


Frank blaming your inadequacies on others will never get you across the finish line.
I haven't deceived anyone Frank and I answered every question that was put to me, even yours, in fact you never (still haven't) responded to the answers and then usually asked the identical questions soon after, almost like a drunk person would, so cheers...
Good luck Frank and truly I mean that, I wish you safe and meaningful travels and a happy healthy life.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 15, 2013)

potpimp said:


> This would be a really good thread for a mod to close. It's really gotten off course and the self-appointed voice of the "losing side" will not let it go and refuses to acknowledge truth when it is presented. With the permission of the OP I will PM a mod of this forum to close it.


Dissenting opinion.
1) This is the Politics forum. "Went off course" is not imo an actionable criterion. If that were enforced, activity in this section would drop to near nothing. 
2) I do not see there to be a clear winning/losing side. In my estimation, the general silliness is in balance.
3) I received no PM. Did you maneuver around me? Hmpf.

I see no good reason to close this thread that can be defined and applied to others in this section.
Were this thread in the "real" side of RIU, I could see that. But this is ... cn


----------



## makingdamove (Jan 15, 2013)

If you think for one second that Monsanto doesn't have its eye on patenting marijuana genetics then you better read up on how they sue mom and pop farmers that have their corn crops cross bred because the neighbors use gmo strains. Nothing, nothing monsanto does is good for you, me, or this planet period. They are more evil than a wall street banker in heat.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 15, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Dissenting opinion.
> 1) This is the Politics forum. "Went off course" is not imo an actionable criterion. If that were enforced, activity in this section would drop to near nothing.
> 2) I do not see there to be a clear winning/losing side. In my estimation, the general silliness is in balance.
> 3) I received no PM. Did you maneuver around me? Hmpf.
> ...




Agreed cn<3









makingdamove said:


> If you think for one second that Monsanto doesn't have its eye on patenting marijuana genetics then you better read up on how they sue mom and pop farmers that have their corn crops cross bred because the neighbors use gmo strains. Nothing, nothing monsanto does is good for you, me, or this planet period. They are more evil than a wall street banker in heat.















*H.R. 193 would force farmers to pay a fee on saved seeds and ...*

www.examiner.com/.../h-r-*193*-would-force-farmers-to-pay-a-fee-on...
Jan 7, 2013  Farmers around the country Friday expressed frustration after learning about _House Resolution 193_. _H.R. 193_ would require farmers to register *...* 
 

*Is Monsanto Behind H.R. 193? « On The Edge of the SHTF.*

idk5536.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/is-monsanto-behind-h-r-*193*/
3 days ago  Grow Food, Not Lawns.. http://www.facebook.com/#!/GrowFoodNotLawns _H.R. 193_ would force farmers to pay a fee on saved seeds and *...* 
 

*H.R.193 - To require persons who seek to retain seed harvested ...*

beta.congress.gov  Legislation  113th Congress
by M Kaptur - 2013
Jan 4, 2013  Summary of _H.R.193_, legislation from the 113th Congress (2013-2014). To require persons who seek to retain seed harvested from the planting *...* 
 

*Full Text of H.R. 193: To require persons who seek to retain seed ...*

www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/*hr193*/text?utm...
_H.R. 193_: To require persons who seek to retain seed harvested from the planting of patented seeds to register with the Secretary of Agriculture and pay fees set *...* 
 

*HR 193 - GovTrack.us*

www.govtrack.us  Congress  Bills
Jan 4, 2013  _H.R. 193_. In GovTrack.us, a database of bills in the U.S. Congress. 
 

*H.R. 193: To require persons who seek to retain seed harvested ...*

projectavalon.net  Forum  Project Avalon  General Discussion
5 posts - 5 authors - Jan 8
This new bill would require you to register seeds you save. Mind bogglingly stupid. Only good news is the congresswoman that introduced it is *...* 
 

*Seed Availability and Competition Act: H.R. 193: To require persons ...*

www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/*hr193*
_H.R. 193_: To require persons who seek to retain seed harvested from the planting of patented seeds to register with the Secretary of Agriculture and pay fees set *...* 
 

*TheEasyGarden - Gardening Forum / HR 193 proposal to congress*

www.theeasygarden.com  Index  Random Ramblings
10 posts - 5 authors - 6 days ago
_HR 193_ proposal to congress. Read about the bill and do your thang'! http://www. govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr193 *...* 
 

*H.R. 193: "To... | Facebook*

www.facebook.com/OccupyVotingBooths/posts/127590397406407
Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work , study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep up with friends, *...* 
 

*H.R. 193 would force farmers to pay a fee on saved seeds and reg ...*

www.homesteadingtoday.com  ...  Current Events
Jan 8, 2013  _H.R. 193_ would force farmers to pay a fee on saved seeds and register them Farmers around the country Friday expressed frustration after *...*


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Jan 15, 2013)

Seventy Five percent bitches . . grow your own, or make sure its real


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 15, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> Seventy Five percent bitches . . grow your own, or make sure its real


That is my garden right now ... 3 out of 4 are known girls. 
Samwell, might I ask you to keep it cool with fonts&formats? cn


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Jan 15, 2013)

random spew here and there is funny


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 15, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> random spew here and there is funny


I once knew a cat who believed the very same thing. As one who likes to walk barefoot, imagine my amusement.  cn


----------



## potpimp (Jan 15, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Dissenting opinion.
> 1) This is the Politics forum. "Went off course" is not imo an actionable criterion. If that were enforced, activity in this section would drop to near nothing.
> 2) I do not see there to be a clear winning/losing side. In my estimation, the general silliness is in balance.
> 3) I received no PM. Did you maneuver around me? Hmpf.
> ...


Hey, you're the mod here not me, so that's completely your call bro. Glad you got the hard gig, not me, LOL. The OP didn't PM me until today about closing it but I see things have calmed down a bit so it's no big deal.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 16, 2013)

potpimp said:


> Hey, you're the mod here not me, so that's completely your call bro. Glad you got the hard gig, not me, LOL. The OP didn't PM me until today about closing it but I see things have calmed down a bit so it's no big deal.


Works for me potpimp, I am hard pressed to think of a more important or more urgent issue that we collectively are facing then private ownership and redesigning of the gene pool we all swim in, Monsanto want's to be the lifeguard...sort of like having a hungry shark overseeing our 'safety'...

If anyone has an update on the Monsanto Protection Act, please post it because I'm not finding such...this is from last year:*


 Congress&#8217; Big Gift to Monsanto  
*


 Written by Lisa Cerda  14 *Dec* *2012* 







CERDAFIED - Monsanto, the biotech company, has continued to evade conventional law though it has faced so many lawsuits one wonders how they have time to sell their toxic weed killer and seeds. But Monsanto has come up with their own solution and your political representative might just be the one to give them immunity from federal law, regardless of whether a federal court orders a halt in sales until an Environmental Impact Statement has been completed by the USDA.

We must convince legislators this week to strip both the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5973) and the Farmers Assurance Provision (Section 733) of dangerous riders. Chairman Rep. Kingston (R-GA), House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, was convinced by Monsanto to attach a rider aptly name the &#8220;Monsanto Protection Act,&#8221; which if passed would give Monsanto immunity, while leaving consumers, the environment, and farmers without meaningful legal recourse. 

Monsanto lobbyists bought themselves several anti-regulatory riders that if passed will gut the USDA&#8217;s ability to regulate the use of genetically engineered organisms (GMOs). The review and approval process for new GE crops would be sped up in some instances and authorize the USDA to consider exempting certain GE crops from any review at all.

The Agriculture Appropriations could become part of an Omnibus Appropriations Bill and the Farm Bill could be buried in a deficit-reduction agreement to avoid scrutiny under the pretense of avoiding their pending "fiscal cliff."

Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) is currently circulating a letter to his colleagues in Congress opposing the &#8220;Monsanto Protection Act&#8221; attempting to protect millions of health conscious Americans. 

Federal courts have recognized the threat that genetic contamination poses to "a farmer's choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops or a consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food.&#8221;

House and Senate leaders are working behind closed doors until their ready to vote. Amendments won't be allowed so you must put pressure on Congress to reject Monsanto's riders now!

In GEERTSON SEED FARMS vs. MIKE JOHANNS, Sec. of the USDA, Ca., government argues that &#8220;even if the deregulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa could result in the elimination of all non-genetically engineered alfalfa--in other words, there would be no alfalfa grown in the United States that does not contain the engineered gene that confers tolerance to glyphosate--such a result would still not constitute a significant environmental impact because APHIS has determined that the introduction of that gene to alfalfa is harmless to humans and livestock, that is, it is not toxic or pathogenic.&#8221;

The government&#8217;s belief is irrational because the engineered gene eliminates or least greatly reduces the availability of non-engineered plants and varieties of Alfalfa. Eventually all edible plants in our entire food system will have the same fate, which has a significant effect on the human environment, consumer choice, and farmer&#8217;s choice.

Why would one company be allowed the power to genetically destroy the purity and health benefits of agriculture or control the food chain of the world? Why wouldn&#8217;t the government look at the cumulative effects of eating only bio-engineered foods by humans and animals? Why would farmers plant bio-engineered crops that require a greater supply of round up with each harvest, impacting their health, consumer&#8217;s health, water quality and the environment?

In a 2009 press advisory, The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that "GM foods pose a serious health risk" and calling for a moratorium on GM foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects" and that "GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health." 

AAEM's position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found here. They call for:

&#9679; Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks. 

&#9679; Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.

&#9679; Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.

&#9679; For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers. 

Farmers receive intimidating letters from Monsanto threatening them when cross contamination or cross pollination is suspected. The only benefactor when cross contamination occurs is Monsanto, who is suspected of spreading its toxic seeds in an attempt to corner new markets. Monsanto has filed 144 patent-infringement lawsuits against farmers and won judgments for those who made use of its seed without paying required &#8220;royalties&#8221; between 1997 and April 2010.

Earth quake stricken Haiti&#8217;s received a toxic gift from Monsanto, 475 tons of genetically modified seeds, along with the accompanying fertilizer and pesticides as earthquake relief. Again, trying to corner a new market, Monsanto is facing growing opposition from Haitian farmers and a 200,000-member national coalition who is encouraging farmers to burn Monsanto&#8217;s distributed seeds. 

They are calling on the government to reject additional shipments. Farmers wish to preserve their organic agriculture that respects the environment, and fights against its degradation. They are defending their native seeds and their rights. 

The US is the only developed nation to allow humans to consume milk from cows given Monsanto&#8217;s artificial growth hormone. It is estimated that around 1/3 of cows in the U.S. are injected with rBGH, a synthetic hormone created by using molecules and DNA sequencing that are a result of molecular cloning. 

Peer-reviewed research has identified rBGH as a risk factor for both breast and gastrointestinal cancer. If you have consumed US dairy products, you more than likely consumed Monsanto&#8217;s genetically engineered growth hormone. 

Two key political figures, instrumental in the approval of rBGH, were actually affiliated with Monsanto. Margaret Miller, Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services, reviewed her own report on rBGH following its approval. Monsanto&#8217;s legal representative Michael R Taylor became the FDA&#8217;s deputy commissioner for policy. He wrote the FDA&#8217;s rBGH labeling guidelines claiming that there is no difference between rBGH and regular milk. This is partly why rBGH is still legal in the United States. Taylor returned to work directly for Monsanto, until Obama made him the Food Safety Czar.

Monsanto has stacked the deck in their favor, and you&#8217;re losing the right to choose what you consume as each day passes. You are being exposed to toxins, and may be experiencing health impacts that are related to your intake. Consider writing down what you eat daily, products you consume, and talk to your doctor about your concerns. 

Ask the restaurants you frequent whether they buy GMO food products and let them know that if they do, they will lose customers. Keep fighting a good fight and keep pressure on your legislators!

*More on GMOs*

&#8226; A Guide to Avoiding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) at the Grocery Store 
&#8226; Why Other Countries Are Scared of GMOs and We're Not 
&#8226; GM foods not served in Monsanto cafeteria 


[video=youtube_share;s3OUJeVOyZY]http://youtu.be/s3OUJeVOyZY[/video]


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

http://www.georgesoros.com/articles-essays/entry/why_i_support_legal_marijuana/

[h=1]Why I Support Legal Marijuana[/h] George Soros | The Wall Street Journal | October 26, 2010
Our marijuana laws are clearly doing more harm than good. The criminalization of marijuana did not prevent marijuana from becoming the most widely used illegal substance in the United States and many other countries. But it did result in extensive costs and negative consequences.
Law enforcement agencies today spend many billions of taxpayer dollars annually trying to enforce this unenforceable prohibition. The roughly 750,000 arrests they make each year for possession of small amounts of marijuana represent more than 40% of all drug arrests.
Regulating and taxing marijuana would simultaneously save taxpayers billions of dollars in enforcement and incarceration costs, while providing many billions of dollars in revenue annually. It also would reduce the crime, violence and corruption associated with drug markets, and the violations of civil liberties and human rights that occur when large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens are subject to arrest. Police could focus on serious crime instead.
The racial inequities that are part and parcel of marijuana enforcement policies cannot be ignored. African-Americans are no more likely than other Americans to use marijuana but they are three, five or even 10 times more likely&#8212;depending on the city&#8212;to be arrested for possessing marijuana. I agree with Alice Huffman, president of the California NAACP, when she says that being caught up in the criminal justice system does more harm to young people than marijuana itself. Giving millions of young Americans a permanent drug arrest record that may follow them for life serves no one's interests.
Racial prejudice also helps explain the origins of marijuana prohibition. When California and other U.S. states first decided (between 1915 and 1933) to criminalize marijuana, the principal motivations were not grounded in science or public health but rather in prejudice and discrimination against immigrants from Mexico who reputedly smoked the "killer weed."
Who most benefits from keeping marijuana illegal? The greatest beneficiaries are the major criminal organizations in Mexico and elsewhere that earn billions of dollars annually from this illicit trade&#8212;and who would rapidly lose their competitive advantage if marijuana were a legal commodity. Some claim that they would only move into other illicit enterprises, but they are more likely to be weakened by being deprived of the easy profits they can earn with marijuana.
This was just one reason the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy&#8212;chaired by three distinguished former presidents, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, César Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico&#8212;included marijuana decriminalization among their recommendations for reforming drug policies in the Americas.
Like many parents and grandparents, I am worried about young people getting into trouble with marijuana and other drugs. The best solution, however, is honest and effective drug education. One survey after another indicates that teenagers have better access than most adults to marijuana&#8212;and often other drugs as well&#8212;and find it easier to buy marijuana than alcohol. Legalizing marijuana may make it easier for adults to buy marijuana, but it can hardly make it any more accessible to young people. I'd much rather invest in effective education than ineffective arrest and incarceration.
California's Proposition 19, which would legalize the recreational use and small-scale cultivation of marijuana, wouldn't solve all the problems connected with the drug. But it would represent a major step forward, and its deficiencies can be corrected on the basis of experience. Just as the process of repealing national alcohol prohibition began with individual states repealing their own prohibition laws, so individual states must now take the initiative with respect to repealing marijuana prohibition laws. And just as California provided national leadership in 1996 by becoming the first state to legalize the medical use of marijuana, so it has an opportunity once again to lead the nation.
In many respects, of course, Proposition 19 already is a winner no matter what happens on Election Day. The mere fact of its being on the ballot has elevated and legitimized public discourse about marijuana and marijuana policy in ways I could not have imagined a year ago.
These are the reasons I have decided to support Proposition 19 and invite others to do so.

Source: The Wall Street Journal



DESPITE HIS CLAIMS, IT'S OBVIOUS HE WANTS TO CONTROL ALL THE SEED, FOOD,... SUPPLY


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> http://www.georgesoros.com/articles-essays/entry/why_i_support_legal_marijuana/
> 
> *Why I Support Legal Marijuana*
> 
> ...


Who is this you speak of exactly, you blathering crazy man?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 17, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Who is this you speak of exactly, you blathering crazy man?


George Soros... http://www.forbes.com/profile/george-soros/

Has at one stage or another, been a member of or had close ties to the Carlyle Group, CFR, ECFR, Bilderberg


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> George Soros... http://www.forbes.com/profile/george-soros/
> 
> Has at one stage or another, been a member of or had close ties to the Carlyle Group, CFR, ECFR, Bilderberg


Yes and was the ceo and is the founder of Monsanto 

I am a woman, not that it matters. Trolls can't really read.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

also a big contributor to MPP & DPA...


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Either way, I say Vote Yes on the DNA Protection Bill (AKA the "send well paid, skilled jobs out of California Bill")!


Just what everyone in Cali wants to be paid to do. Mutate DNA and play G-d for profit


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Yes and was the ceo and is the founder of Monsanto
> 
> I am a woman, not that it matters. Trolls can't really read.


John Francis Queeny founded Monsanto.

A couple of years ago Soros bought $312.6 Million in Monsanto shares, he may still be up there with the largest shareholders. Him & Gates have been buying in recently. Don't know if he was ever CEO, you got a link for that?

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/11/16/george-soros-whats-his-fund-been-buying/


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> There is no "science lesson" in this thread thus far, science determines Genetic Engineering to be safe...you know, the way the folks who usually do it fit the description of "scientist" pretty well.
> 
> This thread is full of pseudo science (at best) and paranoid hyperbole (at worst) from the anti-GM side.
> 
> ...


I totally get where your coming from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> John Francis Queeny founded Monsanto.
> 
> A couple of years ago Soros bought $312.6 Million in Monsanto shares, he may still be up there with the largest shareholders. Him & Gates have been buying in recently. Don't know if he was ever CEO, you got a link for that?
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/11/16/george-soros-whats-his-fund-been-buying/


Being from St. Louis, I was sure he founded the company there. I can unlike others here admit I am wrong when I am. It isn't often I am. http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morning_call/2010/11/soros-buys-897813-monsanto-shares.html


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

It was founded in St. Louis, Mo. someone said Canada or someplace earlier here ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

While speaking of Threads and Webs ~ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2490337/posts


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

HIS HISTORY SAYS IT ALL ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Yes and was the ceo and is the founder of Monsanto
> 
> I am a woman, not that it matters. Trolls can't really read.



George Soros 

*Monsanto Company* (NYSE: MON) is a publicly traded American multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] It is a leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed and of the herbicide glyphosate, which it markets under the Roundup brand.[SUP][5][/SUP] Founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny, ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

*George Soros* (pron.: /&#712;s&#596;ro&#650;s/ or /&#712;s&#596;r&#601;s/;[SUP][2][/SUP] Hungarian: _Soros György_; Hungarian: [&#712;&#643;oro&#643;]; born August 12, 1930, as *Schwartz György*) is a Hungarian-American business magnate, ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_soros

George Soros founded Monsanto 29 years BEFORE he was born? 

and aparently george soros NEVER worked for monsanto... ~http://www.nndb.com/company/163/000049016/

you are misinformed.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> HIS HISTORY SAYS IT ALL ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros


no mention of monsanto at all in that citation


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

EVEN OUR CHILDREN KNOW ~ http://www.encod.org/info/SOROS-THE-DEA-MONSANTO-AND-GMO.html


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> george soros
> 
> *monsanto company* (nyse: mon) is a publicly traded american multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in creve coeur, missouri.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] it is a leading producer of genetically engineered (ge) seed and of the herbicide glyphosate, which it markets under the roundup brand.[SUP][5][/SUP] founded in 1901 by john francis queeny, ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/monsanto
> 
> ...


 I already admitted my mistake. The company was formed in St. Louis, * creve coeur, IN THE AREAS OF *despite earlier reports here by others and he is their second largest stock holder. Excuse me. Unlike you I can admit when I am wrong.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> I already admitted my mistake. The company was formed in St. Louis, * creve coeur, IN THE AREAS OF *despite earlier reports here by others and he is their second largest stock holder. Excuse me. Unlike you I can admit when I am wrong.


i have admitted being in error many times, it happens. admitting you are in error and then sticking your snoot in the air while declaring that youre *"Better Than SOME People Around Here"* for the simple fact that you made a factual error indicates that you are in fact a twat, much like the OP of this hideous abortion of a thread. 

your intimation that i dont admit when im wrong indicates your one of the butthurt bunch who simply BELIEVE i am wrong on some issue, however based on your assertion i can conclude that:

A: the subject to which you obliquely refer is a matter of opinion and thus there is no right or wrong answer. in such a case, you would be a fool.
or
B: you have failed to prove your case on the subject at question, yet still somehow expect those with opposing views to surrender. in this eventuality you would be a retard. 


either way, smells a lot like sockpuppets in here.

PS. I especially love the way you got your knickers in a twist over somebody simply saying "you are misinformed" 
hilariously tender butts get hurt so easily i dont even have to try.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

1957: Monsanto moved to the suburban community of *Creve Coeur*, having finally outgrown its headquarters in downtown St. Louis, Missouri. ~ http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/company-history.shtml


----------



## VTMi'kmaq (Jan 17, 2013)

The only thing i want from monsanto is some MONEY! Lord knows they got plenty of that fire one lawyer, that should do it monsanto! Hey, you tried to convince my neighbor that you'd be GOOD for his new england sweet corn, i laughed when he threatened to shoot tresspassers! I MAY be able to convince him for the right price! I kid i kid, i joke i joke! Monsanto should slide into organics.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> i have admitted being in error many times, it happens. Admitting you are in error and then sticking your snoot in the air while declaring that youre *"better than some people around here"* for the simple fact that you made a factual error indicates that you are in fact a twat, much like the op of this hideous abortion of a thread.
> 
> Your intimation that i dont admit when im wrong indicates your one of the butthurt bunch who simply believe i am wrong on some issue, however based on your assertion i can conclude that:
> 
> ...


you have failed to prove anything here other than your being a corporate paid troll with a sick mouth. The vote reflects that and no matter how many times you divert the subject with your personal attacks and nasty name calling... Please quote me one place in this entire argument where you have admitted your wrong or have not come back with useless diversion bs???


----------



## VTMi'kmaq (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i have admitted being in error many times, it happens. admitting you are in error and then sticking your snoot in the air while declaring that youre *"Better Than SOME People Around Here"* for the simple fact that you made a factual error indicates that you are in fact a twat, much like the OP of this hideous abortion of a thread.
> 
> your intimation that i dont admit when im wrong indicates your one of the butthurt bunch who simply BELIEVE i am wrong on some issue, however based on your assertion i can conclude that:
> 
> ...


We need to develop butthurt panties for him and her. that and start a thread called all nutters please post here!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> 1957: Monsanto moved to the suburban community of *Creve Coeur*, having finally outgrown its headquarters in downtown St. Louis, Missouri. ~ http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/company-history.shtml


we get it, you hate monsanto. 

the subject of this thread is whether california should pass a plebiscite to ban GMO's and genetic research within the state. 

the inability of the "Yes" crowd to illuminate their position without resorting to ad hominem attacks, circular logic, unsupported claims, and repeated dumps of UNRELATED material such as your anti-monsanto link dumps is a strong indication that the ""Yes " side has no proof to support their claims. 

in a free country, you cannot legislate a prohibition of something based on your feelings, you must PROVE the thing you are attempting to legislate against is undesirable. 
provide actual proof that supports the OP's claim of GMO's doing harm and you may find support, without it youre just chicken little.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> i have admitted being in error many times, it happens. Admitting you are in error and then sticking your snoot in the air while declaring that youre *"better than some people around here"* for the simple fact that you made a factual error indicates that you are in fact a twat, much like the op of this hideous abortion of a thread.
> 
> Your intimation that i dont admit when im wrong indicates your one of the butthurt bunch who simply believe i am wrong on some issue, however based on your assertion i can conclude that:
> 
> ...


 my knickers are in a twist...??? Look how many of you it has taken to try to divert this truth. Funny they come out like tag team cock roaches... If i am a twat? A twat you gmo cocks can't ever touch with your trolling psych-ops bs!!!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> you have failed to prove anything here other than your being a corporate paid troll with a sick mouth. The vote reflects that and no matter how many times you divert the subject with your personal attacks and nasty name calling... Please quote me one place in this entire argument where you have admitted your wrong or have not come back with useless diversion bs???


in this thread? 

why in this thread i am RIGHT. 

100% correct. 

Zero Factual Errors. 

if you wish to claim a factual error, then might i suggest a link to the claimed error, and a link to proof of the error. 

note however that most of this thread is about OPINIONS. the facts however are all on my side. 

it is groovy the way you once again leap to ad hominem attacks and claims that im on Monsanto or Ciba Geigy's payroll. 
one might also note the YOU are the one dragging out non-sequitors, declaring them to be proof of ... SOMETHING (nobody seems sure what though) and then getting your bloomers in a bunch over a simple correction of a couple glaring factual errors. 

i dont even have to be an expert on Monsanto, since i KNEW ALREAADY that monsanto was a pretty big chemical company in ww2, while george soros was a pretty small baby during that war. 
people who work in agriculture (like myself) are well aware of monsanto's warts, and where they do a great job.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> we get it, you hate monsanto.
> 
> The subject of this thread is whether california should pass a plebiscite to ban gmo's and genetic research within the state.
> 
> ...


these 70+ pages is full of it. Learn to read all of it, not just the parts you can twist


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> in this thread?
> 
> Why in this thread i am right.
> 
> ...


rolmafo!!!!!!!!!! Guess you missed the part where i said i have done commercial farming for many yrs


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> my knickers are in a twist...??? Look how many of you it has taken to try to divert this truth. Funny they come out like tag team cock roaches... If i am a twat? A twat you gmo cocks can't ever touch with your trolling psych-ops bs!!!


psych-ops? 

ohhh you mean Psy-Ops. 

you think im trying to get inside your head and manipulate you? 

im a farm hand, not a psychologist you paranoid loon. 

your paranoia is pretty obvious, as well as your delusions, narcissism, and general instability. 

i cant tell for sure yet whether youre Don Quixote, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Canute The Great. 

keep yammering though,, ill figure it out.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> these 70+ pages is full of it. Learn to read all of it, not just the parts you can twist


yes this thread really is FULL OF IT. 

it was FULL OF IT days ago, before you came in and started shoveling more on top. 

if this goes on too much longer this thread will be so FULL OF IT that it will have to be declared a Superfund Site and closed as a safety hazard.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> in this thread?
> 
> why in this thread i am RIGHT.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> rolmafo!!!!!!!!!! Guess you missed the part where i said i have done commercial farming for many yrs


well you for damned sure werent PCA, farm mananger, feild hand or propagator. anyhone who does those jobs already knows how safe glyphosate is for the user and how long the feild has to be shut down after application.

spending an afternoon in your community garden twice a month doesnt make you a farmer.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yes this thread really is FULL OF IT.
> 
> it was FULL OF IT days ago, before you came in and started shoveling more on top.
> 
> if this goes on too much longer this thread will be so FULL OF IT that it will have to be declared a Superfund Site and closed as a safety hazard.


Your Full of It!!!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> psych-ops?
> 
> ohhh you mean Psy-Ops.
> 
> ...


Farm hand is a long way from running a chicken & cattle ranch that houses over 8000 head of chicken and 6000 head of cattle and raising 100's of acres hay, tobacco and soybeans... ect... Some under contract of Campbell Soup,... for many yrs..... Which sorry is Not Gardening


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> well you for damned sure werent PCA, farm mananger, feild hand or propagator. anyhone who does those jobs already knows how safe glyphosate is for the user and how long the feild has to be shut down after application.
> 
> spending an afternoon in your community garden twice a month doesnt make you a farmer.


Yes, Manager, and Why would a field be shut down after application if it is safe........??? More BS! from the farm hand


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> HE WAS IN FACT A PRISONER DURING THAT WAR. NOT A BABY. THINK YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT. IT WAS IN HIS HISTORY I POSTED. LEARN TO READ. PLEASE.


yep, your jimmies are rustled. 

perhaps a refresher course on how to quote somebody else's comment might be helpful. 

and yes, gerorge soros was just a wee lad when germany fell. 

how my exaggerating this fact for humorous intent proves your assertion correct escapes me.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> in a free country, you cannot legislate a prohibition of something based on your feelings, you must PROVE the thing you are attempting to legislate against is undesirable.


Really is that what happened when they prohibited Cannabis/Marijuana ??????? You arrogance and ignorance is showing


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Farm hand is a long way from running a chicken & cattle ranch that houses over 8000 head of chicken and 6000 head of cattle and raising 100's of acres hay, tobacco and soybeans... ect... Some under contract of Campbell Soup,... for many yrs..... Which sorry is Not Gardening


if you raised cattle you should know why glyphosate is used, how soon after application you can re-enter the field, and why you need to go back in as soon as the PCA clears you. 



DiverseSanctuary said:


> Yes, Manager, and Why would a field be shut down after application if it is safe........??? More BS! from the farm hand


the PCA has to shut down a field if you spray ANYTHING except water on the area. 

even organic fertilizers. 

you aint no farmer. you definately aint no rancher. 

glyphosate is as safe for people and animals as DDT is. and thats pretty fucking safe.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> if you raised cattle you should know why glyphosate is used, how soon after application you can re-enter the field, and why you need to go back in as soon as the PCA clears you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


BS!!! they do shut fields down, you can not return for at least 4 hours after and no Sorry. I May have gotten Cancer from it. I was first Diagnosed with cancer in 1995, and it has spread 5 times. I have had surgery 4 times... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

* Dr Kynes *you are definitely a farm hand and not a Dr or a Farmer


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Really is that what happened when they prohibited Cannabis/Marijuana ??????? You arrogance and ignorance is showing


cannabis prohibition has gone through many stages, which the knowledgeable potheads understand. this shit is BASIC and incredibly important, not just that you know HOW it was prohibited but WHY that method was used. 

in 1925 the US Congress drafted the Uniform State Narcotic Act. this Act had no power of enforcement as the Congress has NO POWER to do anything to people but tax them under the constitution. yep. thats it. just taxation. the goal of this Act was to encourage the STATES to pass their own prohibition laws and provided a proposed framework for those laws. 

in 1937 the feds, being disappointed in the cool reception their silly Act received. decided to employ the only power they held to control anything, they passed the Marijuana Tax Act. this act required Cannabis to be taxed by the stamp, and then they decided to not sell any stamps. the US Supreme Court beat them about the head and arms for this, and told em, you gotta sell stamps or this law is invalid. the law severly curtailed the availability of weed but did not stamp it out. 

in 1970 the congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, which featured a rider called the Controlled Substances Act as Title 2. The Congress handed off the power to enforce the CSA (which they never had to give) to the DEAA and other bureaucratic organizations and the prohibition of cannabis as well as the prosecution of the violators (as well as all other federal laws) was distributed to REGULATORS. 

And this is how it has been ever since. The Congress has NO POWER to enforce criminal law save the statute on TREASON (the only criminal law in the constitution), they simply appointed bureaucrats to do it for them, using the authority they do not posses, to confer authority onto others, who likewise posses no real constitutional authority. 

as such there is NO legislative prohibition on cannabis from the federal government or the congress. cannabis is prohibited by REGULATION which is what you might call a constitutional "grey area" in that it all falls under the "commerce clause" and the "general welfare clause" which in reality provide no constitutional authority for criminal prosecutions or federal lawmaking outside laws binding on the states. the constitution provides only TREASON as a cause for federal prosecution. all other regulatory and legislative powers of the congress deal with the states and the states alone.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

http://www.georgesoros.com/faqs/archive/category/childhood/ Soros was thirteen years old in March 1944 when Nazi Germany occupied Hungary. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros



[/URL]


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> BS!!! they do shut fields down, you can not return for at least 4 hours after and no Sorry. I May have gotten Cancer from it. I was first Diagnosed with cancer in 1995, and it has spread 5 times. I have had surgery 4 times... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate


yep, but i didnt have to look it up. 

see i was a PCA for several years, it was my job to use that stuff as well as many other herbicides pesticides and whatnot. 

you imply that i said that glyphosate does NOT require fields be evacuated. in fact i said the opposite. the feild MUST be evacuated, but the feild must be evacuated if you apply worm castings, sulfate, diotemaceous earth or dolomite lime. 
glyphosate (and ddt) are nearly harmless to people and animals. you may BELIEVE you got cancer from roundup, but you could just as easily gotten cancer by having a genetic predispition, exposure to other chemicals, or getting to much sun on your holiday in Miami Beach. 

if roundup caused cancer, PCA's willing to handle it would be as rare those willing to handle asbestos, radioactive materials and biological waste from a VD clinic. 

not even a good try.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> http://www.georgesoros.com/faqs/archive/category/childhood/ Soros was thirteen years old in March 1944 when Nazi Germany occupied Hungary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros


yep. a wee lad of 14. and hitler fell before he turned 15. amazing.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> cannabis prohibition has gone through many stages, which the knowledgeable potheads understand. this shit is BASIC and incredibly important, not just that you know HOW it was prohibited but WHY that method was used.
> 
> in 1925 the US Congress drafted the Uniform State Narcotic Act. this Act had no power of enforcement as the Congress has NO POWER to do anything to people but tax them under the constitution. yep. thats it. just taxation. the goal of this Act was to encourage the STATES to pass their own prohibition laws and provided a proposed framework for those laws.
> 
> ...


REALLY??? may be why I built this site http://www.constitutionalcannabis.com/

Marijuana Madness & this had is how they did it http://www.worldaudit.org/The Elkhorn Manifesto - R_ William Davis.htm


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yep. a wee lad of 14. and hitler fell before he turned 15. amazing.


 Yes and *YESHUWA' of NAATSARET the haMASHIYACH *rite of passage was at 13 and I was a married woman at 15 what is your point??? wee wee wee


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yep, but i didnt have to look it up.
> 
> see i was a PCA for several years, it was my job to use that stuff as well as many other herbicides pesticides and whatnot.
> 
> ...


sorry it was you who implied they didn't need to be shut down. i quote *




Originally Posted by DiverseSanctuary  
Yes, Manager, and Why would a field be shut down after application if it is safe........??? More BS! from the farm hand

where I asked you, why if it was safe as you claim, why shut fields down?????

Is the pot once again calling the kettle black and twisting things????????

*


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

this conversation is over as far as I can tell you lost and failed to prove your argument or win the vote


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> if you raised cattle you should know why glyphosate is used, how soon after application you can re-enter the field, and why you need to go back in as soon as the PCA clears you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While you were declaring how safe the shi# is


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> REALLY??? may be why I built this site http://www.constitutionalcannabis.com/
> 
> Marijuana Madness & this had is how they did it http://www.worldaudit.org/The Elkhorn Manifesto - R_ William Davis.htm


so, would you assert that i am WRONG vis a vis the lack of Legislative Prohibition of cannabis? 

cuz its pretty unclear whether you understand the fact that the DEA FDA FBI IRS and BATFE et al are all just bureaucratic mandarins exercising authority they do not possess, granted them by a congress who had NOT the power to give them in the first place, to enforce laws which are OUTSIDE the congress' purview.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> getting to much sun on your holiday in Miami Beach.


Proof you assume way too much. Never had that vacation and skin cancer isn't an issue for me sorry. Obviously, I think I know what I was doing when I got ill and you have obviously never really looked at the real stats of those being treated........


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> sorry it was you who implied they didn't need to be shut down. i quote *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i had to shut down feilds during and for 4 hours after the application of Diotemaceous Earth. that stuff is INERT. it cannot harm you unless you drown in it. if federal regulations become the new measure of safety, then chlorine bleach is a delicious soft drink, but beer is a dangerous drug. 

even helpless children can buy potentially lethal bleach, but only those over 21 may acquire BEER. beer must therefore be more dangerous than bleach. or liquid plumber, or Lime Away

there are no age restrictions on the purchase of Gopher Bombs which are pretty much just poison gas grenades, yet cigarettes are strictly controlled... 

holding up regulations as your evidence of anything's safety or danger is ridiculously specious. 

im proud to be a hard workin farm hand, the disdain you attach to that title makes clear to all what you think of people who work for a living.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so, would you assert that i am WRONG vis a vis the lack of Legislative Prohibition of cannabis?
> 
> cuz its pretty unclear whether you understand the fact that the DEA FDA FBI IRS and BATFE et al are all just bureaucratic mandarins exercising authority they do not possess, granted them by a congress who had NOT the power to give them in the first place, to enforce laws which are OUTSIDE the congress' purview.


One of the few things you have said, I agree with


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> im proud to be a hard workin farm hand, the disdain you attach to that title makes clear to all what you think of people who work for a living.


I have labored and Managed and labored more as a Manager Sorry

it was you who implied I was a lowly gardener and a Twat TALK ABOUT SHOWING YOUR DISTASTE for people


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> well you for damned sure werent pca, farm mananger, feild hand or propagator. Anyhone who does those jobs already knows how safe glyphosate is for the user and how long the feild has to be shut down after application.
> 
> Spending an afternoon in your community garden twice a month doesnt make you a farmer.


see your superior attitude you accuse me of, mirroring are we?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> i have admitted being in error many times, it happens. Admitting you are in error and then sticking your snoot in the air while declaring that youre *"better than some people around here"* for the simple fact that you made a factual error indicates that you are in fact a twat, much like the op of this hideous abortion of a thread.
> 
> Your intimation that i dont admit when im wrong indicates your one of the butthurt bunch who simply believe i am wrong on some issue, however based on your assertion i can conclude that:
> 
> ...


a reminder of your mirroring here


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

I still win ~ 


 yes 

24 17.14% 

 _no_ 

106 75.71% 

 undecided 

8 5.71% 

 what is GE cannabis? 

2 1.43%


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 17, 2013)

MORE ACTUAL SCIENCE & EVIDENCE ~ http://www.ofa.org.au/pages/GMO-Safety-Issues-based-on-Science.html


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so, would you assert that i am WRONG vis a vis the lack of Legislative Prohibition of cannabis?
> 
> cuz its pretty unclear whether you understand the fact that the DEA FDA FBI IRS and BATFE et al are all just bureaucratic mandarins exercising authority they do not possess, granted them by a congress who had NOT the power to give them in the first place, to enforce laws which are OUTSIDE the congress' purview.


doc I'm guessing you have never been to court to prove your theories and or conclusions here?
Only a judge could make such determinations, and i'm guessing your not quoting a judge above.
You maybe should do the work before you try to run about in big boy pants.
I have done the work, and I can produce quotes from judges and until you can do the same, your words remain impotent whether rooted in truth or not.
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/607634-what-does-9th-amen-mean-6.html
As far as GS goes, he is simply a large stakeholder in Monsanto as well as other corps and political groups, but in 1993 he met a man named Ethan Nadleman and it was at that meeting that the drug policy alliance was birthed. DPA has worked at every turn to make sure that questions before judges concerning that which you speak to in the above quote never happen.
MPP and DPA have main objectives to divert or detour any directly confrontational or constitutional challenges to the cannabis laws while they work towards legislation that will 'legalize' through strict regulation...best case scenario for George and his et al gang including Monsanto is manipulate the coming laws to keep all naturally occurring varieties of cannabis in schedule 1 while getting FDA approval for GM/GE patented 'safe' varieties etc. They will simply allow for state laws as long as the source of material is gov certified etc.
As far as this thread goes doc, again you couldn't be more wrong...maybe you missed the conclusions page:

*In summery, I want to simply reiterate that life itself and all that exists if seen as numbers represents a 'great' or the greatest equation.*
*Every behavior, physical appearance and everything about everything and anything is represented by a number in that equation.*
*Everything everywhere survives in symbiotic relationships with everything else either directly or indirectly.*
*Each and every symbiotic interaction also creates and represents new numbers in the greatest equation.*
*The numbers are seemingly endless and simply beyond our calculative abilities at this point in our growth as a species.*
*When the collective nature designs DNA it automatically knows the numbers of the entire equation and thereby can properly design genetic maps in ways and for reasons that we have only just begun to understand, we have stepped on the first step of the ladder on the way to understanding one might say.*
*Humans and our still untamed quest for 'gold' or what we still equate as 'riches' are attempting to design DNA and or solve genetic equations that we simply don't know all the numbers for and even one wrong number or one missing number or one out of order number could result in a devastating chain reaction of events that could prove terminal for our species as well as many others.*
*So it is not and has never been a debate on whether or not GMO's are 'good or bad', that's the debate govs and corps need us to be having because it is unresolvable with the currently known numbers and we will chase each others tails while the corporate run gov keeps on down this dangerous road unchecked by the people.*
*Currently whether in court or getting something approved by the FDA the corps only needs show that their products or creations are 'not harmful', which is a fairly easy task when neither the corps or the FDA have all the numbers to really prove or disprove such a thing in the short term let alone long term.*
*The real court and FDA test would be to require that the corps show that they know all the numbers and because of such they know how to design and are convinced that all numbers will interact in non harmful and beneficial ways in the short terms and for generations to come, but they can't give any such showing because they simply don't have the numbers at this point and that point is simply undeniable and non-debatable. Thus all who have jumped on this thread to 'prove' their points about GMO's not being proved harmful have spent every post in drowning irrelevance to the real question we are faced with as a species and the question this thread and the DNA Act proposal seeks to address: 
**Do we know enough yet? *
*and,
**Are we mature enough yet?*
*This thread and all its many links to available info and including as 'evidence' the bs and SHDT spam banter reflects as good a representation of all sides and all concerns in the GMO issue as I have seen anywhere.
The only non debatable point though is the one that prevails in the end, 'we don't know all the numbers to the equation' and beyond that we are still clearly unduly motivated by dangerous prejudicial traits already influence everything we do or say or write. 
**So based on this thread alone the unavoidable answer to bot questions above would clearly be:*
*No.*
*and,*
*No.
**It is actually the people who insist we are ready and do know enough, by their very position and disposition 'prove' we are not ready and still lack the knowledge and maturity to engage such technologies, much as a child rushes into a circumstance that they had no idea would turn out to be disastrous simply for lack of information and the maturity to be self-aware of such.*
*With the awareness of the lack of knowledge, the more mature child would be very much more cautious in approaching and thereby show a greater readiness to engage such technology responsibly when all the numbers of life's seemingly endless interactive equations are known, and, if need be.*
*Most on this poll have voted 'no' to genetically engineered cannabis, over 3-1, that exhibits a self awareness that if one was attempting to add 10 numbers and yet it was clear that you only had or knew 1 or 3 of those numbers at best, there is no way to add correctly yet, worse is we don't even know the number we are trying to add up to, we only guess its a 10. Still further there are numbers between the numbers and numbers between those and so on and none of which have we even begun to understand.*
*In terms of survival and preservation of all we symbiotically must survive with, a thinking self aware human would naturally be scrambling all hands on deck to protect this planets DNA offspring from the on going redesigning of such by the corps and their puppet govs who clearly and undeniably know not what they do when adding anything but money and power and control and the prejudices that are required to help perpetuate such behaviors.*
*So in other words this thread was an exercise/test/challenge in self awareness. 
**The folks who instantly reflex into assuming, accusing, spamming and demanding 'facts' in their apparent blindness to the undeniable 'fact' of the lack of 'facts' are much like Custer charging on into the little big horn shall we say and paying no mind to adding or even having all the numbers to add first, and so the yes votes on this threads poll can be seen in part as representing the non-viability traits of our species.*
* Conversely the 'no' votes on this threads poll in their recognition or awareness of the lack of 'facts' can in part be seen as representing the viability traits of our species.*
*The 'no' votes should give us all encouragement that we can survive and grow and the 'yes' votes and lack of self awareness and other traits within there as exampled by the postings within this thread should show us how hard we need to work to get to a place of continued survival and evolution.
**The 'yes' votes and the people here who cast them are mostly 'benign' compared to the 'malignant' people making corporate/gov policy in the USA on this and every other issue.*
*Every other issue can and does have bad enough consequences as the state of the economy, wars and health or cancer rates etc currently reflects, but this issue of genetic engineering can make the consequences of all other policies put together seem miniscule in comparison.*
*Life cannot be 'recalled' once that chain of numbers is set in motion, we are not talking about a product failing etc...this effects us all in every way and can easily effect us into extinction if we act as Custer and his crew did.*
*The corporate gov is charging ahead as we speak just like Custer did.*
*Your inherent rights to access the commons of nature for your survival and your rights and responsibilities to defend the genetics of yourself and all else in this nature that we are all part of, far outweighs any reach a corp or gov has to destroy such whether intentionally or not in their quest and the motives for such. 
**Now is the short timed window chance you have to stand up and protect your genetics and the blueprints of all life on this planet before Custer gets to far into the all out charge ahead.*
*That battle in part will be fought here in cyberspace, but the real fight is outside of these virtual walls and is at hand. 
**Your choice, even 'if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice' (as RUSH would say), still represents a number, all those numbers will add up to whatever they may be...I hope the sum total is as viable as this thread and poll have been in helping to determine the aforementioned conclusions.*
*My undying thanks to all who participated and or viewed.*
*To all who voted 'no', "so shines a good deed in a weary world"...
*


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 17, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> MORE ACTUAL SCIENCE & EVIDENCE ~ http://www.ofa.org.au/pages/GMO-Safety-Issues-based-on-Science.html


That's an organic farmers website. 

Youd find less biased info on the Monsanto website.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 17, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> That's an organic farmers website.
> 
> Youd find less biased info on the Monsanto website.


Oh Frank it looks like your back to telling jokes again lol...I can only guess that's what you meant because of the punch line "Youd find less biased info on the Monsanto website."

Ok one good joke deserves another:


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yes this thread really is FULL OF IT.
> 
> it was FULL OF IT days ago, before you came in and started shoveling more on top.
> 
> if this goes on too much longer this thread will be so FULL OF IT that it will have to be declared a Superfund Site and closed as a safety hazard.


doc, neither you or Frank or any other members of the SHDT have responded to the conclusions page of this thread which can be found on page 70 lol...
Makes your quote above as empty as your knowledge on this subject.
All your conclusions and so called 'evidence' were found to be conclusively irrelevant to the undeniable surviving fact that the numbers to life's complicated equations are not yet fully known or understood, so attempting to engineer an equation without all the numbers is at the very least foolish and at the very most a crime against nature and the humanity that exists as a part of such.
The responses you've had all through this thread have been rarely more than attempts to malign.
You may be right doc, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic your looking for...its to late to fight, dont try to save me, you may be wrong but for all I know you may be right...


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 17, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> doc, neither you or Frank or any other members of the SHDT have responded to the conclusions page of this thread which can be found on page 70 lol...
> Makes your quote above as empty as your knowledge on this subject.
> All your conclusions and so called 'evidence' were found to be conclusively irrelevant to the undeniable surviving fact that the numbers to life's complicated equations are not yet fully known or understood, so attempting to engineer an equation without all the numbers is at the very least foolish and at the very most a crime against nature and the humanity that exists as a part of such.
> The responses you've had all through this thread have been rarely more than attempts to malign.
> You may be right doc, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic your looking for...its to late to fight, dont try to save me, you may be wrong but for all I know you may be right...


Are you actually quoting Einstein implying he'd support your unscientific stance?!

His work directly lead to the atomic bomb...he would the said the benefits outweigh the risks, you know, because he uses science and would have been capable of doing a fact based ethical review before research started(including examining the risk/reward ratio)....he would've NEVER followed this simplistic "natural is better" mantra.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 17, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Are you actually quoting Einstein implying he'd support your unscientific stance?!
> 
> His work directly lead to the atomic bomb...he would the said the benefits outweigh the risks, you know, because he uses science and would have been capable of doing a fact based ethical review before research started(including examining the risk/reward ratio)....he would've NEVER followed this simplistic "natural is better" mantra.


Frank you are so far out of context and deep into negligent assumption that I don't know if I have enough rope to pull you back...
Einstein would have in all likelihood been the first to call for all the numbers in the interactive equation of life before we start redesigning such Frank...lol
As far as the unrelated atom bomb reference:

*~~~ALBERT EINSTEIN*

"Einstein was not directly involved in the Manhattan Project (which developed the atomic bomb). In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a relatively large amount of energy was contained in and could be released from a relatively small amount of matter. This became best known by the equation E=mc2. The atomic bomb was not based upon this theory but clearly illustrated it. 
In 1939 Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt that was drafted by the scientist Leo Szilard. Received by FDR in October of that year, the letter from Einstein called for and sparked the beginning of U.S. government support for a program to build an atomic bomb, lest the Nazis build one first. 
Einstein did not speak publicly on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward. A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view: 
"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." 
_Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb_, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1. 
Regarding the 1939 letter to Roosevelt, his biographer, Ronald Clark, has noted: 
"As far as his own life was concerned, one thing seemed quite clear. 'I made one great mistake in my life,' he said to Linus Pauling, who spent an hour with him on the morning of November 11, 1954, '...when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them.'". 
Ronald Clark, _Einstein: The Life and Times_, pg. 620." 

We must simply stand up and defend life and the web that connects it all...such is to fight Monsanto fire with sobering water...in there we will confirm our own rights and it is those common rights that will trump any perceived right Monsanto et al currently enjoys as they attempt to redesign and own the web of life and control the evolution of such...its the ultimate central control power play...its like springtime for Hitler...its payday Monsanto...



[video=youtube;2iIBiVYWT9U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=2iIBiVYWT9U[/video]


----------



## LocalAnarchist (Jan 17, 2013)

it makes me sick thinking that a billion dollar industry that has been fucking us over with their shit GMO food and chemicals think they can try to fuck with the organic home growers are fucking wrong


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 17, 2013)

LocalAnarchist said:


> it makes me sick thinking that a billion dollar industry that has been fucking us over with their shit GMO food and chemicals think they can try to fuck with the organic home growers are fucking wrong


You didn't swear enough, so I don't really know what the crusty fuck you're trying to fucking say. I mean, shit fuck. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 17, 2013)

LocalAnarchist said:


> it makes me sick thinking that a billion dollar industry that has been fucking us over with their shit GMO food and chemicals think they can try to fuck with the organic home growers are fucking wrong


you are conceding a faulty premise. 

the bill posted in the OP has NOTHING to do with cannabis, nor home growers of cannabis.
it also has NOTHING to do with monsanto
it has NOTHING to do with any evidence of the danger of GMO's
it has nothing to do with the specious and foolish argument that GMO's are unhealthy. 

the OP's bill simply declares all GMO's in california to be illegal and gives them 30 days to GTFO. 

the premise you have accepted is that GMO's as a class can be described as unhealthy,, dangerous to the eater, dangerous to the environment, dangerous to native plants and animals, etc etc etc. 

none of that is true, none of that is supported by science, none of that is even plausible. 

the proponents on the "Yes" side have created one giant strawman, and have taken turns gleefully whacking at it with sticks. it is a testament to their own ineffectiveness that they have still been unable to defeat their own shoddily constructed scarecrow. 

at question in almost every post in this thread is the premise that GMO's require MORE chemicals to grow, and that they somehow become toxic as a result. this is untrue. 

"roundup ready" crops are modified with a gene from another plant, this modification makes the crop plant largely immune to glyphosate, meaning you can use this herbicide to kill weeds. this does not mean you MUST use glypohosate, only that you can. glyphosate is a short lived chemical which is laregly harmless to humans animals and insects, much like DDT which was only toxic to bugs. those in the know are well aware of the fact that DDT was bbanned based on the book "Silent Spring", which was a tissue of lies. the banning of DDT resulted in massive upswwings of malaria in the third world, and a huge resurgence of the tsetse fly (carrier of african sleeping sickness) based on the claim in "Silent Spring" that DDT was weakening the shells of birds eggs. 

as a result of the flawed assumption that DDT was to blame, it took another ten years for REAL SCIENCE to reveal that it was mercury contamination of water supplies which was causing the problem, NOT DDT. thus mecury pollution got a ten year free ride while the politicians were screaming about DDT. thats environmentalism for you, selling a scary story to the press and watching the hoi polloi panic so they can get what they want. 

banning GMO's is very much the same as banning DDT, it's based on lies, deception,, panic in the media, panic in the masses, and a few grandstanding populist politicians demagoguing an issue whith no foundation in reality. but once the deal is done,, and the ban is in place, getting rid of it takes forever. third world nations are crying out for DDT to eradicate mosquitoes, tsetse flies, bloatflies, locusts, chiggers, and many other pests which bring disease, starvation and ruin on developing nations. several african countries have already begun manufacturing DDT for themselves, despite a global ban on the stuff since the 1970's. 

the only evidence brought up in any of the "Yes" crowd's massive link dumps (which i read in their entirety,, thanks insomnia) was a study which demonstrated a link to BT corn and some toxic reactions in rats. 
it is important to note that BT crops are NOT glyphosate resitant, they are an entirely different class of GMO, which uses the implantation of a genetic strand from another plant to cause the crop to produce a NATURAL insect toxin that kills budworms, boll weevils, and other plant pests using the same toxic mechanism that other plants use to deter those same pests. 
even this study was merely preliminary, and the toxic reactions were within the margins of safety. there were no cancers in the rats, no deaths from toxicity, and no diseases apparent. the only way they discovered the toxicity was in the necropsy of the subjects. and this toxicity was found in rats fed a diet of 33% BT corn. 

your statement goes beyond even the most rabidly ardent "yes" supporter by assuming the GMO "industry" has fucked you at all, that GMO's are related to "chemicals" and that this same shadowy "indusrty" cabal will be shutting down seedbanks in amsterdam if they dont sell GMO seeds to potheads. 

unclench homey, none of the shit claimed in this thread or the media about GMO's is factual. your dope is safe from Monsanto, from the DEA... not so much.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

Lmao!!! Too funny


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 18, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Lmao!!! Too funny


Funny because its true. 

Why dont you post some more links from "unbiased" organic farming websites to rebut him. 

Fucking crusty retard.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Are you actually quoting Einstein implying he'd support your unscientific stance?!
> 
> His work directly lead to the atomic bomb...he would the said the benefits outweigh the risks, you know, because he uses science and would have been capable of doing a fact based ethical review before research started(including examining the risk/reward ratio)....he would've NEVER followed this simplistic "natural is better" mantra.


Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile. 
Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein_2.html#1MvFAeMIToM1sfJx.99 
​

All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. 
Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#UTpAFKeYZAzGk3ZZ.99 
​

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. 
Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#UTpAFKeYZAzGk3ZZ.99 
​

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. 
Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#UTpAFKeYZAzGk3ZZ.99 

​
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. 
Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#UTpAFKeYZAzGk3ZZ.99 


Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either. 
Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#UTpAFKeYZAzGk3ZZ.99 


Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish. 
Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#UTpAFKeYZAzGk3ZZ.99 


Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. 
Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#UTpAFKeYZAzGk3ZZ.99 


A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem. 
Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein_2.html#1MvFAeMIToM1sfJx.99 
​


​​​​ No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. 
Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#UTpAFKeYZAzGk3ZZ.99 

AS IN ROUND UP AND THEN ROUND UP READY CORN


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. 
Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein_2.html#1MvFAeMIToM1sfJx.99 
​​

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. 
Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein_2.html#1MvFAeMIToM1sfJx.99 

LOL!
​


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 18, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.
> Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein_2.html#1MvFAeMIToM1sfJx.99
> ​
> 
> ...


Most of those quotes could be taken to disprove the anti-GMO side. 

He was right tho, stupidity IS limitless with pee-poles like you.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 18, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Lmao!!! Too funny


alright then,put forth a SINGLE cogent reason why banning GMO's is a good idea, and support it with evidence. 

possible subjects for your response include: 

livestock death or illness from eating GMO feed. 
human death or illness from eating GMO food. 
GMO's will cross pollinate with native plants destabilizing the ecosystem. 
GMO's are responsible for Bee Colony Collapse Syndrome
GMO's cause cancer
GMO's Genetic Modifications will modify the genetic structure of the eater
GMO developers force small farmers to use their seeds
GMO developers are attempting to patent UNMODIFIED organisms by simply mapping and claiming their genetic structure. 
GMO developers are attempting to stop home gardeners/pot growers from growing non-GMO dope. 
There even is such a thing as GMO dope. 
UC davis and Monsanto are teaming up to breed a GMO fusarium leaf wilt fungus to wipe out Non-GMO dope. 
ANYONE is actually attempting to create a GMO dope killing organism OF ANY KIND AT ALL. 


or you can pick your own topic, just make sure it is specific and that you have evidence to support it. 

let the games begin!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

Corporations can buy evidence like governments and lives ~ http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-bee-collapse-buys-bee-research-firm/


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 18, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Corporations can buy evidence like governments and lives ~ http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-bee-collapse-buys-bee-research-firm/


so, challenge declined?

how disappointing.

at least admit you dont want to argue an issue, rather than the weak ass excuse that "science isnt fair" 

theres more than enough research money going into testing GMO's. if you cant find evidence to support your claims, one might conclude that it DOES NOT EXIST.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Arts/Departments/philosophy/documents/GMO Symposium Synopsis.pdf


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so, challenge declined?
> 
> how disappointing.
> 
> ...


You have refused to acknowledge the science that has been laid out throughout these 80 pages so how is one more link going to make a difference to someone who obviously has an agenda he mirrors and no ethics


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

harrekin said:


> most of those quotes could be taken to disprove the anti-gmo side.
> 
> He was right tho, stupidity is limitless with pee-poles like you.


but all apply to my side of the argument not just most sorry my glass if full and yours is half empty and it doesn't take a peehole to see that


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 18, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Arts/Departments/philosophy/documents/GMO%20Symposium%20Synopsis.pdf


and what do you propose this document proves? 

there certainly was no proof of any of the claims from this thread, nor of the anti-GMO lobby in general, merely a symposium on "ethics" featuring the catholic clergy (not my first choice on scientific research or ethics, thank you) and some members of the "Unit on Environmental Ethics" at the University of Stellenbosch (second best uni in africa, 454th best in the world, take that how you may)

a Prof Rawlings of the microbiology dept at stellenbosch gave a report which apparently makes clear wht i ben saying all along (despite holding no advanced degrees myself)

*"In his Viewpoint on Genetically Engineered Organisms, Professor Rawlings offers the opinion that a general debate is of little value and that sense can only be made of for-and-against arguments on a case-by-case basis. As such, there are cases of virtually zero risk associated with substantial benefit, like the genetic engineering of bacterium to produce human insulin. In other cases organisms are constructed that express selected characteristics, such as herbicide resistance in crops or greater growth potential in animals which carry varied degrees of uncertainty regarding impacts on environmental and human health. The point is made that organisms are not harmful simply because they are transgenic, but should be assessed based on the confidence in techniques on the one hand, and objective risk assessment regarding potential impacts on the other. However, public perception of GMO's is critical insomuch as it affects both consumers' and investors' behaviour."* ~ source, your own PDF file. 

zounds. looks like your own document recommends that GMO's not be binned as a class, but instead careful thought research and critical thinking should win the day.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

WANT MORE SCIENCE HOWS THIS *dozens* *of scientists* *from around* *the world* *joined* *us* *in ISIS* *to form* *the Independent* *Science* *Panel* ... *and produced* *a report*, *The Case* *for a GM-Free* ...A WORD DOCUMENT FOR YOU **http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/212/cover09.doc


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> WANT MORE SCIENCE HOWS THIS *dozens* *of scientists* *from around* *the world* *joined* *us* *in ISIS* *to form* *the Independent* *Science* *Panel* ... *and produced* *a report*, *The Case* *for a GM-Free* ...A WORD DOCUMENT FOR YOU **http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/212/cover09.doc


" *[FONT=&quot]Genetic modification is based on an obsolete theory and hence ineffective and dangerous [/FONT]* [FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Genetic engineering of plants and animals began in the mid-1970s in the belief that the genome (the totality of all the genetic material of a species) is constant and static, and that the characteristics of organisms are simply hardwired in their genome. But geneticists soon discovered that the genome is remarkably dynamic and 'fluid', and constantly in conversation with the environment. This determines which genes are turned on, when, where, by how much and for how long. Moreover, the genetic material itself could also be marked or changed according to experience, and the influence passed on to the next generation.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The best thing about the human genome project is to finally explode the myth of genetic determinism, revealing the layers of molecular complexity that transmit, interpret and rewrite the genetic texts [3]. These processes are precisely orchestrated and finely tuned by the organism as a whole, in a highly coordinated molecular 'dance of life' that's necessary for survival. [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]In contrast, genetic engineering in the laboratory is crude, imprecise and invasive. The rogue genes inserted into a genome to make a GMO could land anywhere - typically in a rearranged or defective form, scrambling and mutating the host genome - and have the tendency to move or rearrange further once inserted, basically because they do not know the dance of life. That's ultimately why genetic modification doesn't work and is also dangerous."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 18, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> You have refused to acknowledge the science that has been laid out throughout these 80 pages so how is one more link going to make a difference to someone who obviously has an agenda he mirrors and no ethics


yep. science isnt fair. 
everyone with an opinion, no matter how shaky and unreliable should have equal weight, and evidence is just a tool of oppression used by the evil establishment scientists to keep you down. 

science doesnt work by playground rules, and the personn who makes a claim that is disproved by evidence doesnt get to demand that everybody else share the wrongness just to be nice. 

when youre wrong, youre WRONG, and claiming the science was stacked against you merely illustrates that you are WRONG. 

cannabineer was able to change my mind on CO2 buildup inn the atmosphere with EVIDENCE despite my initial steadfast disbelief. 
even uncle buck was able to convince me that i was wrong, and the silly light bulb ban DID pass the congress (despite a bizarre 4 year delay in implementation), so no, i am not intractable. provide evidence and you can change my mind.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> and what do you propose this document proves?
> 
> There certainly was no proof of any of the claims from this thread, nor of the anti-gmo lobby in general, merely a symposium on "ethics" featuring the catholic clergy (not my first choice on scientific research or ethics, thank you) and some members of the "unit on environmental ethics" at the university of stellenbosch (second best uni in africa, 454th best in the world, take that how you may)
> 
> ...


yes because the research does win look at my last post for more science. Lol! Yet, mainly it points out that ethics is a major issue here in this issue.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yep. science isnt fair.
> everyone with an opinion, no matter how shaky and unreliable should have equal weight, and evidence is just a tool of oppression used by the evil establishment scientists to keep you down.
> 
> science doesnt work by playground rules, and the personn who makes a claim that is disproved by evidence doesnt get to demand that everybody else share the wrongness just to be nice.
> ...







Originally Posted by *DiverseSanctuary*  
WANT MORE SCIENCE HOWS THIS *dozens* *of scientists* *from around* *the world* *joined* *us* *in ISIS* *to form* *the Independent* *Science* *Panel* ... *and produced* *a report*, *The Case* *for a GM-Free* ...A WORD DOCUMENT FOR YOU **http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/res...12/cover09.doc

" *[FONT=&amp]Genetic modification is based on an obsolete theory and hence ineffective and dangerous [/FONT]* [FONT=&amp]Genetic engineering of plants and animals began in the mid-1970s in the belief that the genome (the totality of all the genetic material of a species) is constant and static, and that the characteristics of organisms are simply hardwired in their genome. But geneticists soon discovered that the genome is remarkably dynamic and 'fluid', and constantly in conversation with the environment. This determines which genes are turned on, when, where, by how much and for how long. Moreover, the genetic material itself could also be marked or changed according to experience, and the influence passed on to the next generation.[/FONT] [FONT=&amp]The best thing about the human genome project is to finally explode the myth of genetic determinism, revealing the layers of molecular complexity that transmit, interpret and rewrite the genetic texts [3]. These processes are precisely orchestrated and finely tuned by the organism as a whole, in a highly coordinated molecular 'dance of life' that's necessary for survival. [/FONT] [FONT=&amp]In contrast, genetic engineering in the laboratory is crude, imprecise and invasive. The rogue genes inserted into a genome to make a GMO could land anywhere - typically in a rearranged or defective form, scrambling and mutating the host genome - and have the tendency to move or rearrange further once inserted, basically because they do not know the dance of life. That's ultimately why genetic modification doesn't work and is also dangerous."[/FONT]


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

I never claimed it was stacked against me. You did dr. Fraud is it? I only pointed out the facts


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 18, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> WANT MORE SCIENCE HOWS THIS *dozens* *of scientists* *from around* *the world* *joined* *us* *in ISIS* *to form* *the Independent* *Science* *Panel* ... *and produced* *a report*, *The Case* *for a GM-Free* ...A WORD DOCUMENT FOR YOU **http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/212/cover09.doc


i am familiar with mae-wan ho and her "organization" of one, called ISIS. i find her arguments unconvincing for several reasons

1) she makes sweeping declarations not supported in the scientific journals
2) her claims are published solely in her blog, which is disguised as a scientific foundation
3) her claims are quite scattershot in their lack of focus
4) she makes assertions with no experimental data attached, merely hypothesis
5) she makes claims which are invariably quite sensational, and then offers to sell her books and other trinkets. like alex jones with an advanced degree. 
6) her blog (as she is the primary author and contributor calling it a foundation is dubious) makes extensive use of inline references, but these references invariably go to another of her own works. 

read the citations in your own document, she cites herself as the proof of her claims pretty much exclusively. 
sometimes the madman shouting in the wilderness is NOT a prophet, sometimes he is just nuts. 

seriously just pick a single issue, and lay out evidence to support it.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i am familiar with mae-wan ho and her "organization" of one, called ISIS. i find her arguments unconvincing for several reasons
> 
> 1) she makes sweeping declarations not supported in the scientific journals
> 2) her claims are published solely in her blog, which is disguised as a scientific foundation
> ...


You obviously know more than all the scientist mentioned with-in these 85 pages and none of the evidence is suitable or their reports are suitable for you. Nor do they all collaborate each others findings according to you. It must be nice to be smarter than all those doctors, scientist, ...

No we are not to believe in Eugenics or that there is a take over of our food and seed supply happening... For Profit and Control of a few...

We are to believe in a Hippie conspiracy of Hippie Tree Hugging Doctors and Scientist... who have all concocted lies against Big Corps... To stop the mutation so they might gain what exactly from it all... ??? rolmafo!!!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

TY! for your theory I am still laughing


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

sorry I am still hysterically rolling in laughter TY! too funny


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 18, 2013)

Have you noticed the more you all talk the more votes we get??? lmao!!!


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 18, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Funny because its true.
> 
> Why dont you post some more links from "unbiased" organic farming websites to rebut him.
> 
> Fucking crusty retard.


No Frank its funny because its very much the same 'arguments' doc and you and other SHDT members have continually made, the only problem for yall is that it avoids addressing the never ending 'fact' that ends it all for yall...you and especially doc lol still dont have all the numbers to lifes equations and you certainly dont even know exactly what the numbers you do have mean...of course when I say you I also mean Monsanto et al...so you dont have anywhere near all the numbers but you want to start making equations that all our lives will depend on...is that about right doc, Frank et al? Ok then I think we all get it.
Oh and tell your keen doc that the ballot proposition would ban all living GM cannabis from cali, no genetically engineered cannabis would be allowed to be grown in cali if the people of cali put this proposal into law. It would also ban all other living GE/GM organisms from cali.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 18, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> alright then,put forth a SINGLE cogent reason why banning GMO's is a good idea, and support it with evidence.
> 
> possible subjects for your response include:
> 
> ...


doc why never address or respond to my many posts which go to point out the unavoidable and game stopping facts that make your posts (such as quoted above) obsolete, irrelevant and even mute and moot lol etc...


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 18, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so, challenge declined?
> 
> how disappointing.
> 
> ...


doc, try putting forward a challenge that hasn't already been met and crushed at least a dozen times in this thread lol...

I love the smell of you and Frank in the morning...smells like victory lol...

[video=youtube;bPXVGQnJm0w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPXVGQnJm0w[/video]


ps doc you do know that its not about what we know, its about what we dont know that ends the game for ya right? also doc...the 'yes' voters on the poll are on your team lol it means they want GE/GM cannabis...not the other way around as you have made reference to...the no voters are on my team


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 18, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> and what do you propose this document proves?
> 
> there certainly was no proof of any of the claims from this thread, nor of the anti-GMO lobby in general, merely a symposium on "ethics" featuring the catholic clergy (not my first choice on scientific research or ethics, thank you) and some members of the "Unit on Environmental Ethics" at the University of Stellenbosch (second best uni in africa, 454th best in the world, take that how you may)
> 
> ...


doc all the proof anyone should need on this issue is self evident. Why you cant see or understand such is beyond me.
I've tried to explain many times in my own words yet to no avail with respect to you and the SHDT.
There are others who say it far better and more condensed than I, but it can most simply be related to the notion of Occam's Razor and is well described by Doni and his gang...while you only acknowledge the 'known known's' (and even that's not yet settled), others like the 'no' voters on this thread wisely and appropriately put more weight on the rest of the explanation which goes to what we don't know because its what we don't yet know that is the wild and possibly fatal card, so at this point we need still learn all the cards in the game as well as the rules of the game...we are drowning in unknown unknowns in that respect.
That alone should be the red flag for us all...we should learn first then apply, measure twice and cut once you might say...


[video=youtube;_RpSv3HjpEw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=_RpSv3HjpEw[/video]


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 18, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> doc why never address or respond to my many posts which go to point out the unavoidable and game stopping facts that make your posts (such as quoted above) obsolete, irrelevant and even mute and moot lol etc...


despite NUMEROUS attempts to engage in rational discussion with you, your preference is to make what you mistakenly believe are clever comments, then you deflect to a completely different subject of post a stack of non-sequitors and opinion pieces from the lefty eco-press. 

you still have not provided a SINGLE shred of evidence to support your claims that:

GM feed caused livestock die-offs. 
GM corn causes Bee Colony Collapse Syndrome
GM organisms are dangerous to those who consume them
GM organisms are dangerous to native plants
GM organisms cause disease in people or animals
UC Davis and Monsanto teamed up to make GM fusarium leaf wilt to kill off non-GM cannabis
that ANYONE is even makinng GM cannabis 
that GM fusarium (or any GM pathogen) is being made to target cannabis by ANYONE

instead of trying to be clever and making pop cultuure references why dont you take even ONE of those topics and provide evidence for it from any source not impeached by their own endlessly self-referencing citations. 

you can do this yourself through your fake lawyer persona, or through your fake farm manager sockpuppet. i dont really give a shit. 

when you make wild claims you must have good proof to support it or your just a shitty cut rate internet version of Baron Munchhausen, singing your own praises through the megaphone of your own imaginary brilliance. 

of course i expect youll revert to your usual tactic when confronted with a direct challenge to your faulty assumptions and specious claims, two bit word salad prose, and a video clip from a 70's sitcom. 

ill do you one better. 

I do hereby dub thee *Mister Furley*, and heres your theme song 


[video=youtube;6f3UFzsBnRI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f3UFzsBnRI[/video]


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 18, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> doc all the proof anyone should need on this issue is self evident. Why you cant see or understand such is beyond me.
> I've tried to explain many times in my own words yet to no avail with respect to you and the SHDT.
> There are others who say it far better and more condensed than I, but it can most simply be related to the notion of Occam's Razor and is well described by Doni and his gang...while you only acknowledge the 'known known's' (and even that's not yet settled), others like the 'no' voters on this thread wisely and appropriately put more weight on the rest of the explanation which goes to what we don't know because its what we don't yet know that is the wild and possibly fatal card, so at this point we need still learn all the cards in the game as well as the rules of the game...we are drowning in unknown unknowns in that respect.
> That alone should be the red flag for us all...we should learn first then apply, measure twice and cut once you might say...


rule number one for sock-puppeteers, dont defend your sock puppets yourself. it makes your sock puppetry obvious. 

as to the "meat" of your latest post, it is not "self-evident" to anyone but you. 

the lack of evidence of harm is not proof of harm, and posting a clip of donald rumsfeld indulging in his love of absurdity proves even less than the lack of evidence. 

your ad hominem attacks by proxy through rummy, attempting to imply that any who doubt your wisdom are just like rummy himself; clinically brain dead, is transparent and clownish. 

for all you bluster about your supposed lawyer credibility you sure suck at making a point. 
prop up your claims with evidence that supports those claims in specific or stuff it. 

a real lawyer would know, you cant convict monsanto for murder by making unsupported claims that they beat their dog or cheated on their wife. even perry mason couldnt make that crap stick, and you aint no perry mason.

PS, word on the street is, Jack Tripper was making time on a cute waitress down at the Regal Beagle last week. the smart money suspects Jack may not be as gay as initially thought.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 18, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> rule number one for sock-puppeteers, dont defend your sock puppets yourself. it makes your sock puppetry obvious.
> 
> as to the "meat" of your latest post, it is not "self-evident" to anyone but you.
> 
> ...


lol oh doc its hard to know where to begin because your arguments are like that of one who has not read the thread.
First though what is all your talk of 'sock-puppets' etc...not sure what you mean? I can only guess that your trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is apparently my 'sock-puppet'? That could be the weakest thing you've put forward to date...ok well its right up there with your par lets say.
Also why would you assume that I am a lawyer?
I never claimed such.
Finally, doni says it all doc, even you should be able to grasp what he's saying, it ends the 'debate' if there ever was one...your reaction to being dispatched with such prejudice is not unlike if the head of a snake is severed, the head can and will still bite and the body can continue to strike out in reflex even into the next day...so once again here is the blade that severs your head doc no matter what reflexive responses still remain lingering in your nerves system of disconnected logic:
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." 
Donald Rumsfeld 
I understand how degrading it must feel to be finally slayed by a Rumsfeld quote of all things, but as I have stated before everything is relative and relevant, even that which you have put forward in irrelevance to the 'debate' still holds relevant in the challenge of this thread as I have also explained in the conclusions page #70...but at least you did respond to me doc, thats progress...first admitting you have a flawed analysis (like in aa) is the first step to a healthier perspective 
​


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 18, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> lol oh doc its hard to know where to begin because your arguments are like that of one who has not read the thread.
> First though what is all your talk of 'sock-puppets' etc...not sure what you mean? I can only guess that your trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is apparently my 'sock-puppet'? That could be the weakest thing you've put forward to date...ok well its right up there with your par lets say.
> Also why would you assume that I am a lawyer?
> I never claimed such.
> ...


more attempts at cleverness, from a buffoon. 

all of the "evidence" you have put forth in this thread is based on the same plan, from start to finish, and your sockpuppet fake farm manager ""diversesanctuary" follows the same ineffective tactic.

step 1: Make broad sweeping claims of "harm" from GMO's
step 2: dump a shitload of links from the eco-loon press, all leading to opinion pieces which make even more wild claims. 
step 3: declare victory
step 4: accuse those who disagree with your wild claims of working for monsanto.
step 5: when pressed on a specific claim,, change the subject
step 6 when that doesnt work, post the same links again, and call the questioner names
step 7: post clip from 70's sitcom, and make oblique references to your own post
step 8: declare victory again.
step 9: make sock puppet account, support your claims though sock puppet account with the same links and wild claims as proof of wild claims. 
step 10: declare victory again 

the ONE claim you defended in specific (UC Davis, and monsanto GM fusarium fungus conspiracy) turned out to be NOTHING AT ALL but a proposal from a DEA agent that went nowhere, did not involve UC Davis, or monsanto, and had NOTHING to do with GM fusdarium fungus, or GM cannabis. 
as a result i can say with absolute certainty that your claim of UC Davis and monsanto teaming up to make a pot killing pathogen in a lab is a LIE. 
your related claim that Monsanto and UC Davis (or anyone else) are using that NON EXISTENT research to map and claim the cannabis genome is a LIE
your related claim that Monsanto and UC Davis (or anyone else) are attempting to make GM dope to force underground pot growers to grow their GM strains is RIDONKULOUS!
your related claim that Monsanto and UC Davis (or anyone else) are plotting the extermination of all cannabis, so that they may replace it with NON EXISTENT GM dope is also a LIE
yet you persist by claiming it's true because its so super secret.
like the "Fact" that the moon landing was faked, or the "Fact" that alien bodies are stored in the nevada desert, you attempt to prove the conspiracy by pointing at all the evidence that does NOT exist, then smugly declaring victory. 

your claims are as baseless as the insane birthers who claim obama was born in kenya, and as proof of their claim they present evidence that ONE government document had the wrong social security number attached to his name. 

you really arent half as clever as you believe, and NONE of the links you have posted have gotten anywhere near scientific proof of your HIGHLY IMPROBABLE claims.
your "proof" does not prove your claims, your "proof" has nothing at all to do with your claims, all of your "proof" is dubious in itself, and in most cases is outright false. 

defend your claims in specific or stuff it Mister Furley.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 18, 2013)

doc again everything you state has been inaccurate at best, though I can surely understand how you are desperately clinging to breath after facing the devastating effects of the all powerful Rumsfeld quote of destiny, but this isn't a video game doc but if it were the magical quote of destiny has caused your game to be over.
With that being said, why on earth would I ever need a so called 'sock-puppet' in a so called debate with the SHDT? lol...its not only another of your typical diversion tactics (common when in denial) but its a 'lie' and its ridicules doc.
That's saying a lot for me doc because I don't normally resort to your sort of accusations.
You are exhibiting the clear and present signs of some who maybe thinks everyone is out to get you, feeling a little paranoid doc?








"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." 
Donald Rumsfeld

How about a musical interlude doc? its by the numbers 

[video=youtube;a4xjr9v5ehk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4xjr9v5ehk[/video]


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 18, 2013)

so once again, rather than deal with the FACTS laid out before you PROVING your specious claim in specific of monsanto and UC davis engaging in bio-terrorism against potheads for profit, you simply change the subject by declaring everything i ever said was lies and trotting out that silly rumsfel quote AGAIN as if that somehow proves your claims. 

you are a turd, a silly shallow pasty turd, too light to flush down, and too smelly to let float. 
you are a persistant little stinker, but lacking any intellectual or factual grounds for your claims, you instead choose to just lie there and produce foul odours. 

and of course post youtube clips which are invariably unrelated to your claims. 

you are a failure.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 19, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so once again, rather than deal with the FACTS laid out before you PROVING your specious claim in specific of monsanto and UC davis engaging in bio-terrorism against potheads for profit, you simply change the subject by declaring everything i ever said was lies and trotting out that silly rumsfel quote AGAIN as if that somehow proves your claims.
> 
> you are a turd, a silly shallow pasty turd, too light to flush down, and too smelly to let float.
> you are a persistant little stinker, but lacking any intellectual or factual grounds for your claims, you instead choose to just lie there and produce foul odours.
> ...


Yeah he can't seem to address anything without the ad-hominim. 

Hes an idiot, his only justification is "it's not natural" or it "unknown". 

This is the same logic used in the argument of anti-pot people, "pot's dangerous cos it makes negros rape white women".


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 19, 2013)

An organic product is always more desireable than a monsanto product any day of the year and twice tommorow. If research and government funding were availabe for marijuana research all growers could have available the best information and genetics. Government funded study would increase public knowledge therfore increasing safer medical marijuana. Why the government would hand monsanto any money vs. the patients that need medical marijuana as an alternative medicine, and the growers of medical marijuana is beyond me. Do they think that the growers and distrubutors should just rely on hippy folklore to grow medication for cancer patients? If theres some money available on that level already, then there should be adequate money to fund R & D for the smaller medical supplier. Screw monsanto get the money where it needs to be...into the dispensaries, educated growers are better than monsanto could ever be. Get a life feds, you lost, give us what we need to make a safe and sophisticated product at a retail level. Dont give a contract to some genetic butcher and ruin my buzz. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 19, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> An organic product is always more desireable than a monsanto product any day of the year and twice tommorow. If research and government funding were availabe for marijuana research all growers could have available the best information and genetics. Government funded study would increase public knowledge therfore increasing safer medical marijuana. Why the government would hand monsanto any money vs. the patients that need medical marijuana as an alternative medicine, and the growers of medical marijuana is beyond me. Do they think that the growers and distrubutors should just rely on hippy folklore to grow medication for cancer patients? If theres some money available on that level already, then there should be adequate money to fund R & D for the smaller medical supplier. Screw monsanto get the money where it needs to be...into the dispensaries, educated growers are better than monsanto could ever be. Get a life feds, you lost, give us what we need to make a safe and sophisticated product at a retail level. Dont give a contract to some genetic butcher and ruin my buzz. Thanks in advance.


monsanto is NOT involved in any government study of dope. 
monsanto is a multinational corporation focusing on agriculture, Genetic research and chemicals. they are NOT trying to alter your weed. 
the government has a single study on the value of cannabis for medical use (ongoing since the 70's) which has thus far produced ZERO results, (by design) and this study in NO WAY involves monanto. 

the econauts have been tying monsanto to the whipping post for decades, using them as an example of everything they view as evil in the corporate world. monsanto does NOT force anyone to grow their GM crops, monsanto does NOT create dangerous mutagenic weapons to attack your dope, and monsanto is NOT hiding in your closet waiting for just the right moment to jump out and touch your dick. 

the econauts have set up monsanto as a boogeyman, like hitler did with the jews, to gain power in germany, like harry ainslinger did with the negros and chicanos, to push forward his puritan prohibition on weed, and like pretty much the entire world does with the US and our "Cultural Imperialism" because too many people want to be like us. 

it's all lies and attempts to control you with fear, thats why the OP "dnaprotection" wont back up his claims. he has not the evidence to support his fairy tails, but they sound just crazy enough to be terrifying for any who dont have the time or inclination to look behind the curtain and see that it's all just shadow puppets and dramatic music


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 19, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> monsanto is NOT involved in any government study of dope.
> monsanto is a multinational corporation focusing on agriculture, Genetic research and chemicals. they are NOT trying to alter your weed.
> the government has a single study on the value of cannabis for medical use (ongoing since the 70's) which has thus far produced ZERO results, (by design) and this study in NO WAY involves monanto.
> 
> ...


You puppet, your actually standing up for a company that geneticly modifies our food?! I didnt say that monsanto was trying to alter my weed, i said i dont want my weed altered. You either didnt read my post, or you work for monsanto, or your blind to the truth that monsanto is destroying agriculture as we know it. Go to a farmers market once and a while and taste what nature gave us and monsanto wants gone. If you dont agree with growing your own then get lost, go hang out in the pesticide section of your local farm store.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 19, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> An organic product is always more desireable than a monsanto product any day of the year and twice tommorow. If research and government funding were availabe for marijuana research all growers could have available the best information and genetics. Government funded study would increase public knowledge therfore increasing safer medical marijuana. Why the government would hand monsanto any money vs. the patients that need medical marijuana as an alternative medicine, and the growers of medical marijuana is beyond me. Do they think that the growers and distrubutors should just rely on hippy folklore to grow medication for cancer patients? If theres some money available on that level already, then there should be adequate money to fund R & D for the smaller medical supplier. Screw monsanto get the money where it needs to be...into the dispensaries, educated growers are better than monsanto could ever be. Get a life feds, you lost, give us what we need to make a safe and sophisticated product at a retail level. Dont give a contract to some genetic butcher and ruin my buzz. Thanks in advance.


Heres what i said again incase you missed it the first time.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 19, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so once again, rather than deal with the FACTS laid out before you PROVING your specious claim in specific of monsanto and UC davis engaging in bio-terrorism against potheads for profit, you simply change the subject by declaring everything i ever said was lies and trotting out that silly rumsfel quote AGAIN as if that somehow proves your claims.
> 
> you are a turd, a silly shallow pasty turd, too light to flush down, and too smelly to let float.
> you are a persistant little stinker, but lacking any intellectual or factual grounds for your claims, you instead choose to just lie there and produce foul odours.
> ...


Funny thing is doc that I've responded to your questions about the Monsanto UC Davis projects no less than 3 times already and yet you still keep asking.
I know you have a problem with numbers, as such is reflected in your disposition on this thread proposal, but is it so bad that you can't even add 2+2, because
that's all one needs do when contemplating Monsanto and UC Davis and their involvement with the national security work you are asking about again.
I'm guessing your not from the show me state doc, because if you were then you would know when you've been dispatched on a Missouri boat ride...
"Well Mr. Carpetbagger...we got something in this territory, called the Missouri boat ride."
http://hark.com/clips/stfxqdzxlw-missouri-boat-ride
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_PfAZBUTTA






Doc for the life of me I've never seen a body stay this nervously active after having its head severed...you and Frank must be a special breed...GE?
Its like you cant help yourself from continuing to voluntarily step in it...


[video=youtube;C3Oa2tLrWqY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=C3Oa2tLrWqY[/video]


*"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." 
Donald Rumsfeld*


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 19, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Funny thing is doc that I've responded to your questions about the Monsanto UC Davis projects no less than 3 times already and yet you still keep asking.
> I know you have a problem with numbers, as such is reflected in your disposition on this thread proposal, but is it so bad that you can't even add 2+2, because
> that's all one needs do when contemplating Monsanto and UC Davis and their involvement with the national security work you are asking about again.
> I'm guessing your not from the show me state doc, because if you were then you would know when you've been dispatched on a Missouri boat ride...
> ...


I do like some froth with my morning coffee. 

How about you try address the points?

God damn, I knew Ecoloons were dense but you take the organic, soya-based piss.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 19, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I do like some froth with my morning coffee.
> 
> How about you try address the points?
> 
> God damn, I knew Ecoloons were dense but you take the organic, soya-based piss.


There hasn't been a point you or the rest of the SHDT have raised that I haven't addressed and undressed, its like you keep asking the same questions in hopes that folks haven't read the thread, or you haven't? Its the SHDT that avoids all direct addressing of points Frank as anyone who reads this thread can plainly see.
There's something even more troubling than your lack of response to all that this thread concludes, its about the responses you do give...and I didn't really realize it until I read this one:



Harrekin said:


> Yeah he can't seem to address anything without the ad-hominim.
> 
> Hes an idiot, his only justification is "it's not natural" or it "unknown".
> 
> This is the same logic used in the argument of anti-pot people, "pot's dangerous cos it makes negros rape white women".


Its odd Frank because after I read this quote it hit me that a group of actively anti cannabis folks had occasion to review the proposed DNA protection act recently and almost to the word they responded as if they were writing the SHDT's responses here?
I've long known that Gov has internet ops and plants agents in sites like this etc for any number of reasons, and I am also aware that some folks are just so on the same page as gov that they just troll voluntarily in the same loyalties, so you can imagine how it looks when I compare anti cannabis peoples responses to yours throughout this thread and find that they are practically identical in tone and content?
Not accusing you Frank, just trying to add up the numbers as has always been my task... 
I'm not a big fan of false flag ops Frank...hope that's not your game.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jan 19, 2013)

Nobody is reading this thread anymore... You two are deep in your own shit... Probably more productive to take it to PM's...


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 19, 2013)

NLXSK1 said:


> Nobody is reading this thread anymore... You two are deep in your own shit... Probably more productive to take it to PM's...


But it's fun to joke with retards!

Its humorous cos DNAprotection is actually too dumb to realise he's dumb, it's an awesome troll-pertunity.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 19, 2013)

NLXSK1 said:


> Nobody is reading this thread anymore... You two are deep in your own shit... Probably more productive to take it to PM's...


I tried that NLXSK1 but Frank insisted that he was just 'trolling' and had no interest in such.
Also when I went to bed lest night there was 9,800 or so views and there's over 10,000 now so apparently someone is viewing, also the vote count keeps increasing so while I in principal do agree with your assessment, its the practicality and application of your advice that is the question...


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jan 19, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> But it's fun to joke with retards!
> 
> Its humorous cos DNAprotection is actually too dumb to realise he's dumb, it's an awesome troll-pertunity.


The stuff you are arguing about is so obscure that nobody else can get in on the joke...


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 19, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> There hasn't been a point you or the rest of the SHDT have raised that I haven't addressed and undressed, its like you keep asking the same questions in hopes that folks haven't read the thread, or you haven't? Its the SHDT that avoids all direct addressing of points Frank as anyone who reads this thread can plainly see.
> There's something even more troubling than your lack of response to all that this thread concludes, its about the responses you do give...and I didn't really realize it until I read this one:
> 
> 
> ...





Harrekin said:


> But it's fun to joke with retards!
> 
> Its humorous cos DNAprotection is actually too dumb to realise he's dumb, it's an awesome troll-pertunity.


As I stated in my last post...


"I tried that NLXSK1 but Frank insisted that he was just 'trolling' and had no interest in such.
Also when I went to bed last night there was 9,800 or so views and there's over 10,000 now so apparently someone is viewing, also the vote count keeps increasing so while I in principal do agree with your assessment, its the practicality and application of your advice that is the question... "


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jan 19, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> As I stated in my last post...
> 
> 
> "I tried that NLXSK1 but Frank insisted that he was just 'trolling' and had no interest in such.
> Also when I went to bed lest night there was 9,800 or so views and there's over 10,000 now so apparently someone is viewing, also the vote count keeps increasing so while I in principal do agree with your assessment, its the practicality and application of your advice that is the question... "


This thread has already proven you are proficient at repeating yourself...


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 19, 2013)

NLXSK1 said:


> This thread has already proven you are proficient at repeating yourself...


One tends to respond in kind lol...and repeating is all you folks on the SHDT seem to know how to do, thus when you repeat the same questions over and over what does one expect?
I can understand your need for such repetitiveness though because that's how your brains were trained in 'school'...I have only conformed to that which is your apparent language in that respect...


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 19, 2013)

NLXSK1 said:


> The stuff you are arguing about is so obscure that nobody else can get in on the joke...


Does anyone else need to? lol...

[video=youtube;NGykXOamGqE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGykXOamGqE[/video]

fan of rum cn?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 19, 2013)

NLXSK1 said:


> The stuff you are arguing about is so obscure that nobody else can get in on the joke...


He's not even talking sense, that's the point. 

We ask for proof? He posts bullshit. 

Either way, vote YES on the "Send Jobs out of California" Bill 2013.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 19, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> He's not even talking sense, that's the point.
> 
> We ask for proof? He posts bullshit.
> 
> Either way, vote YES on the "Send Jobs out of California" Bill 2013.


Proof? Proof of what exactly Frank? The only thing I am here to 'prove' about this subject has already been proven...its the SHDT's burden to disprove such and such was clearly dispatched in its inherent and ironic simplistic perfection with the wielding of the quote of destiny...not even the top scientists for Monsanto et al can argue against the all powerful Rumsfeld quote of destiny with respect to this issue Frank because its simple truth or 'fact' if you prefer. 
Also I have no doubt that the simple truth of it makes no sense to you, that helps 'prove' the point and works to increase the power of the already all powerful quote of destiny:
*"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." 
Donald Rumsfeld*

Frank until you can say what no scientist can say about this genetic mine field of an issue when it comes to applying this technology in regards to disproving the quote of destiny then you are simply a General Custer troll in your efforts to resemble an Einstein troll. 







lol...


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 19, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Proof? Proof of what exactly Frank? The only thing I am here to 'prove' about this subject has already been proven...its the SHDT's burden to disprove such and such was clearly dispatched in its inherent and ironic simplistic perfection with the wielding of the quote of destiny...not even the top scientists for Monsanto et al can argue against the all powerful Rumsfeld quote of destiny with respect to this issue Frank because its simple truth or 'fact' if you prefer.
> Also I have no doubt that the simple truth of it makes no sense to you, that helps 'prove' the point and works to increase the power of the already all powerful quote of destiny:
> *"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
> Donald Rumsfeld*
> ...


Ah ah ah, that's not how it works my simple friend. 

The onus of proof is on the person making the claim. 

You claimed GMO could cause untold damage to the enviroment, thus it is in-fact you who made the claim and the burden of proof is on you. 

Try harder next time, put your brain in second gear to push start it, anything else and it won't start.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 19, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Ah ah ah, that's not how it works my simple friend.
> 
> The onus of proof is on the person making the claim.
> 
> ...


That's odd frank because I thought the burden was clearly defined to be in your possession with at least my last post if not the entire thread?... 
and as you continue to 'argue', the vote count keeps increasing along with the gap between the yes and no votes...it seems to be almost working like a law of nature...it actually is a law of nature Frank, but that might be math at a higher level then you could grasp as you still have yet to absorb your heedlessness in your current math problem. 
Lets review:

quote of destiny was wielded and now you are flailing about like some kind of headless ferret...find a head and recover if you can, but as stated even the top corps/gov scientists cannot recover from being violated by the quote of destiny...


[video=youtube;_RpSv3HjpEw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw[/video]


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 19, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> You puppet, your actually standing up for a company that geneticly modifies our food?! I didnt say that monsanto was trying to alter my weed, i said i dont want my weed altered. You either didnt read my post, or you work for monsanto, or your blind to the truth that monsanto is destroying agriculture as we know it. Go to a farmers market once and a while and taste what nature gave us and monsanto wants gone. If you dont agree with growing your own then get lost, go hang out in the pesticide section of your local farm store.


sweet jesus theres an entire gang of you brainwashed eco-loons in here. 

MONSANTO IS NOT INVOLVED WITH DOPE. 
EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOUR ASSUMPTIONS IS NOT A CO-INTELPRO PLANT
BEING WRONG DOES NOT GIVE YOU LICENSE TO BE STUPID.

you are an illiterate boob.


----------



## tomcatjones (Jan 20, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Then why does the text of your proposal seek to divide Nature from Artifice?
> Once we understand that we ARE Nature and there is no boundary between Nature and Artifice, the proposal loses meaning.
> because now genetic engineering is recognized as nature in operation, and there is no protected class. cn
> 
> _ceterum censeo_ the language of section 1 (d) contains the phrase "original and naturally-intended design of life itself", which leads me to ask ... how old do you believe the planet to be?


just so we are clear... 

the reasons for GMOs... the continue use of terrible pesticides, herbicides, and other nasty chemicals.. fertilizers... etc

conventionally grown food already is less nutritious and has less flavonoids than organically grown crops... we dont pick or grow food for nutrition anymore.. we do it for money.. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/science/flavor-is-the-price-of-tomatoes-scarlet-hue-geneticists-say.html

while we ought to be growing organically to produce BETTER food. http://www.altmedrev.com/publications/15/1/4.pdf
and then the flavonoid study... http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/234-848.pdf

now... if they were genetically modifying our food to makes us HEALTHIER or the food MOAR nutritious.. that would be more acceptable.. but instead...

they do it to make more perfect looking food, that last longer, and doesn't die due to blight...

blighted conditions that we have created for ourselves.. over-fertilization, terminal seeds, oh... you know that Bayer is the cause for CCD for bees too right?

when the bees are gone.. we are screwed.


----------



## SnakeByte (Jan 20, 2013)

I have no problem with the genetic manipulation of plants and animals to IMPROVE their quality, production efficiency, and defence mechanisms. (such as potatoes having a natural pesticide added to their genetics that has little effect on humans). 
Even IF it does affect us as a species on our own genetic level, we will adapt and evolve to overcome the complications like we always have.
My problem is when a person or persons THINK think they can own such "Property".
Owning a patent on life is wrong.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 20, 2013)

SnakeByte said:


> I have no problem with the genetic manipulation of plants and animals to IMPROVE their quality, production efficiency, and defence mechanisms. (such as potatoes having a natural pesticide added to their genetics that has little effect on humans).
> Even IF it does affect us as a species on our own genetic level, we will adapt and evolve to overcome the complications like we always have.
> My problem is when a person or persons THINK think they can own such "Property".
> Owning a patent on life is wrong.


its not a patent on life

its a patent on unique combinations of life that do not occur in nature

these unique combinations only occur because of the many expensive lab hours that led to their creation

now your saying that you havent got a problem with these creations but you think that people shouldnt be paid for making them?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 20, 2013)

tomcatjones said:


> just so we are clear...
> 
> the reasons for GMOs... the continue use of terrible pesticides, herbicides, and other nasty chemicals.. fertilizers... etc


nonsense cite?


> conventionally grown food already is less nutritious and has less flavonoids than organically grown crops... we dont pick or grow food for nutrition anymore.. we do it for money.. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/science/flavor-is-the-price-of-tomatoes-scarlet-hue-geneticists-say.html


nothing to do with the GMO your talking about

may as well be blaming the "big bud" style of cannabis on GMO


> while we ought to be growing organically to produce BETTER food. http://www.altmedrev.com/publications/15/1/4.pdf
> and then the flavonoid study... http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/234-848.pdf


altmed really?

still nothing to do with GMO



> now... if they were genetically modifying our food to makes us HEALTHIER or the food MOAR nutritious.. that would be more acceptable.. but instead...


acceptable to who people who make up shit to discredit it? really?


> they do it to make more perfect looking food, that last longer, and doesn't die due to blight...
> 
> blighted conditions that we have created for ourselves.. over-fertilization, terminal seeds, oh... you know that Bayer is the cause for CCD for bees too right?
> 
> when the bees are gone.. we are screwed.


bees are important yes

but GMO is not the cause of their demise

and seeing as you brought up the bees i need to see your sources


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 20, 2013)

The Bayer/bees thing might or might not be legit. There is a hypothesis that neonicotinoid insecticides have a cumulative toxicity at low and persistent levels, and this may be predisposing bees to the collapse.
But it has not been shown to definitely be so to the best of my knowledge.
Even if the neonicotinoid hypothesis is correct, GM isn't in the chain of causes here. cn


----------



## tomcatjones (Jan 20, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> nonsense cite?
> 
> nothing to do with the GMO your talking about
> 
> ...


monsanto corn is GM... why?

to be able to stand the harmful effects of ROUND UP> their pesticide... or they make the corn with it in it now... 
http://rt.com/business/news/russia-monsanto-corn-ban-005/
for reference for you... http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05556.html
the toxin from said corn...IS TERRIBLE FOR HUMANS 

all so tirelessly... since the pests are resistant to and will adapt faster than we will... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-18/rootworms-are-resistant-to-monsanto-corn-in-two-states.html


now for the bees... you need to learn more about plants, seeds and longevity of the web of life. 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-of-the-bees-genetically-modified-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950

and then of course... http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/04/09/mystery-of-the-disappearing-bees-solved/

http://gmo-journal.com/2012/06/03/france-moves-to-protect-bees-by-banning-syngenta-pesticide/ http://gmo-journal.com/2012/04/25/new-evidence-linking-systemic-pesticides-to-bee-die-offs/
http://gmo-journal.com/2011/10/27/the-honeybee-disappearance-gmo-connection/

golly geee... less typing for me.. but a lot of reading for you.



oh and the flavonoid study had everything to do with GMO you just don't understand the larger picture of how the food we eat is the medicine of life. 
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/beautiful-truth/


i have not purchased corn from wal-mart in two-years. only roadside corn and i can havea discussion with the person who grew it. just like my cannabis.

except i grow that myself and organically of course. and i take care of pests most by companion growing and other organic methods.


----------



## Pimpernickel (Jan 20, 2013)

While I may find Monsanto's business practices despicable that should have no bearing on whether DNA modification is allowed. I also hate seeing 'natural' in any kind of argument that uses it to mean good or better. Natural has nothing to do with whether something is good or bad. 

If you don't want GMO weed than don't grow it or smoke it, I want to and you have just as much justification to tell me I can't as people who want to tell you that you can't smoke weed because that's what they think is good for you.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 20, 2013)

tomcatjones said:


> monsanto corn is GM... why?
> 
> to be able to stand the harmful effects of ROUND UP> their pesticide... or they make the corn with it in it now...
> http://rt.com/business/news/russia-monsanto-corn-ban-005/
> ...


Round Up has a persistency of less than one growing cycle, it's so you buy more. 

Are they chasing profit or trying to destroy the Earth? You Eco-warriors have your shit all mixed up, yous can't help but trip over yourselves. 

Also you said yourself that you don't HAVE to buy GM corn, so why disallow it. If you don't like eating Mars bars, you don't just try get them banned because its not your preference. 

Try harder.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 20, 2013)

tomcatjones said:


> monsanto corn is GM... why?
> 
> to be able to stand the harmful effects of ROUND UP> their pesticide... or they make the corn with it in it now...
> http://rt.com/business/news/russia-monsanto-corn-ban-005/
> ...


the NATURAL toxin used in BT corn is particularly toxic to caterpillars (budworms) but NOT so to humans and other mammals. those far there has been only ONNE study (out of many) which showed advrse reactions in rats. the rats were ffed BT corn at a rate far higher than people would consume, and the toxicology results were very minor, and the rats were not sick, did not die from eating BT corn, and the results have yet to be replicated. but you would have to stuff yourself with BT corn till you burst to get the results found in the rats, results which were asymptomatic untill the rats were terminated and examined in a necropsy. 
the mad claims that BT cotton makes people who wear cotton clothing ill is absolutely ridonkulously retarded. 



tomcatjones said:


> all so tirelessly... since the pests are resistant to and will adapt faster than we will... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-18/rootworms-are-resistant-to-monsanto-corn-in-two-states.html


yes. pests become resistant to pesticides and other means of controlling them. they always have. whats your point? 
pests like the rootworm, boll weevil and mosaic viruses drop crop yeilds in the toilet, and sometimes wipe out entire crops, developing methods to kill pests and save crops is not an evil profit motive, it is ESSENTIAL. burying your head in the dirt and claiming that pesticides are evil, and then declaring the only method that DOESNT use pesticides is even more evil is not helpful. 

if the eco-nauts have a proposal to protect crops with "good vibes" and crystal power, why havent they stepped up? 




tomcatjones said:


> now for the bees... you need to learn more about plants, seeds and longevity of the web of life.
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-of-the-bees-genetically-modified-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950


why do you think everybody else "needs to learn more", when you are citing a blog post from a dolt who doesnt even understand what he is talking about? 
GMO crops are NOT causing bee colony collapse syndrome. 

this citation is absolutely useless. "terminator" seeds dont kill bees, nor do "terminator" seeds require pesticides to germinate, the plants grown from these seeds (and every one is an ANNUAL) are intended to produce sterile seeds at harvest, solely to prevent the sale of seeds to others, an the saving of seeds. GMO's are not the only sterile plants, several well known hybrid varieties of ordinary selective breeding crops produce sterile seeds. the seeds for these crops must be purchased from the hybridizer every year. 
most of the crops referenced in this shitty rant arent even available as a GMO. tree fruits, tree nuts grapes, berries, etc etc etc are NOT GMO's. they dont grow from "terminator seeds" "terminator seeds" do not have any property which could affect bees when the plants are in flower for pollination, and in fact "terminatoer seeds" are NOT YET ON THE MARKET!

you are the one who needs to "learn more about" well... pretty much everything youre posting here. 



tomcatjones said:


> and then of course... http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/04/09/mystery-of-the-disappearing-bees-solved/


ohh wait, just a moment ago it was the entirely theoretical "terminator seeds" that were killing off the bees, now its pesticides? amazing. 



tomcatjones said:


> http://gmo-journal.com/2012/06/03/france-moves-to-protect-bees-by-banning-syngenta-pesticide/ http://gmo-journal.com/2012/04/25/new-evidence-linking-systemic-pesticides-to-bee-die-offs/
> http://gmo-journal.com/2011/10/27/the-honeybee-disappearance-gmo-connection/


and now it's both pesticides AND GMO's... wow. you sure are smart. 



tomcatjones said:


> golly geee... less typing for me.. but a lot of reading for you.


so very very smart. so intensely clever that you believe "GMO Journal" is a scientific journal, that EU bans on american ag products has anything to do with GMO's, rather than an convenient excuse for protecting of their own ag systems without wrecking their otherwise advantageous "free trade" agreements. 
you greenies are so dumb, you cant even put two and two together and get that the EU is using GMO terror as a smokescreen for protectionism.



tomcatjones said:


> oh and the flavonoid study had everything to do with GMO you just don't understand the larger picture of how the food we eat is the medicine of life.
> http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/beautiful-truth/


more "science" i see. brilliant. 
if i watch "an inconvenient truth" ill get accurate data on "global warming" too right? maybe "Loose Change version 37, The Really Final Cut, And This Time We Mean It" will "prove" that 9/11 was an inside job, 



tomcatjones said:


> i have not purchased corn from wal-mart in two-years. only roadside corn and i can havea discussion with the person who grew it. just like my cannabis.


and in winter you eat what? ohh yeah, you think that roadside stand grows "Year Round Corn" and watermelons that ripen best when under 5 feet of snow.... 



tomcatjones said:


> except i grow that myself and organically of course. and i take care of pests most by companion growing and other organic methods.


 and when your precious dope gets infested with spidermites, powdery mildew or budworms youll be spraying anything you can get. even Neem, which is LETHAL to bees. 
arent you just the most special of all snowlflakes.


----------



## tomcatjones (Jan 20, 2013)

Pimpernickel said:


> While I may find Monsanto's business practices despicable that should have no bearing on whether DNA modification is allowed. I also hate seeing 'natural' in any kind of argument that uses it to mean good or better. Natural has nothing to do with whether something is good or bad.
> 
> If you don't want GMO weed than don't grow it or smoke it, I want to and you have just as much justification to tell me I can't as people who want to tell you that you can't smoke weed because that's what they think is good for you.



the problem is when you don't get a choice anymore... ask the canadians growing canola.. or rapeseed...


----------



## tomcatjones (Jan 20, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> the NATURAL toxin used in BT corn is particularly toxic to caterpillars (budworms) but NOT so to humans and other mammals. those far there has been only ONNE study (out of many) which showed advrse reactions in rats. the rats were ffed BT corn at a rate far higher than people would consume, and the toxicology results were very minor, and the rats were not sick, did not die from eating BT corn, and the results have yet to be replicated. but you would have to stuff yourself with BT corn till you burst to get the results found in the rats, results which were asymptomatic untill the rats were terminated and examined in a necropsy.
> the mad claims that BT cotton makes people who wear cotton clothing ill is absolutely ridonkulously retarded.
> 
> 
> ...



LOL... havent had such problems in quite some time... and i don't pollinate my cannabis with bees... but i do wish one day they will be able to pollinate my hempseed bearing field in the future as well as collect hemp honey which will be off the charts with flavonoids.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 21, 2013)

EXCUSE ME, FOR I MUST APOLOGIZE FOR BEING AN IGNORANT SOCK PUPPET. WHO NOW UNDERSTANDS SHE REALLY KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING AND SHOULD JUST GO KILL HERSELF BEFORE SHE ROBS ANY OF YOU MASTERS OF ANY MORE AIR.

I WISH TO RETRACT A STATEMENT I MADE THINKING I WAS PROTECTING SOMEONES IDENTITY AFTER THEY ASKED ME TO DO JUST THAT IN A PHONE CALL I HAD RECEIVED FROM SOMEONE I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD FRIEND AND A COLLEAGUE WHO ASKED ME TO RELEASE THE DNA PROTECTION ACT AND TO 

PROTECT THEIR IDENTITY WERE THIS PROJECT WAS CONCERNED

*From:* r k <[email protected]>
*To:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]> 
*Sent:* Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:44 AM
*Subject:* mary...
 
on my 1st post i wrote...
*"This is exclusively a non-partisan and non-affiliated grass roots effort on behalf of all life and all the generations of life to come."*
*It should also be noted that while i do whole heatedly support all your efforts, I do not fly a flag of any kind, nor am i a member in that sense of any group or religion or whatever...just a human and thats what i was on that thread b4 this post: 
*


"EXCUSE ME??? You must have me phucked up with your reflection. I think for and speak for Myself. Yet, it is funny that you would recognize me as being connected to this. When DNA hasn't revealed who they are. To say I am a Sock Puppet insinuates that DNA is mastering me or my master or pulling my strings. 

Yes I am connected to this initiative. It was written by a member or members of Diverse Sanctuary who wish to remain nameless because they have no ego or intellectual need for personal profit... Who knows, maybe I wrote it. ???

Yet, there are no puppets here on this side of the fence. Promise you that!!!

YES! MY VOTE WAS ADDED! GUESS WHAT IT IS??? OR CAN YOU????????????"


I was on a mission mary and while i do love u and appreciate your efforts and sentiment it seems you had no regard for my mission because i feel that even still u have no understanding of what i was doing, otherwise u would probably have never posted there at all let alone this above that i had missed until last night...had to search back bcuz suddenly b'n called a puppet master bla bla...bcuz the above post came b4 page 70 it has basically torpedoed my efforts to use this thread as it was intended (to which i had gifted 2u 4such)...may seem small to u mary but meant a lot to me...i quit...im done...not ur fault...i've just had enough thats all. 








From 

 r k 
To 

 Mary Thomas-Spears 
 
u made your own bed here mary...i told u i was writing a book and u apparently thought it was a debate or a game or whatever but u should have never posted there if u had any respect or understanding...instead u destroyed all the scientific viability as well as my credibility with 1 post that wasnt even true, not even all the SHDT's posts put together could have done such...thanks...do what u will mary because i think at this point u are far to incoherent to understand what u did or what im writing to u now about such. 




 [HR][/HR] *From:* Mary Thomas-Spears <[email protected]>
*To:* r k <[email protected]> 
*Sent:* Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:25 PM
*Subject:* Re: mary...
 

excuse me?????????????? you said you wanted to remain autonomous and told me to put it out there 

i was only trying to allow you that

it was i accused of being your puppet first

now you have the balls to treat me like a ignorant puppet 

when i was only trying to protect your identity 

phuck all this

you have finished me off thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

you are not the only one who has been under major attack

how many times have i been there for you????

when have you ever been there for me??????????????

done with this life PEACE OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



   [HR][/HR]OBVIOUSLY I AM A IGNORANT SOCK PUPPET WHO HAS NO FRIENDS OR COLLEAGUES HERE 

AND NOTHING IS WHAT I PERCEIVED IT TO BE

AND PEOPLE ON THIS SIDE OF THE MOVEMENT DON'T MIND USING PATIENTS AS STEPPING STONES ANY MORE THAN THOSE ON THE OTHER SIDE

AND OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE HAS AN EGO IN IT BUT ME

WHO HAD NO EGO AND NO REASON TO CONTINUE

SO CARRY ON LIKE I WAS NEVER HERE 

TY TO THE MODERATORS WHO WERE KIND AND SUPPORTIVE HERE

BLESSINGS TO THE TWO OF YOU <3


​


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 21, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> EXCUSE ME, FOR I MUST APOLOGIZE FOR BEING AN IGNORANT SOCK PUPPET. WHO NOW UNDERSTANDS SHE REALLY KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING AND SHOULD JUST GO KILL HERSELF BEFORE SHE ROBS ANY OF YOU MASTERS OF ANY MORE AIR.
> 
> I WISH TO RETRACT A STATEMENT I MADE THINKING I WAS PROTECTING SOMEONES IDENTITY AFTER THEY ASKED ME TO DO JUST THAT IN A PHONE CALL I HAD RECEIVED FROM SOMEONE I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD FRIEND AND A COLLEAGUE WHO ASKED ME TO RELEASE THE DNA PROTECTION ACT AND TO
> 
> ...


LOL thats quite a meltdown

so diversesanctury your mary thomas spears?

what church are you rev at?


----------



## st0wandgrow (Jan 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> psych-ops?
> 
> ohhh you mean Psy-Ops.
> 
> ...


Heh! A farm hand twilighting as a self proclaimed expert on everything.

Good stuff


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 21, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> LOL thats quite a meltdown
> 
> so diversesanctury your mary thomas spears?
> 
> what church are you rev at?


Wow, posting your personal shit on a pot forum. 

What's the worst that could happen?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Heh! A farm hand twilighting as a self proclaimed expert on everything.
> 
> Good stuff


such disdain for the hard working people who make your comfortable city life so pleasant. 
i forgot, us hillbillies should leave the readin and thinkin to yalll, since you's our betters and we should tug our forelocks and cast our eyes to the mud when you ride by. 

sorry to have offended you massah. 

i wont be uppity no mo.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> EXCUSE ME, FOR I MUST APOLOGIZE FOR BEING AN IGNORANT SOCK PUPPET. WHO NOW UNDERSTANDS SHE REALLY KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING AND SHOULD JUST GO KILL HERSELF BEFORE SHE ROBS ANY OF YOU MASTERS OF ANY MORE AIR.
> 
> I WISH TO RETRACT A STATEMENT I MADE THINKING I WAS PROTECTING SOMEONES IDENTITY AFTER THEY ASKED ME TO DO JUST THAT IN A PHONE CALL I HAD RECEIVED FROM SOMEONE I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD FRIEND AND A COLLEAGUE WHO ASKED ME TO RELEASE THE DNA PROTECTION ACT AND TO
> 
> ...


aww fuck. 
Not this shit again. 
it's getting awfully Steve Kangas in here. 
i wonder who's gonna eat their own gun in a public toilet this time. 
lefties are always just one challenge to their assumptions away from flipping their nut and trying to assassinate Richard Mellon Scaithe.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Jan 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> such disdain for the hard working people who make your comfortable city life so pleasant.
> i forgot, us hillbillies should leave the readin and thinkin to yalll, since you's our betters and we should tug our forelocks and cast our eyes to the mud when you ride by.
> 
> sorry to have offended you massah.
> ...



Ohh, no disdain here. Farming runs deep where I come from.

Just figured with your vast intellect you would have applied yourself a bit more in life. Farm hands are typically low laying fruit.

I bet the other farm hands are pretty impressed with you.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Ohh, no disdain here. Farming runs deep where I come from.
> 
> Just figured with your vast intellect you would have applied yourself a bit more in life. Farm hands are typically low laying fruit.
> 
> I bet the other farm hands are pretty impressed with you.


yeah. no disdain there. 

we are all supposed to be dim witted rednecks who are best replaced with an illiterate illegal alien from guatemala, so your lettuce stays cheap. 

how dare any of the untermenschen learn to read. 

my grandfather was as smart as any college educated professional, but he worked in the soil running his farm all the way up till the IRS took it from him to pay his death tax.

why arent you in powerbrokering in the halls of congress or lounging on a beach with your trophy wife with YOUR stunning intellect and innate grasp of the political situation worldwide?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

tomcatjones said:


> the problem is when you don't get a choice anymore... ask the canadians growing canola.. or rapeseed...


so, is this a backhanded, utterly deniable claim that canadians growing rapeseed are prohibited from using non-GMO varieties? 

also, canola OR rapeseed. lulz. 

you's so funny.

post a link to any proof that GMO rapeseed is mandatory in canada or anywhere.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 21, 2013)

IN 2007 I WAS CONTACTED BY RON KICZENSKI AFTER I HAD MADE LEGAL HISTORY FIGHTING FOR EVERYONES RIGHTS, INCLUDING MY OWN. WHERE MARIJUANA WAS CONCERNED.


http://designingyourworld.com/MyStand.html


I HAD ALREADY ESTABLISHED "DIVERSE SANCTUARY" AS A STREET MINISTRY HERE IN BG, KY AT THAT TIME. IT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1995. YET, I HADN'T ESTABLISHED A DOCTRINE OR A WEB BASED PRESENCE FOR THAT MINISTRY.


RON KICZENSKI, WHO WAS MAKING LEGAL HISTORY IN COURT AT THE TIME. CONTACTED ME FOR MY HELP IN HIS HISTORICAL LEGAL CASE.


http://www.hemphasis.net/kiczenski/kiczenski_files/060613k_appealbrief.htm


HE ASKED ME IF I HAD FIGURED OUT THAT THOUGH EVERYONE WE WORKED WITH IN THIS MOVEMENT FOR LEGALIZATION WAS TRYING TO CLAIM THAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING... IF I HAD NOTICED THAT IT SEEMED TO BE A LIE.


I HAD TO RESPOND WITH "YES"


HE ASKED ME, IF THEY WERE REALLY TRYING TO LEGALIZE WHY HADN'T THEY DONE WHAT WE HAD DONE IN COURT. FIGHTING A CONSTITUTIONAL BASED LEGAL ARGUMENT OR HADN'T CHALLENGED THE LAW AT IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL ROOTS? OR WHY THEY REFUSED TO GIVE ANY PUBLICITY OR SUPPORT TO ANY OF US WHO HAD AND WHO HAD ALREADY SET LEGAL PRECEDENCE IN THESE CASES.???


www.constitutionalcannabis.com


I HAD TO SAY BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID IF WE LEGALIZE THEY WILL PUT THEMSELVES OUT OF WORK. AT THE SAME TIME, I FELT IT JUST WASN'T THAT SIMPLE. THAT I FELT THERE WAS A MISSING PIECE TO THIS PUZZLE I WASN'T ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER.


HE THEN SAID TO ME DO YOU KNOW WHAT GMO's ARE?


I SAID YES. AND THEN OMG!!!


HE THEN SENT ME A TON OF INFORMATION AND RESEARCH THAT PROVED THERE WERE THOSE IN POWER AND WITH-IN THIS SO-CALLED MOVEMENT WHO HAD BEEN SETTING US ALL UP. JUST TO OWN AND CONTROL THE SEED. ALL THE SEED. NOT JUST OUR MAINSTREAM FOODS, ALL OUR FOOD.


THAT PROHIBITION WAS CREATED TO HAND THEM THAT POWER AND MANDATE OUR AUTHORITY TO DO SO OVER TO THEM.


THAT EVIDENCE WAS AND STILL IS OVERWHELMING.


HE ALSO ASKED FOR MY HELP IN HIS LEGAL BATTLE TO PROTECT THIS PLANT FROM JUST THAT.


HIS CASE WAS STILL BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN CALI AT THE TIME AND WAS ABOUT TO BE KICKED OUT BECAUSE HE HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN RELIGIOUS EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTATION AT THE TIME THAT THE ENTIRE CASE WAS BASED UPON. FREEDOM OF RELIGION.


SO I SET UP THE WEB OF LIFE GROUP. WROTE A WEB OF LIFE RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT, AND THE WEB OF LIFE DOCTRINE, SET UP A PETITION SUPPORTING IT AND ESTABLISHED AN ON-LINE PRESENCE FOR DIVERSE SANCTUARY. AS WELL AS PROVIDING HIM WITH THE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION ON KANEH BOSEM = CANNABIS IN THE HEBREW TORAH...... AND IT'S RELIGIOUS, SACRAMENTAL AND SPIRITUAL USES THROUGH - OUT OUR HISTORY.


http://designingyourworld.com/OurDoctrine.html


WHICH HE FAILED TO UTILIZE IN TIME IN COURT. THOUGH IT WAS PROVIDED IN PLENTY OF TIME.


HIS CASE WAS THEN KICKED OUT OF COURT FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND WE ALL LOST.


YET, IT WAS AND STILL IS AN HISTORICAL LEGAL CASE.


RECENTLY AFTER HIS REQUEST FOR HELP AND BACK UP, WHICH ONCE AGAIN I PROVIDED WITH NO REQUEST FOR ANYTHING IN RETURN OR NO PERSONAL GAIN INVOLVED OTHER THAN THE TRUTH IN THIS ISSUE AND THE PROTECTION OF THIS PLANT AND THE PEOPLE IN MIND.


NOW I GET THIS SHI# FROM HIM


mary...
Hide Details


From


r k


To


[email protected]


on my 1st post i wrote...
"This is exclusively a non-partisan and non-affiliated grass roots effort on behalf of all life and all the generations of life to come."
It should also be noted that while i do whole heatedly support all your efforts, I do not fly a flag of any kind, nor am i a member in that sense of any group or religion or whatever...just a human and thats what i was on that thread b4 this post:


"EXCUSE ME??? You must have me phucked up with your reflection. I think for and speak for Myself. Yet, it is funny that you would recognize me as being connected to this. When DNA hasn't revealed who they are. To say I am a Sock Puppet insinuates that DNA is mastering me or my master or pulling my strings.


Yes I am connected to this initiative. It was written by a member or members of Diverse Sanctuary who wish to remain nameless because they have no ego or intellectual need for personal profit... Who knows, maybe I wrote it. ???


Yet, there are no puppets here on this side of the fence. Promise you that!!!


YES! MY VOTE WAS ADDED! GUESS WHAT IT IS??? OR CAN YOU????????????"


I was on a mission mary and while i do love u and appreciate your efforts and sentiment it seems you had no regard for my mission because i feel that even still u have no understanding of what i was doing, otherwise u would probably have never posted there at all let alone this above that i had missed until last night...had to search back bcuz suddenly b'n called a puppet master bla bla...bcuz the above post came b4 page 70 it has basically torpedoed my efforts to use this thread as it was intended (to which i had gifted 2u 4such)...may seem small to u mary but meant a lot to me...i quit...im done...not ur fault...i've just had enough thats all. 


IN CONNECTION TO THIS SHI# HERE > https://www.facebook.com/DiverseSanctuary/posts/4860935414319?


SO....... AT THIS POINT I AM WONDERING WHAT THE PHUCK I AM DOING HERE AT ALL. ???????????????


IN ANY OF THIS...


YES I MADE A FEW FRIENDS I GUESS.


YET, WERE WE EVERY REALLY A WORKING MINISTRY OR COMMUNITY ???


WHAT HAVE WE DONE AS A COMMUNITY, MINISTRY OR A COLLECTIVE???


WHAT IS BEING ACCOMPLISHED HERE???


OTHER THAN ME SETTING MYSELF UP AGAIN AND AGAIN...???


WHAT HAVE I DONE WITH THE LAST TWENTY YRS OF MY LIFE?


HOW PHUCKING IGNORANT AM I???


WHAT SHALL I DO FROM HERE AND SHOULD ANY OF THIS REMAIN ON-LINE????????????????????


SHOULD I REMAIN HERE AT ALL???????????


I HAVE POSTED THIS RETRACTION ~


THE FINAL ATTACK


EXCUSE ME, FOR I MUST APOLOGIZE FOR BEING AN IGNORANT SOCK PUPPET. WHO NOW UNDERSTANDS SHE REALLY KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING AND SHOULD JUST GO KILL HERSELF BEFORE SHE ROBS ANY OF YOU MASTERS OF ANY MORE AIR.


I WISH TO RETRACT A STATEMENT I MADE THINKING I WAS PROTECTING SOMEONES IDENTITY AFTER THEY ASKED ME TO DO JUST THAT IN A PHONE CALL I HAD RECEIVED FROM SOMEONE I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD FRIEND AND A COLLEAGUE WHO ASKED ME TO RELEASE THE DNA PROTECTION ACT AND TO


PROTECT THEIR IDENTITY WERE THIS PROJECT WAS CONCERNED


From: r k <lbm_aintdeadyet></lbm_aintdeadyet>
To: "[email protected]"
<admin></admin>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:44 AM
Subject: mary...
on my 1st post i wrote...
"This is exclusively a non-partisan and non-affiliated grass roots effort on behalf of all life and all the generations of life to come."
It should also be noted that while i do whole heatedly support all your efforts, I do not fly a flag of any kind, nor am i a member in that sense of any group or religion or whatever...just a human and thats what i was on that thread b4 this post:
"EXCUSE ME??? You must have me phucked up with your reflection. I think for and speak for Myself. Yet, it is funny that you would recognize me as being connected to this. When DNA hasn't revealed who they are. To say I am a Sock Puppet insinuates that DNA is mastering me or my master or pulling my strings.


Yes I am connected to this initiative. It was written by a member or members of Diverse Sanctuary who wish to remain nameless because they have no ego or intellectual need for personal profit... Who knows, maybe I wrote it. ???


Yet, there are no puppets here on this side of the fence. Promise you that!!!


YES! MY VOTE WAS ADDED! GUESS WHAT IT IS??? OR CAN YOU????????????"
I was on a mission mary and while i do love u and appreciate your efforts and sentiment it seems you had no regard for my mission because i feel that even still u have no understanding of what i was doing, otherwise u would probably have never posted there at all let alone this above that i had missed until last night...had to search back bcuz suddenly b'n called a puppet master bla bla...bcuz the above post came b4 page 70 it has basically torpedoed my efforts to use this thread as it was intended (to which i had gifted 2u 4such)...may seem small to u mary but meant a lot to me...i quit...im done...not ur fault...i've just had enough thats all.


From


r k


To


Mary Thomas-Spears


u made your own bed here mary...i told u i was writing a book and u apparently thought it was a debate or a game or whatever but u should have never posted there if u had any respect or understanding...instead u destroyed all the scientific viability as well as my credibility with 1 post that wasnt even true, not even all the SHDT's posts put together could have done such...thanks...do what u will mary because i think at this point u are far to incoherent to understand what u did or what im writing to u now about such.
From: Mary Thomas-Spears <admin></admin>
To: r k <lbm_aintdeadyet></lbm_aintdeadyet>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: mary...
excuse me?????????????? you said you wanted to remain autonomous and told me to put it out there


i was only trying to allow you that


it was i accused of being your puppet first


now you have the balls to treat me like a ignorant puppet


when i was only trying to protect your identity


phuck all this


you have finished me off thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


you are not the only one who has been under major attack


how many times have i been there for you????


when have you ever been there for me??????????????


done with this life PEACE OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


OBVIOUSLY I AM A IGNORANT SOCK PUPPET WHO HAS NO FRIENDS OR COLLEAGUES HERE


AND NOTHING IS WHAT I PERCEIVED IT TO BE


AND PEOPLE ON THIS SIDE OF THE MOVEMENT DON'T MIND USING PATIENTS AS STEPPING STONES ANY MORE THAN THOSE ON THE OTHER SIDE


AND OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE HAS AN EGO IN IT BUT ME


WHO HAD NO EGO AND NO REASON TO CONTINUE


SO CARRY ON LIKE I WAS NEVER HERE


TY TO THE MODERATORS WHO WERE KIND AND SUPPORTIVE HERE


BLESSINGS TO THE TWO OF YOU &#9829;


https://www.rollitup.org/politics/602854-monsanto-cannabis-yes-no-dna-90.html#post8559775
Like · · Promote · Share


 View all 6 comments

 

Diverse Sanctuary rk = Ron Kiczenski
about an hour ago · Like

 

Jakh Heremia Tell it like it is - name everyone - I have questioned the truth and validity of a couple of 'fb' acquaintenances NOT




BETWEEN THIS AND THE SHI# THAT IS TAKING PLACE WITH ROBERT CARR AND HIS CRONIES... ON AMERICANS FOR CANNABIS PAGES AND GROUPS AND/OR MY POSITION WITH "KENTUCKY FOR CANNABIS"


THE ONLY REASON I HAVEN'T OFFED MYSELF YET. IS I LEARNED YEARS AGO THAT I CAN NOT EVEN DO THAT RIGHT AND THAT I AM NOT THAT POWERFUL... SO... WHERE DOES ONE GO FROM HERE??? AND IN WHAT DIRECTION??? AND HOW AM I TO CONTINUE??? IN ANYTHING.............


SEEMS I HAVE JUST BEEN PLAYED, USED,............


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so, is this a backhanded, utterly deniable claim that canadians growing rapeseed are prohibited from using non-GMO varieties?
> 
> also, canola OR rapeseed. lulz.
> 
> ...


I've heard it's a similar situation with corn or maize too. 

Lol.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 21, 2013)

All truth with no ego!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 21, 2013)

diversesanctuary said:


> all truth with no ego!!!!!!!!!!!!


 so carry on with your bad selves


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 21, 2013)

You lost me as soon as the God quote loaded. 

Nice try tho. 

Maybe your Sky-Daddy can help your cause?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 21, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> so carry on with your bad selves


Why have you totally flipped out?

Can you not debate your point?


----------



## st0wandgrow (Jan 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yeah. no disdain there.
> 
> we are all supposed to be dim witted rednecks who are best replaced with an illiterate illegal alien from guatemala, so your lettuce stays cheap.
> 
> ...


*"we are all supposed to be dim witted rednecks who are best replaced with an illiterate illegal alien from guatemala, so your lettuce stays cheap."*

I never said that. I have, however found that most people who seek menial labor tend to be either a little slow, or lacking drive. Based upon your 4200+ posts inside of a year I would guess that the latter applies to you.

*"why arent you in powerbrokering in the halls of congress or lounging on a beach with your trophy wife with YOUR stunning intellect and innate grasp of the political situation worldwide?"*

You're projecting. I'm not the one trying to impress complete strangers with long-winded diatribes atop my soap box on an hourly basis.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> so carry on with your bad selves


so, within this meltdown we see the seamy underbelly of your arguments. 

create a fake "street ministry" as a fake church to gain a fake religious exemption from various (admittedly fake) laws, then transform the fake "street ministry' from a bunch of people who think smoking dope on weekends is a sacrament to "Gaia" to a wacky anti-GMO lobbying organization based on the asumption that cannabis prohibition is just a first stem in seizing control of ALL seeds for ALL food so we are forced to accept GMO's despite the fact that dope prohibition is OLDER than the science of genetics. 

wow. just fucking loopy. 

there is NO WAY to control farmers outside of finance. farmers grow what they want, and nothing can stop rural people from doin what they will, which is why we still have "illegal" unlicensed still operators in the hills today. or did you think "Them Duke Boys" were the last of the moonshiners? 

all the mad conspiracy theorists in the anti-GMO camp make damned fools of themselves when anyone who knows agriculture hears them yammer, and your claims of being a farm manager seem pretty far fetched since you now also claim to be a fake lawyer, a fake street preacher and a fake GMO activist. 

just what part of you is REAL?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> *"we are all supposed to be dim witted rednecks who are best replaced with an illiterate illegal alien from guatemala, so your lettuce stays cheap."*
> 
> I never said that. I have, however found that most people who seek menial labor tend to be either a little slow, or lacking drive. Based upon your 4200+ posts inside of a year I would guess that the latter applies to you.


no, you IMPLIED it. you never really SAY anything, you simply make snide allusions which remain sufficiently deniable to ensure you never actually have to say what you really believe. 
you set forth your vacant thoughts in the manner most acceptable to the masses, a brief and easy to read twitter-style "zinger" with no thought behind it. 
youre the Dane Cook of debate. 

my rather high post count is a result of insomnia and an ability to actually form coherent thoughts. since i can read a post, and prepare a reply within a few minutes, i can respond to erroneous statements and propaganda rapidly while still NOT resorting to copy/paste nonsense. this is of course most irritating to you, and the other members of the lefty butthurt bunch who believe all conservatives are knuckle dragging dimwits who should leave the higher pursuits (like politics) alone. your mistaken belief that public discourse is a forum for YOU and those who agree 100% with your opinions is a sad commentary on the world, at least the one you live in. 

while you, of course, believe that every snide comment and backhanded compliment you dish out is accepted as a pearl of wisdom, and a glorious affirmation of your importance, in reality, most of what you say is forgotten the moment you hit "Post". i suppose thats why you never actually SAY anything. you dont have any information, knowledge or even Opinion to share, only your need to say something, anything. thats the curse of the E-generation. you think you can change the world by updating your facebook status. fortunately the E-generastion isnt really a generation at all, but a shabby little sub-culture found in the urban enclaves and within the confines of the popular media echochamber, where matters of the constitution get sandwiched between snooky's new boob job, and the latest sports scores. outside the urban cores, real peopl;e still have REAL conversations about REAL tyhings that REALLY matter, and it very rarely looks like a twitter feed. 

look beyond the borders of the cities and theres a whole different america out here, where nebbish wimps and self-indulgent psuedo-intellectual urbanites are not held in esteem. 
sorry bro, out here in "fly-over country" you just aint that cool. 



st0wandgrow said:


> You're projecting. I'm not the one trying to impress complete strangers with long-winded diatribes atop my soap box on an hourly basis.


yep. most everything you post is along the lines of "NUHH UH! U R GAY!"
i dont give a shit who is impressed or otherwise with my comments. this website is called a FORUM, and forums are places for discussion. 
lurking in the shadows and occasionally popping up with a shouted imprecation from the sidelines is not discussion, but it seems to be all you can manage.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 21, 2013)

i am not affiliated with this argument in anyway. If the cops, jail guards,... states or commonwealth... who framed me on more than one occasion and tried to twist my words like those of you here... who beat me, tortured me, stole from me, raped me... and tried to call me a kidnapping cult leader before the nation or the movement who joined in for their egos and profit couldn't kill me. well i don't guess any of this will either


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 21, 2013)

this is DNA's remember.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Jan 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> no, you IMPLIED it. you never really SAY anything, you simply make snide allusions which remain sufficiently deniable to ensure you never actually have to say what you really believe.
> you set forth your vacant thoughts in the manner most acceptable to the masses, a brief and easy to read twitter-style "zinger" with no thought behind it.
> youre the Dane Cook of debate.
> 
> ...


*

^Another fine example^

You mistakenly believe that being long-winded equates to having something important to say. I see it more as scattered, unorganized thought. Canabinear is one of the brightest individuals on this forum imo, and he rarely feels it necessary to ramble on like you. You lack the ability to be precise, and succinct.

Maybe you could find something productive to do while laying awake at night. Surely you would agree that the hours/days/weeks/months you've spent hunched over your keyboard posting away in the political forum of a marijuana web site is kind of pointless, right? Maybe you could try your hand at growing weed? I'm sure you'd find it fun, therapeutic, and maybe even profitable. Time well spent.

PM me if you need any pointers.*


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> i am not affiliated with this argument in anyway. If the cops, jail guards,... states or commonwealth... who framed me on more than one occasion and tried to twist my words like those of you here... who beat me, tortured me, stole from me, raped me... and tried to call me a kidnapping cult leader before the nation or the movement who joined in for their egos and profit couldn't kill me. well i don't guess any of this will either


classic persecution complex. 

seek help, youre losing touch with reality. 

check yourself in for an evaluation

seriously i aint even trolling.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 21, 2013)

i am beginning to think i am the only thing real here just some of my credentials ~ https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4168688628582.160553.1625215789&type=3


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 21, 2013)

if there is a moderator here please tell me how to delete my profile. I am done with carrying about the people or any of this here TY!


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jan 21, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> i am beginning to think i am the only thing real here just some of my credentials


If you are ever going to post something illegal here, I recommend taking that link down. In fact, I just plain recommend taking that link down... Too much info...

Although, I got a kick out of it because one of the top documents appeared to say "Authority to Sodomize Marriage"


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jan 21, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> if there is a moderator here please tell me how to delete my profile. I am done with carrying about the people or any of this here TY!


You cannot delete your profile...

KTHXBYE!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 21, 2013)

I think at this point one must need ego or something to prove to care


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jan 21, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> I think at this point one must need ego or something to prove to care


Put the keyboard down and just walk away....


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> ^Another fine example^
> 
> You mistakenly believe that being long-winded equates to having something important to say. I see it more as scattered, unorganized thought. Canabinear is one of the brightest individuals on this forum imo, and he rarely feels it necessary to ramble on like you. You lack the ability to be precise, and succinct.
> 
> ...


pardon me, while i stifle my chortles of amusement. 

my interest in politics, and my interest in dope simply coincide here. you assume im like cheesie, who holds dope growers in contempt and merely comes here because shouting at the Fox news message boards is "boring". 
if THREE PARAGRAPHS is what you call long winded then you have serious problems. 

your characterization of my statement above as "scattered, unorganized thought" then perhaps you didnt understand the point. 

ill make it clear using the pithy comments that you seem to prefer. 

YOU are a post-modernist dilettante. 
you believe that any person who holds an opinion contrary to your own is evil. 
you respond to disagreement with bile and venom rather than discourse. 
you turn to ad hominem as the first line of offense. 
you disparage the person rather than their argument, make thinly veiled imprecations and then take offense at every response
youre just a cut rate Uncle Buck without the cleverness and wit. 

i grow my dope just fine thank you. 
and since you spend so little time actually discussing dope and the growing thereof, why would i ask your opinion on that matter, when Uncle Buck (your superior in every way) has a proven track record of success in that area? 

i enjoy my non-political discussions of gardening with buck, i doubt i would enjoy any discussion with you, as you seem to be little more than the asshole who throws spitballs from the cheap seats at the local community threatre. 

but i guess thats too long winded.

*im saying youre a PUTZ!

a heckler who brings nothing to the table beyond your whoopi cushion and a foul odour. *


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

NLXSK1 said:


> Put the keyboard down and just walk away....


tread softly bro, when people who are so tighly wound up in ideology start to unravel, you dont want to get caught in the inevitable crash. 

my discussions on gun control with Steve Kangas went kinda like this before he just snapped, bought a .45 at a vegas pawnshop, flew out to philly and shot himself in a toilet stall when his plan to assassinate Richard Mellon Scaithe went pear-shaped. 

dude, i aint even kidding. 

this is my serious face. 

dude shot himself in a public toilet. 

dont push the nutters too far, they'll crack, and it's not a good feeling.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jan 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> tread softly bro, when people who are so tighly wound up in ideology start to unravel, you dont want to get caught in the inevitable crash.
> 
> my discussions on gun control with Steve Kangas went kinda like this before he just snapped, bought a .45 at a vegas pawnshop, flew out to philly and shot himself in a toilet stall when his plan to assassinate Richard Mellon Scaithe went pear-shaped.
> 
> ...


If you can get Uncle Buck to do that I will worship you forever


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

NLXSK1 said:


> If you can get Uncle Buck to do that I will worship you forever


it funny to say shit like that, but really, when you start winding up somebody who turns out to be as frooty as toucan sam, and they snap, then end up on the floor of a public toilet with a half empty whiskey bottle a 45 and a wisp of smoke curling out of their mouths you get a new perspective on shit. 

for years i worried i might have pushed him too hard on his wacky gun control schemes, but now, being older and wiser i realize he was just a liberal. liberals always want to control others, while preserving their own right to resist control, because they think they are BETTER than everybody else, 

liberals believe they are the only ones who can be trusted with anything that might be dangerous, even thought. thats why the left fights so hard to preserve their monopoly of the media.

In Liberal World, the bizarre dystopian universe the left lives in, dissent against "The Right" "Capitalism" and "The Bourgeois _____________" is the god given right of every leftist blogger and disgruntled radical marxist, but disagreement with THEIR opinions is tantamount to violence. Liberals believe everyone has a right to hold any opinion they want, and say anything they like, as long as it all agrees with their party line. In Liberal World there is no liberty unless you are one of the Party Faithful, and then the world is your oyster, but if you are one of the Evil Reactionary Counter-Revolutionary Bourgeois _____________ists, then you must be put against the wall and shot. But dont worry, the guns used to shoot you will be safely controlled by the state, and the price of the bullet will be billed to your next of kin. 

Once you understand how Liberal Wolrd works, youll never be surprised by the left's hypocrisy again. 

of course there is also aa corresponding Neo-Con World too, and it's every bit as dirty and shabby as Liberal World. the two are polar opposites, but when you get down to it, they are indistinguishable in how they deal with dissent. both these freakish distortions of reality are equally dangerous to the believers, and both are just as poisonous to civil discourse, political thought, and our Constitutional Representative Republic.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jan 21, 2013)

I believe people are responsible for their own actions...


----------



## st0wandgrow (Jan 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> pardon me, while i stifle my chortles of amusement.
> 
> my interest in politics, and my interest in dope simply coincide here. you assume im like cheesie, who holds dope growers in contempt and merely comes here because shouting at the Fox news message boards is "boring".
> if THREE PARAGRAPHS is what you call long winded then you have serious problems.
> ...



Ouch! Scathing response! If you weren't just a farm hand pontificating on a weed forum, I might actually take offense to that! 

I hope you get some sleep tonight.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

NLXSK1 said:


> I believe people are responsible for their own actions...


really bro, crazy people who are already on the ledge need help, not a crowd shouting their chant of "JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP!"

i try not to prod too hard, cuz from personal experience, indulging in schadenfreude is fun, hillarious and sometimes deserved, more often than not it leaves you feeling hollow inside. 

dont get me wrong i dont weep for nutbars who think gun control is groovy, as long as they get to lurk outside the offices of those they despise with a 1911. 

but deliberately pushing a nutter to the breaking point is cruel, like kicking a cowering dog.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jan 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> really bro, crazy people who are already on the ledge need help, not a crowd shouting their chant of "JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP!"
> 
> i try not to prod too hard, cuz from personal experience, indulging in schadenfreude is fun, hillarious and sometimes deserved, more often than not it leaves you feeling hollow inside.
> 
> ...


That is an interesting point but I didnt do that.

I simply pointed out that 

1. Disclosing RL info on here is dangerous.

2. You cannot delete your profile.

3. There is no compulsion to log onto this site and post regardless of how it appears when observing Uncle Buck...


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> really bro, crazy people who are already on the ledge need help, not a crowd shouting their chant of "JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP!"
> 
> i try not to prod too hard, cuz from personal experience, indulging in schadenfreude is fun, hillarious and sometimes deserved, more often than not it leaves you feeling hollow inside.
> 
> ...


I must agree, there is a line.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 21, 2013)

rolmafo!!! it is the same people trying to control the seed, food, and water... who want to control the guns you guys are too funny


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 21, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> rolmafo!!! it is the same people trying to control the seed, food, and water... who want to control the guns you guys are too funny


If you didn't have a gun in your mouth I'd troll the shit out of this comment...Just sayin'


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 21, 2013)

oh and as far as my personal info being out there... i have my local press and law enforcement to thank for that they make a game of it so it isn't like any of it matters the point was was for everyone to carry on about the real discussion as if i were never here. not like i ever really was i am such a liar and crazy right?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I must agree, there is a line.





Harrekin said:


> If you didn't have a gun in your mouth I'd troll the shit out of this comment...Just sayin'


you are A *BAD* Man!

if i could stop laughing, i would chastise you right and good!


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> you are A *BAD* Man!
> 
> if i could stop laughing, i would chastise you right and good!


I wouldn't cross the line, but like Homer Simpson will "gracefully" dance along that line.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jan 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> really bro, crazy people who are already on the ledge need help, not a crowd shouting their chant of "JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP!"


You mean like throwing out mostly untested GM crops into the wild when we barely understand what it is we're doing? Jump indeed.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 21, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> You mean like throwing out mostly untested GM crops into the wild when we barely understand what it is we're doing? Jump indeed.


Just because we don't know exactly what ever single gene combination does (yet), sections that have an identifiable purpose can be predictably inserted into a new organism with relatively predictable result. 

Is the world still flat where you are?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> You mean like throwing out mostly untested GM crops into the wild when we barely understand what it is we're doing? Jump indeed.


and what will GM corn or soya do when planted in a farmer's field? 

hatch a plot with al quaeda to destroy the delicate balance of nature between the barn and the fenceline? 







mutate blackbirds into nefarious Super Avians with the ability to speak, plan mischief and devise their escape route? 







or destroy the world by speaking the name of god in reverse? 








crazy fearmongering is the last resort of those who have no evidence to support their lunacy. 
is there a "Scientific Consensus" on genetic research? why yes, there is. 

it's the same as the "Scientific Consensus" on global warming. *MORE RESEARCH!
*
not mad spasms of terror, kneejerk political reaction or ludicrous prohibitions on more research. 

the left's rush to condemnation of everything they despise as soon as they catch the faintest whiff of an excuse to call out their rabblerouser is displayed on this issue the same as it is on "global warming", gun control, and demanding punitive taxation on those they already hate with a burning marxist passion. 

it's just too easy.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> and what will GM corn or soya do when planted in a farmer's field?
> 
> hatch a plot with al quaeda to destroy the delicate balance of nature between the barn and the fenceline?
> 
> ...


You've no idea what they're capable of.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 21, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> You've no idea what they're capable of.


lies, deception, fearmongering and eventually having a nervous breakdown which ends in gunplay? 

actually yeah, i pretty much seen everything they got.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> lies, deception, fearmongering and eventually having a nervous breakdown which ends in gunplay?
> 
> actually yeah, i pretty much seen everything they got.


They don't need to justify their lives to you.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 22, 2013)

gunplay is your alls twist on how powerful you think you are


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 22, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> gunplay is your alls twist on how powerful you think you are


? 

was that an attempt to countrify yourself with a failed Y'all? 

cuz that aint how ya use that word. 

also, the gunplay invariably comes from lefties when they realize their attempts to browbeat everybody else into submission has failed. 

if the left fails to win at the ballot box, or in the debate, thats when they start quoting mao. "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun."


----------



## potpimp (Jan 22, 2013)

We get it doc, your winkie is bigger than hers. At least show you're a man and stop at some f'n point.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 22, 2013)

potpimp said:


> We get it doc, your winkie is bigger than hers. At least show you're a man and stop at some f'n point.


You've no idea what he's capable of.


----------



## potpimp (Jan 22, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> You've no idea what he's capable of.


You are correct and I could care less; you have no idea what I'm capable of either. I do know what things characterizes a real man and it's not dragging out a pissing contest with a female. I realize this is the political forum and things get out of hand here but geeeez, can't we show some respect to one another? It's one thing to have different opinions but unrealistic to expect everyone's to be the same as yours.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 23, 2013)

potpimp said:


> *You are correct and I could care less; you have no idea what I'm capable of either.* I do know what things characterizes a real man and it's not dragging out a pissing contest with a female. I realize this is the political forum and things get out of hand here but geeeez, can't we show some respect to one another? It's one thing to have different opinions but unrealistic to expect everyone's to be the same as yours.


Gooooooooood....let it flow through you!


----------



## fb360 (Jan 23, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Gooooooooood....let it flow through you!


I dont need to justify my life to you


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 23, 2013)

fb360 said:


> I dont need to justify my life to you


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 23, 2013)

potpimp said:


> You are correct and I could care less; you have no idea what I'm capable of either. I do know what things characterizes a real man and it's not dragging out a pissing contest with a female. I realize this is the political forum and things get out of hand hhttps://www.rollitup.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8568564ere but geeeez, can't we show some respect to one another? It's one thing to have different opinions but unrealistic to expect everyone's to be the same as yours.


potpimp to the rescue!!!!!







now lets ignore the fact that we know dna protect and diverse sanctuary came here as a group with the plan to manipulate

and lets ignore the fact that this public meltdown happened outside of RIU and was caused by fractures within their group and not us

and lets ignore the fact that they found their own way here both before and after the meltdown and were perfectly capable of speaking for themselves


you feel the need to protect those poor defenceless wimminz on the interent becuase those poor wimminz are what incapable of typing their own defense?

i thought this was supposed to be 2013 not the 50's your white knighting purely due to their femininity shows a far more degrading attitude towards them than anything we have said so far

well done old chap

now get em to go make you a sammich


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 23, 2013)

potpimp said:


> You are correct and I could care less; you have no idea what I'm capable of either. I do know what things characterizes a real man and it's not dragging out a pissing contest with a female. I realize this is the political forum and things get out of hand here but geeeez, can't we show some respect to one another? It's one thing to have different opinions but unrealistic to expect everyone's to be the same as yours.


message received. 

*claiming* to be a woman means the antagonist does not have to prove their claims, or even stop the disingenuous attacks (like implying i am threatening violence by discussing the history of leftist violence when they dont get their way) 

if i claim to be part of some ethnic or religious minority can i get a piece of that action? or is it strictly a free pass granted to those who profess to own a uterus? 

after urging others to lay off due to the demonstrably delicate mental state of the lefty anti-GMO agent provocateurs, the alleged female in question continued inserting "her"-self into a discussion of leftist tactics, which was unrelated to any personal meltdown published by the individual at question without prompting. 

"her" personal attacks against myself (defeated by my naturally thick skin and general disdain for nutjobs who make wild assertions without proof) were of course just sound debate strategy, under the modified rules demanded by "Utero-Americans" to repay them for 5 millenia of male oppression and hegemony. 

ill just stand against the wall with my knees apart, waiting for the fusillade of kicks to my nuts, which i have earned for having a Y chromosome, and thus being tainted with the sins of all previous generations of male oppressors.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 23, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> message received.
> 
> *claiming* to be a woman means the antagonist does not have to prove their claims, or even stop the disingenuous attacks (like implying i am threatening violence by discussing the history of leftist violence when they dont get their way)
> 
> ...


potpimps assist FTW


> [h=2]_Mykerus Law: _[/h] *As any progressive movement grows and achieves success, the probability of it being co-opted by women who want to make it all about their vagina approaches 1&#8243;*​


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

ONCE AGAIN THIS WAS NOT ABOUT ME. IT WAS ABOUT DNA AND HIS POINT. WE ARE NOT AFFILIATED. THE FACT IS, IT SEEMS WE ALL HAVE BEEN MISLEAD IN HIS ATTEMPTS TO MANIPULATE. 

as for myself, as I have already said, thanks to All of it, I would have to care about any of it to continue. Would I not??? What does that have to do with my sex????????????

For those who wish to continue the subject here

Maybe this will get you back on track.

http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/

as for myself. At this point, I think this conversation, is proof, no one is in control of anything PERIOD!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

I didn't start this conversation so i am not the antagonist here sorry!!! Stop using me as a subject to divert the attention from the truth and science that this conversation is full of in your manly attempts to be in control and manipulate. Pot calling Kettle BLACK!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

YOUR ATTEMPTS TO DIVERT THE CONVERSATION BY USING ME AS THE TWIST, IS NO DIFFERENT, THAN DNA's ATTEMPTS TO BOW OUT OF THE ARGUMENT HE BEGAN, AND MANIPULATE AND CONTROL THINGS BY TURNING ME INTO THE LIAR OR PATSY.......... ALL VERY MANLY IF I MUST SAY


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Makes me sooo horney rolmafo!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or care!!!!!!!! Please!!!!!!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> message received.
> 
> 
> "her" personal attacks against myself (defeated by my naturally thick skin and general disdain for nutjobs who make wild assertions without proof) were of course just sound debate strategy, under the modified rules demanded by "utero-americans" to repay them for 5 millenia of male oppression and hegemony.
> ...


let us all look back and see who began the personal attacks here shall we??? Again, pot calling kettle black!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> so, within this meltdown we see the seamy underbelly of your arguments.
> 
> Create a fake "street ministry" as a fake church to gain a fake religious exemption from various (admittedly fake) laws, then transform the fake "street ministry' from a bunch of people who think smoking dope on weekends is a sacrament to "gaia" to a wacky anti-gmo lobbying organization based on the asumption that cannabis prohibition is just a first stem in seizing control of all seeds for all food so we are forced to accept gmo's despite the fact that dope prohibition is older than the science of genetics.
> 
> ...


look at the paper work posted here in the link that says credentials

the ministry was already established in 1995 as i was licensed by kentucky as minister of............ Nothing fake here where i am concerned, except who i thought my friends and colleagues were in it all. I promise you that!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

I wasn't nominated a hometown hero by those in my local community through channel 13 news for a fake street ministry sorry, ALSO IN THE LINK PROVIDED


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

By the way that was after the media put their evil twist on what i do like you


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> From
> 
> 
> r k
> ...


SEEMS I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE HERE INCOHERENT OR EVERYONE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN WHAT YOUR GOAL WAS RON AND UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WERE ALL RATS IN YOUR EXPERIMENT AND A SUBJECT FOR YOUR BOOK THEY ARE NOW TRYING TO WRITE A CHAPTER ABOUT ME IN. THANKS! TO YOUR AND THEIR TRYING TO MAKE THIS ALL ABOUT ME!

YOU KNOW THE BOOK I GUESS I WAS SUPPOSE TO WRITE FOR YOU AS YOU SUPOSSEDLY WAS *From: r k <lbm_aintdeadyet></lbm_aintdeadyet>
To: "[email protected]"
<admin></admin>
"Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:44 AM
Subject: mary...
on my 1st post i wrote... "bcuz the above post came b4 page 70 it has basically torpedoed my efforts to use this thread as it was intended (to which i had gifted 2u 4such)"

*NOW SHALL WE RETURN TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

and i apoligize if that book was suppose to end in my suicide or gunplay. Sorry to disappoint everyone.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

guess none of this can really touch my BALLS


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637#


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

http://www.bioscienceresource.org/documents/BSR3-VirusTranscomplementation.pdf


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Mad crazy hackle laugh!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Seems despite it all, i am still winning in the poll above. Even if it isn't my poll. Even if you remove my 1 vote and make me not affiliated with it. ??? Are we affiliated by our shared knowledge or beliefs??? If we share them ???


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

ANOTHER MAD HACKLE LAUGH!!!!!!!!!!      

and what was the book about again??? How to get someone else to write a book for you or How Activist or people can pretend to be your friends and colleagues in order to play you or set you up as a patsy and use you... That they too can Lie, Twist, Manipulate things, in order to further their own private personal agendas or experiments like trolls and corporations?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

though might i point out that it all has proven what i have said for nearly 10 yrs as a REPEAL spokesperson in this movement. It is the words used. That they utilize in their Legal lies = legalize that must be examined. For it too is a Manipulation of the real truth. Which contains no real freedom.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

For those who haven't figured it out yet. I am not a Liberal. I take on no Gang Patch to hide behind. I am Sovereign and a stanch Constitutionalists if you must label me politically in your minds


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 23, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> ........
> as for myself. At this point, *I think this conversation, is proof, no one is in control *of anything PERIOD!!!





DiverseSanctuary said:


> .......





DiverseSanctuary said:


> .....





DiverseSanctuary said:


> ......





DiverseSanctuary said:


> .......





DiverseSanctuary said:


> .......





DiverseSanctuary said:


> .......





DiverseSanctuary said:


> .......





DiverseSanctuary said:


> ........





DiverseSanctuary said:


> .........





DiverseSanctuary said:


> ..........





DiverseSanctuary said:


> Mad crazy hackle laugh!!!!!!!!!!





DiverseSanctuary said:


> .........





DiverseSanctuary said:


> ANOTHER MAD HACKLE LAUGH!!!!!!!!!!
> .





DiverseSanctuary said:


> ........





DiverseSanctuary said:


> ........


cant argue with that


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Dna ~ i am not your or ANYONE'S PUPPET, scapegoat or their Jesus... I won't be the one crucified in/by all this SORRY!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Put that in your book


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jan 23, 2013)

Reported as spam.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Reported as spam.


oh I see, now it's spam. Since I have made my point and put the science here again.


----------



## potpimp (Jan 23, 2013)

Just because it's reported doesn't make it so. DS, I think you're taking this way too seriously with these people. They have their own opinions (even about me) and that is their right, even if we disagree with them (and I do for the most part). There is no "winning" in this; it's the internet and even if you "win", it's like "winning" the Special Olympics; you get a medal but you're still a retard. Haters gonna hate, no matter what. I find it amusing that they claim I came to your defense because you're a woman; your gender was not disclosed until way after I chimed in. This thread was about bio-engineered, GMO seeds but it's really gotten off track. For the most part I don't even defend myself against personal attacks; it gets you nowhere.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 23, 2013)

potpimp said:


> I do know what things characterizes a real man and it's not dragging out a pissing contest with a female.





potpimp said:


> I find it amusing that they claim I came to your defense because you're a woman; your gender was not disclosed until way after I chimed in.









your being called out for the above comment not what happened down thread

maybe but maybe you got a chance tho 

she may swoon for you any minute if you keep it up


----------



## potpimp (Jan 23, 2013)

OK, Doc replied that he "got it" and I accepted that. My post was directed at him and I think he has shown restraint and is a good sport. Sometimes a person just has to be nudged to remind them. On the second "call out" it's a matter of fact that I jumped into this because i hate Monsanto with every fiber of my being. I see what they have been doing for years; this is not new news to me. They have created "frankenfish", GMO fish that absolutely will replace natural stocks and that is a very, very dangerous thing. We're not talking about cell phones, PS3's, lotions and cremes; we're talking FOOD, the most basic element of human survival there is. Monsanto wants to OWN the right to every organism on the planet. They are big, greedy, filthy rich, and ruthless. They are hiding material facts and buying the approval of the FDA - whose "leaders" are all former Monsanto execs.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jan 23, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> oh I see, now it's spam. Since I have made my point and put the science here again.


No, but a shitload of posts in a row...

Yeah.


----------



## potpimp (Jan 23, 2013)

Well it *is* her thread. BTW, DS am I getting any nookie? (you know, just for the record?)


----------



## burgertime2010 (Jan 23, 2013)

GMO cannabis will open the gates to a corporate takeover of this plant and the consequences will be felt by any grower without a doubt. I am not an expert on genetic engineering but I know about terminator genes, and round-up ready vegetables. The profit motive on such a scale is going to have blowback. The question is why? Are you dissatisfied with the state of cannabis? Why hand the boutique small batch nature over to a truly evil institution? Science suffers no loss as gmo technology is used and well researched? The term organic applies to non-gmo produce, what tastes better? which is healthier? The "we are nature, and this is nature at work" is a completely ridiculous argument. Nature endowed us with ethics, rationality, greed, remorse, violence etc. We are natural, thus are exempt from any regulations, allowed to harm at the expense of the greater good? Come on. I don't want cricket and fish DNA in my herb. Look at the worst possible food products....that is where this ends. I need a drink.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 23, 2013)

potpimp said:


> OK, Doc replied that he "got it" and I accepted that. My post was directed at him and I think he has shown restraint and is a good sport. Sometimes a person just has to be nudged to remind them. On the second "call out" it's a matter of fact that I jumped into this because i hate Monsanto with every fiber of my being. I see what they have been doing for years; this is not new news to me. They have created "frankenfish", GMO fish that absolutely will replace natural stocks and that is a very, very dangerous thing. We're not talking about cell phones, PS3's, lotions and cremes; we're talking FOOD, the most basic element of human survival there is. Monsanto wants to OWN the right to every organism on the planet. They are big, greedy, filthy rich, and ruthless. They are hiding material facts and buying the approval of the FDA - whose "leaders" are all former Monsanto execs.


monsanto didnt create frankenfish

preety much everything in that post is just plain wrong


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 23, 2013)

potpimp said:


> Well it *is* her thread. BTW, DS am I getting any nookie? (you know, just for the record?)


 [h=3]




Poll: Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013[/h] Started by *DNAprotection*, 12-23-2012 09:47 PM

dyverse only came into this thread later with dna's permission


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 23, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> GMO cannabis will open the gates to a corporate takeover of this plant and the consequences will be felt by any grower without a doubt. I am not an expert on genetic engineering but I know about terminator genes, and round-up ready vegetables. The profit motive on such a scale is going to have blowback. The question is why? Are you dissatisfied with the state of cannabis? Why hand the boutique small batch nature over to a truly evil institution? Science suffers no loss as gmo technology is used and well researched? The term organic applies to non-gmo produce, what tastes better? which is healthier? The "we are nature, and this is nature at work" is a completely ridiculous argument. Nature endowed us with ethics, rationality, greed, remorse, violence etc. We are natural, thus are exempt from any regulations, allowed to harm at the expense of the greater good? Come on. I don't want cricket and fish DNA in my herb. Look at the worst possible food products....that is where this ends. I need a drink.


gmo food hasnt killed the organic food market

and it will not kill the cannabis market either


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 23, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> ONCE AGAIN THIS WAS NOT ABOUT ME. IT WAS ABOUT DNA AND HIS POINT. WE ARE NOT AFFILIATED. THE FACT IS, IT SEEMS WE ALL HAVE BEEN MISLEAD IN HIS ATTEMPTS TO MANIPULATE.
> 
> as for myself, as I have already said, thanks to All of it, I would have to care about any of it to continue. Would I not??? What does that have to do with my sex????????????
> 
> ...


so, it's not all about you, it's about the claims... 

this citation does nto support ANY of the specific claims made by you or dnaprotection. it makes OTHER assertions, notably that a small chunk of viral genetic material may be lurking in GMO crops. 

this article hems and haws, making a great deal of noise about this discovery, then goes on to make multiple contradictory claims which use the science journalism version of "What If..."

as we see here in the relevant excerpts:

"Given that expression of Gene VI is likely to cause harm..."

"Nevertheless, we can theorize..."

"It is too early to be sure..."

"But the saga of Gene VI is not yet over. There is no certainty that further scientific analysis will resolve the remaining uncertainties, or provide reassurance. Future research may in fact increase the level of concern or uncertainty, and this is a possibility that regulators should weigh heavily in their deliberations."


the discovery discussed in this opinion piece is call for REASEARCH not outright bans, and in no way correlates to any of your previous assertions beyond the vague fearmongering "What if Theres Unknown Unknowns...?"

again, misdirection disguised as evidence of your assertions. 

if you want to make your claims based on "Gene IV expression" from cauliflower mosaic virus' use in gene insertion, then make THAT case, not the dozens of other cases you and "dnaprotection" have trotted out over and over, and then abandoned when the seriousness of the charge didnt overcome our demand that you prove it. .

and YOU are the one who made putative genders an issue. 
nobody else has been whinging about their reproductive organs, only YOU. 

shit, for all you know i might actually BE the 12 year old asian girl that uncle buck pretends to be in sex chatrooms. 
but you dont know because i havent said.
details of genitals and chromosomes are irrelevant in this discussion. 
in threads with a topic "Urinal Cakes, Melt em in your stream, or let them dissolve naturally?" then whether or not you have a dick becomes an issue of your credibility.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 23, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so, it's not all about you, it's about the claims...
> 
> this citation does nto support ANY of the specific claims made by you or dnaprotection. it makes OTHER assertions, notably that a small chunk of viral genetic material may be lurking in GMO crops.
> 
> ...


You've no idea what they're capable of...


----------



## potpimp (Jan 23, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> monsanto didnt create frankenfish
> 
> preety much everything in that post is just plain wrong


So I got one thing wrong; i was busy; so sue me. All the rest is correct. Maybe you could Google the rest of it.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 23, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637#


*and the very first response to this citation:* other scientists did the same experiments and got the opposite results. thats what we call a REFUTATION... it means, the the study in the citation you provided was wrong. 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512007843


*every one* of the references below the gloss of your cited "study" (the french experiment using Onco-Mice and their totally unsurprising tumours) REJECTS the premise, the methodology and the results of the "study" you cite here. 

the french Onco-Mouse study has been rejected by everyone who examines it. 

and this is like the 5th time in this thread that you or dnaprotection have trotted out this same failed study, and each time you pretend it's new and fresh.


----------



## tomcatjones (Jan 23, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so, is this a backhanded, utterly deniable claim that canadians growing rapeseed are prohibited from using non-GMO varieties?
> 
> also, canola OR rapeseed. lulz.
> 
> ...


....clearly you are "misunderstanding"? or dont know how plants pollinate.... prohibited?? no... needless sued over and over and made homeless, broke.... yes.

here....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwfzYDKd8jk

accidents happen..


----------



## desert dude (Jan 23, 2013)

potpimp said:


> Well it *is* her thread. BTW, DS am I getting any nookie? (you know, just for the record?)


PP, I hope you are getting laid in this deal. Crazy pussy is the best kind, if you live through it. Good luck!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 23, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> GMO cannabis will open the gates to a corporate takeover of this plant and the consequences will be felt by any grower without a doubt. I am not an expert on genetic engineering but I know about terminator genes, and round-up ready vegetables. The profit motive on such a scale is going to have blowback. The question is why? Are you dissatisfied with the state of cannabis? Why hand the boutique small batch nature over to a truly evil institution? Science suffers no loss as gmo technology is used and well researched? The term organic applies to non-gmo produce, what tastes better? which is healthier? The "we are nature, and this is nature at work" is a completely ridiculous argument. Nature endowed us with ethics, rationality, greed, remorse, violence etc. We are natural, thus are exempt from any regulations, allowed to harm at the expense of the greater good? Come on. I don't want cricket and fish DNA in my herb. Look at the worst possible food products....that is where this ends. I need a drink.


i grow my own vegetables. 
some farmer growing GMO corn 5 miles away doesnt change my vegetable growing ability. 
the very worst thing somebody else growing GMO corn might do to my garden is pollinate my shit with their shit. 

and all that will do is make the seeds in my plants different than the cultivar i planted this year if i save seeds and plant em next year. 

most home gardeners (and ALL farmers) buy their seeds from seed banks, so they know exactly what cultivar they are growing and how it will act. even dope growers poreferr seeds from seed producers, since seeds from your dope may or may not be any good. only experimentation can reveal the results of the pollination process, and it's the same with GMO's. 

shit son, if a stray grain of pollen from ditchweed rides in on your trouser cuffs and gets loose in your dope patch, youll get 1 seed, and if you plant that seed, it might favour the ditch weed and be crap, or the resulting plant might favour your white widow and be awesome, or it might be an autoflowering plant with OK dope, or, who knows, maybe you will have accidentally created the highly potent SUPER WEED the government has been claiming we got since the 1970's. thats the randomness of sexcual reproduction, but either way it doesnt change the characteristics of the parents at all. just the offspring hidden in a seed. 

a granny smith apple tree pollinated by a bee who just left a Macintosh apple tree doesnt produce hybrid apples. it produces hybrid SEEDS within the completely un-altered granny smith apple. 
when you drop a load of jism into your old lady, does your jism transform your old lady into a hybrid of your two genetic codes, or does it create a THIRD related organism? 

use your head bro, i can tell youre not stupid. 

also, no, you do NOT know about terminator genes. they are not yet available, and when they finally are released, they just produce sterile seeds in the ordinary completely un-altered crop. 

if terminator seed technology gets into your dope, all that will happen is your bagseed wont germinate. it will not destroy Herbies seed bank, or put the guys from Dutch Masters in the poorhouse. you would have to CHOOSE to buy terminator seeds, and those seedbanks who sell normal seeds will get all the people who prefer normal non-gmo dope. it's the same in agriculture. 

some farmers want GMO's, some dont. but niether side has the right to demand the other guys submit. thats un-american.


----------



## desert dude (Jan 23, 2013)

The "viral DNA" thing means absolutely nothing. All of us have viral DNA in us cause that is how viruses operate. All animals and plants have viral DNA, cause that is how viruses operate.

"A *retrovirus* is an RNA virus that replicates in a host cell. First it uses its own reverse transcriptase enzyme to produce DNA from its RNA genome. This new DNA is then incorporated into the host's genome by an integrase enzyme. The cell then treats the viral DNA as part of its own instructions, which it follows blindly, making the proteins required to assemble new copies of the virus. Retroviruses are enveloped viruses that belong to the viral family _Retroviridae_. *A special variant of retroviruses are endogenous retroviruses which are integrated into the genome of the host and inherited across generations.*"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus

Just checking in here. I see "the crazy" is still strong in this thread.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 23, 2013)

tomcatjones said:


> ....clearly you are "misunderstanding"? or dont know how plants pollinate.... prohibited?? no... needless sued over and over and made homeless, broke.... yes.
> 
> here....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwfzYDKd8jk
> 
> accidents happen..


so i gotta watch over an hour of shitty documentary film nonsense to get your proof? 

no reports? no studies? no laws? 

and i know very well how plants reproduce. 

GMO rape does not turn your neighbor's feild into GMO rape, and the claim it does is ridiculous. 
pollination effects the resulting seeds, not the parent plants, and most farmers buy their seed, so they get a cultivar instead of a random mix of different offspring from saved seeds. 

mechanized farming demands a certain level of uniformity in the crop. thats why cultivars were created in the first place. 

backyard gardeners may enjoy the "heirloom seed" crapshoot, but farmers dont. shooting dice with your crop yield results in you losing your farm.


----------



## potpimp (Jan 23, 2013)

desert dude said:


> PP, I hope you are getting laid in this deal. Crazy pussy is the best kind, if you live through it. Good luck!


She's playing hard to get but I think she's seriously considering it.


----------



## desert dude (Jan 23, 2013)

potpimp said:


> She's playing hard to get but I think she's seriously considering it.


We expect a full after-action report if you close the deal!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> your being called out for the above comment not what happened down thread
> 
> maybe but maybe you got a chance tho
> 
> she may swoon for you any minute if you keep it up


I hate to tell you, but if you but once again your twisting shi#! read back and like I, you will see he is telling it like it is and he just hates Monsanto. I need no White Knights to fight for me I own my own armor and have done quite well for myself Thank You! Have beaten a few Knights in combat in the past google Society for Creative Anachronism and ask any of the old Knights if they know the Legend of Cup Cake LOL! crazy as a loon I am!!! rolmafo!!!!!! or am I???


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not my thread {even if it was claimed it was a gift} and I had no ones permission. Nor do I need anyone's permission. I am free to do as I the hell I please


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

desert dude said:


> The "viral DNA" thing means absolutely nothing. All of us have viral DNA in us cause that is how viruses operate. All animals and plants have viral DNA, cause that is how viruses operate.
> 
> "A *retrovirus* is an RNA virus that replicates in a host cell. First it uses its own reverse transcriptase enzyme to produce DNA from its RNA genome. This new DNA is then incorporated into the host's genome by an integrase enzyme. The cell then treats the viral DNA as part of its own instructions, which it follows blindly, making the proteins required to assemble new copies of the virus. Retroviruses are enveloped viruses that belong to the viral family _Retroviridae_. *A special variant of retroviruses are endogenous retroviruses which are integrated into the genome of the host and inherited across generations.*"
> 
> ...


Yes you would think they would have taken that info into consideration when GMO'ing all our food. Wouldn't you???


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

What I am considering is that if the fate of our earth lays in the hands of men. We are all phucked!!! as anyone can tell by this thread


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i grow my own vegetables.
> some farmer growing GMO corn 5 miles away doesnt change my vegetable growing ability.
> the very worst thing somebody else growing GMO corn might do to my garden is pollinate my shit with their shit.
> 
> ...


Funny you should bring this up. Why don't we discuss the false pregnancy in Cows who feed on the grains... And in women who are eating the cows or is that from all the hormones... Who really knows........


----------



## desert dude (Jan 23, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Funny you should bring this up. Why don't we discuss the false pregnancy in Cows who feed on the grains... And in women who are eating the cows or is that from all the hormones... Who really knows........


You need to go bang PotPimp and rock his world.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

desert dude said:


> You need to go bang PotPimp and rock his world.


rolmao!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Clearly we can see that men are not in control and that we are all phucked as I said!


----------



## desert dude (Jan 23, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> rolmao!!!


I'm serious. This world needs genetic diversity and banging till you're sore is a good way to get it. 

You seem like a passionate girl and PotPimp seems like a nice guy. Usually, the politics section just generates a bunch of hot air so it would be nice if a little romance settled in instead.


----------



## potpimp (Jan 23, 2013)

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to desert dude again."


----------



## potpimp (Jan 23, 2013)

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to desert dude again." Come on Lady DS, I'm a former knight in the SCA.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

potpimp said:


> "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to desert dude again." Come on Lady DS, I'm a former knight in the SCA.


LOL! too funny


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

desert dude said:


> I'm serious. This world needs genetic diversity and banging till you're sore is a good way to get it.
> 
> You seem like a passionate girl and PotPimp seems like a nice guy. Usually, the politics section just generates a bunch of hot air so it would be nice if a little romance settled in instead.


lmao!!! too funny


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Wow, here is where we end up. What a way for a conversation on DNA to rap up. After all It is kinda sorta where it all begins. When it comes down to humans. Right? LOL!


----------



## potpimp (Jan 23, 2013)

Humor is always a good way to defuse a situation. We all have our opinions and we're all different. All I ever wanted in life was to grow pot, world peace, and good BJ's.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

potpimp said:


> Humor is always a good way to defuse a situation. We all have our opinions and we're all different. All I ever wanted in life was to grow pot, world peace, and good BJ's.


LOL!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

I have been known to blow a man off a time or two. rolmafo!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Sorry that was just too easy lol!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

wishing for world peace......


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

... being protection of the plants... to clarify lol! almost stuck my foot in it


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 23, 2013)

potpimp said:


> "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to desert dude again." Come on Lady DS, I'm a former knight in the SCA.


i think we are gonna need more duct tape...


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i think we are gonna need more duct tape...


It does fix everything  lol


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 23, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Funny you should bring this up. Why don't we discuss the false pregnancy in Cows who feed on the grains... And in women who are eating the cows or is that from all the hormones... Who really knows........


if eating a thing which contains genetic material, and that genetic material altered the eater, cows would be made of grasses, and i would be at least 30% Dorito by now. 

there were claims that the estrogen-like substances found in soy were altering the hormonal balance of people who ate soy products. this was FALSE, and it is just as FALSE for GMO's.

if you wish to discuss "false pregnancies in cows who eat GMO feed" then *MAKE THAT CASE! *

provide evidence, argue the FACTS rather than dropping yet another claim with ZERO substantiation into this already bloated thread. 

heres a quick tally of the claims in this thread which have so far not been defended:

GMO feed causes die-offs of livestock herds
GMO feed causes cancer in livestock
GMO feed causes cancer in people who eat livestock fed GMO's
GMO products have caused ANY disease in anything other than targeted pests
GMO causes altered genetic material to infiltrate native plants and animals turning THEM into GMO's
GMO's are being used to target dope
GMO's are being developed to replace our dope with a nefarious substitute
Monsanto is engaged in any plot to steal our dope
UC Davis is engaged in any plot to steal our dope
The federal govt is involved in any plot to use GMO's to steal our dope (not that they wouldnt if it were possible, but it just aint possible, and thus this story is implausible)
GMO dope exists
GMO dope (if it did exist, which it dont) would effect MY dope in MY garden
GMO's caused Bee Colony Collapse Syndrome
GMO CORN specifically caused bee colony collapse syndrome, which is notably crazy since corn is NOT pollinated by bees. this one is just nuts. bees arent involved with corn at all. 
GMO cotton is making indian farmers commit suicide
GMO crops are poisonous, and even people in the midst of a famine in africa should not eat it... 
GMO Terminator Seeds will destroy all life on earth
GMO Terminator Seeds are even available
pollinating a flower with evil GMO pollen alters the resulting fruit, not just the plant that would grow from the resulting seeds. 

and this is just the ones of the top of my head. 

do we need MORE baseless unproved wacky claims in this thread?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> if eating a thing which contains genetic material, and that genetic material altered the eater, cows would be made of grasses, and i would be at least 30% Dorito by now.
> 
> there were claims that the estrogen-like substances found in soy were altering the hormonal balance of people who ate soy products. this was FALSE, and it is just as FALSE for GMO's.
> 
> ...



While that all sounds well and good you do realize how pregnancy is determined in cows and the number we are talking about. Right??? Lol


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

http://www.vetmed.lsu.edu/eiltslotus/theriogenology-5361/bovine_pregnanacy.htm

a man can be ass deep in it and think he knows and still be wrong


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Ha! I said is it that or is it the Hormones? No one knows! In other words there is room for doubt. Personally, I think it is just that most are eating the grain... and Men don't know half of what they guess at.... Man has not mastered his own DNA or reproduction. Long less the mating process. He hasn't mastered the DNA or reproduction or animals. Yet, you expect me to believe he has mastered the DNA or reproduction of plants. Please...


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

They are experimenting just like doctors and lawyers are practicing


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

Just like Ron was with this thread. With no control over how it turned out in the end


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

remember many of you thought that ended or would end in death lmao!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 23, 2013)

and Who knows it could have because where's DNA???


----------



## Rancho Cucamonga (Jan 24, 2013)

Those supporting GMC obviously have no idea what nature is, or they just don't care about it. 

I VOTED NO TO GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANNABIS.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Jan 24, 2013)

You claim a certainty based upon the absence of evidence in others instead of providing it to "make the case." Tell me why we should embrace this? What are we not seeing? leave us enlightened doctor.....You are suspect! You are an unsubstantiated ringer.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 24, 2013)

Sorry but I believe I have more than proved my point here. Just as well as any one else here has. So I bid the all fare well. I will reiterate? This experiment created by a man who obviously thought he was in control of some part of it. Obviously didn't turn out as planned... and for a moment, more than one here feared it might end in death. Yet, it may have... And he = DNA has since gone missing since his melt down. For all those who think men can control life and death or experiments. Peace


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 24, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> While that all sounds well and good you do realize how pregnancy is determined in cows and the number we are talking about. Right??? Lol





DiverseSanctuary said:


> http://www.vetmed.lsu.edu/eiltslotus/theriogenology-5361/bovine_pregnanacy.htm
> 
> a man can be ass deep in it and think he knows and still be wrong





DiverseSanctuary said:


> Ha! I said is it that or is it the Hormones? No one knows! In other words there is room for doubt. Personally, I think it is just that most are eating the grain... and Men don't know half of what they guess at.... Man has not mastered his own DNA or reproduction. Long less the mating process. He hasn't mastered the DNA or reproduction or animals. Yet, you expect me to believe he has mastered the DNA or reproduction of plants. Please...






DiverseSanctuary said:


> They are experimenting just like doctors and lawyers are practicing






DiverseSanctuary said:


> Just like Ron was with this thread. With no control over how it turned out in the end






DiverseSanctuary said:


> remember many of you thought that ended or would end in death lmao!!!





DiverseSanctuary said:


> and Who knows it could have because where's DNA???


SEVEN posts to respond to ONE post and all you provided was a single link to a veterinary website with information on ACTUAL PREGNANCY IN COWS.

not a single thing to do with false pregnencies
nothing to do with GMO's
nothing to support yet another false claim of harm from GMO's

you keep throwing out nonsense as if it supports your claims and declaring victory. 

heres some links that PROVE GMO's are not only safe, but healtheir for you than organic foods.:

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab1.htm
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Pliny_the_Elder/home.html
http://archive.org/stream/militiaasorganiz00unitrich/militiaasorganiz00unitrich_djvu.txt
http://tomclothier.hort.net/index.html

yep. all these links prove im right. 
but only by the rules YOU have established. 
sorry sweetie, no take-backs.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 24, 2013)

Rancho Cucamonga said:


> Those supporting GMC obviously have no idea what nature is, or they just don't care about it.
> 
> I VOTED NO TO GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANNABIS.


you voted on a false assumption. 

every claim made by the OP and his cronies has been either abandoned by them, or outright disproved. 

there is no plot to make GMO weed and the OP's bill has nothing to do with dope at all. 
he used dope as a strawman for his attempt to get potheads on his side, like obama did before the elections (both times) while still letting Eric "Cockbreath" Holder run roughshod over grandmas glaucoma medicine and kids with a single doobie in their pocket at a concert.

you got played.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Jan 24, 2013)

This is a major issue with ramifications that are widespread. It shows wisdom to err on the side of caution.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Jan 24, 2013)

Engineered to sell pesticides.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jan 24, 2013)

Weed is already genetically modified. 

They call it selective breeding.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Jan 24, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i grow my own vegetables. some farmer growing GMO corn 5 miles away doesnt change my vegetable growing ability. the very worst thing somebody else growing GMO corn might do to my garden is pollinate my shit with their shit. and all that will do is make the seeds in my plants different than the cultivar i planted this year if i save seeds and plant em next year. most home gardeners (and ALL farmers) buy their seeds from seed banks, so they know exactly what cultivar they are growing and how it will act. even dope growers poreferr seeds from seed producers, since seeds from your dope may or may not be any good. only experimentation can reveal the results of the pollination process, and it's the same with GMO's. shit son, if a stray grain of pollen from ditchweed rides in on your trouser cuffs and gets loose in your dope patch, youll get 1 seed, and if you plant that seed, it might favour the ditch weed and be crap, or the resulting plant might favour your white widow and be awesome, or it might be an autoflowering plant with OK dope, or, who knows, maybe you will have accidentally created the highly potent SUPER WEED the government has been claiming we got since the 1970's. thats the randomness of sexcual reproduction, but either way it doesnt change the characteristics of the parents at all. just the offspring hidden in a seed. a granny smith apple tree pollinated by a bee who just left a Macintosh apple tree doesnt produce hybrid apples. it produces hybrid SEEDS within the completely un-altered granny smith apple. when you drop a load of jism into your old lady, does your jism transform your old lady into a hybrid of your two genetic codes, or does it create a THIRD related organism? use your head bro, i can tell youre not stupid. also, no, you do NOT know about terminator genes. they are not yet available, and when they finally are released, they just produce sterile seeds in the ordinary completely un-altered crop. if terminator seed technology gets into your dope, all that will happen is your bagseed wont germinate. it will not destroy Herbies seed bank, or put the guys from Dutch Masters in the poorhouse. you would have to CHOOSE to buy terminator seeds, and those seedbanks who sell normal seeds will get all the people who prefer normal non-gmo dope. it's the same in agriculture. some farmers want GMO's, some dont. but niether side has the right to demand the other guys submit. thats un-american.


 You are all over the map....are you on tilt? Little too much glass for dinner? Don't tell me what I know and don't know. Assumptions are the mother of disaster....


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 24, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> SEVEN posts to respond to ONE post and all you provided was a single link to a veterinary website with information on ACTUAL PREGNANCY IN COWS.
> 
> not a single thing to do with false pregnencies
> nothing to do with GMO's
> ...


Once again the Dr. don't know how to read or only reads the parts he thinks applies to him and only the science he provides is reliable... First of all doc, that article explains that in order to check for a calf you must insert your arm in the cows ass and feel for it... despite this being a hands on experience and men thinking they have their finger on it... they are wrong a large percentage of the time. It also give you the percentage of false positives when it comes to early detection.

_*Cordoba MC, Sartori R, Fricke PM. Assessment of a commercially available early conception factor (ECF) test for determining pregnancy status of dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 84:1884-9, 2001.*_ 

17 non bred
18 Day 6 embryo flush cows
Test sensitivity - 86% 
Specificity - 4% 
Positive predictive value - 49%
Negative predictive value - 23% 
False-positive - 96%
False-negative - 14% 
Table 


Which is considered false pregnancy. 96% of the time men are wrong!!!!!!!!!!! do you get that science Dr ?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 24, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Once again the Dr. don't know how to read or only reads the parts he thinks applies to him and only the science he provides is reliable... First of all doc, that article explains that in order to check for a calf you must insert your arm in the cows ass and feel for it... despite this being a hands on experience and men thinking they have their finger on it... they are wrong a large percentage of the time. It also give you the percentage of false positives when it comes to early detection.
> 
> _*Cordoba MC, Sartori R, Fricke PM. Assessment of a commercially available early conception factor (ECF) test for determining pregnancy status of dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 84:1884-9, 2001.*_
> 
> ...



diverse you had your shit together more when DNA was pulling your strings


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 24, 2013)

Is that the best you can come up with. No one was ever pulling my strings http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ip_gmo_09_2007_1_.pdf


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 24, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> You are all over the map....are you on tilt? Little too much glass for dinner? Don't tell me what I know and don't know. Assumptions are the mother of disaster....


riiiight. 

so, the seriousness of the charge is more important than providing proof that it's true. 


GMO's are NOT dangerous to the eater. those claims are unfounded. only PROOF will change that. 
somebody else growing GMO's does not alter your right to not grow GMO's in any way. 

there is no GMO dope program. 

you can still grow all the dirt weed you want, monsanto is not hiding under your bed waiting for the perfect moment to jump out and take your dope.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 24, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Once again the Dr. don't know how to read or only reads the parts he thinks applies to him and only the science he provides is reliable... First of all doc, that article explains that in order to check for a calf you must insert your arm in the cows ass and feel for it... despite this being a hands on experience and men thinking they have their finger on it... they are wrong a large percentage of the time. It also give you the percentage of false positives when it comes to early detection.
> 
> _*Cordoba MC, Sartori R, Fricke PM. Assessment of a commercially available early conception factor (ECF) test for determining pregnancy status of dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 84:1884-9, 2001.*_
> 
> ...


specious claims about "men cant tell if a cow is pregnant" has NOTHING to do with your even more specious claims of GMO's causing false pregnancies in cows. 

which proves that 100% of the time you are wrong!!!!!! do* YOU *get that science?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 24, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Is that the best you can come up with. No one was ever pulling my strings http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ip_gmo_09_2007_1_.pdf


then why did your shit fall apart as soon as DNA let go of your ropes?

if your wondering what im taking about just look back thru this thread


----------



## st0wandgrow (Jan 24, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> riiiight.
> 
> so, the seriousness of the charge is more important than providing proof that it's true.
> 
> ...


*"GMO's are NOT dangerous to the eater."*

Do you have evidence to support this claim?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 24, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> *"GMO's are NOT dangerous to the eater."*
> 
> Do you have evidence to support this claim?


the best evidence in the world. 

i have eaten GMO's and am not dead. 

i even ate a couple Flav 'R' Savr tomatoes with no ill effects. sure they were crap, but they were only slightly crappier than the sshit commercail tomatoes that spend 4 weeks in a refigerated truck to get to the "ripening house" where they are bathed in alene gas to make them look like they are edible. 

so yeah. 
*GMO's are SAFE for the eater. *


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 24, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> *"GMO's are NOT dangerous to the eater."*
> 
> Do you have evidence to support this claim?


gmo has been eaten by americans for over a decade now

there has been no health problem spike associated with that consumption

that and no ones grown 3 eyes and 6 legs from eating it


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 24, 2013)

Dude. you knew this was coming.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 24, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> Dude. you knew this was coming.


have to do better than that as a child i went on a few occasions to the _Science Museum_, _London_ and they have a LARGE assortment of natures foibles in jars in a slightly darkened room


----------



## st0wandgrow (Jan 24, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> gmo has been eaten by americans for over a decade now
> 
> there has been no health problem spike associated with that consumption
> 
> that and no ones grown 3 eyes and 6 legs from eating it


A decades worth of anecdotal evidence means the case is closed?

Could it not be possible that problems could still arise down the line?

There are plenty of examples of where we were assured of somethings safety only to later find out otherwise.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 24, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> A decades worth of anecdotal evidence means the case is closed?
> 
> Could it not be possible that problems could still arise down the line?
> 
> There are plenty of examples of where we were assured of somethings safety only to later find out otherwise.


its possible that an asteroid could strike out of nowhere tomorrow


the "what if" gambit is nothing without evidence

and its not anecdotal there should be real data there to show a spike if GMO is bad


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 24, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> have to do better than that as a child i went on a few occasions to the _Science Museum_, _London_ and they have a LARGE assortment of natures foibles in jars in a slightly darkened room









sorry bro. you dared me to do it.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 24, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> A decades worth of anecdotal evidence means the case is closed?
> 
> Could it not be possible that problems could still arise down the line?
> 
> There are plenty of examples of where we were assured of somethings safety only to later find out otherwise.


Pray good sir, do tell us what these "problems down the line" potentially are, if you can?

Apples are gonna grow teeth and take over? The United States of Granny Smiths shall rise?

Shall there be red versus green racism??


----------



## desert dude (Jan 24, 2013)

The real question to be answer is, "did PotPimp ever get laid in the deal?"


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 24, 2013)

in the end, it all boils down to Coitus.


----------



## desert dude (Jan 24, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> in the end, it all boils down to Coitus.


Survival of the horniest!


----------



## pandorasboxg (Jan 24, 2013)

brimck325 said:


> they have been stealing farms and putting farmers in jail all over the world with these patent's on strains. monsanto is greed!!!


that is an extreme exageration... just lawsuits buddy, and as far as know its only in america


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 24, 2013)

pandorasboxg said:


> that is an extreme exageration... just lawsuits buddy, and as far as know its only in america


Australia too... fuck em


----------



## pandorasboxg (Jan 24, 2013)

desert dude said:


> The salmon on top grows twice as fast on half the food input, thanks to genetic engineering. This idiotic piece of proposed legislation would make it illegal for this fish to be alive within the borders of California.


 what happens when that fish breeds with wild salmon disrupting the food chain and mutating the local population? what will the effects be off a mutated salmon not designed by nature on the food supply? also farmed salmon tastes like crap and is even worse for the environment than wild troll caught salmon.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 24, 2013)

pandorasboxg said:


> that is an extreme exageration... just lawsuits buddy, and as far as know its only in america


monsanto attempted to sue india's smallholders and family farmers for the sin of "saving seed" but that was rejected by india's courts. 

monsanto cant sue anyone in india over their "intellectual property", but that doesnt stop the wahackos from continuing to assert that monsanto can, has, does and will sue inidan smallholders till they commit suicide. 

it's all part of the big lie. 

the american lawsuits were in some cases utterly rejected (wind blown pollen = stolen technology)
in some cases upheld (deliberately breeding the patented crops to sell the seeds)
and in some cases just perplexing (demanding royalty payments if your crop contains patented genes in any amount)
in general monsanto's success rate in the US and canada with these lawsuits (moar like lolsuits, amirite?) has been abysmal. in my opinion it's time to give judges the power to compel the plaintif to cover all costs incurred by the defendant if the case meets a reasonable threshold of stupidity. 

monsanto is tone deaf in their dealings with the people who's asses they should be kissing. if monsanto got behind the small farmers, small farmers would be a huge voice for monsanto's defense against these specious claims, but their lawyers and executives are dumbasses.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 24, 2013)

pandorasboxg said:


> what happens when that fish breeds with wild salmon disrupting the food chain and mutating the local population? what will the effects be off a mutated salmon not designed by nature on the food supply? also farmed salmon tastes like crap and is even worse for the environment than wild troll caught salmon.


thats one place i agree. 

ambulatory, self willed creatures who could escape into the wild population should be TIGHTLY controlled. 
also, farmed salmon does suck, but farmed trout shrimp and other seafood is awesome. 

salmon are unique in their lifecyles, but overfishing, poaching and invasive species (european brown trout for example, rleased by US fish and game) have reduced the native salmon population considerably. 

for all we know, the GMO salmon might help give the native salmon a leg up on their competition and help get the wild (slightly GMO'ed) salmon population a chance at recovery. nobody can say for sure, but caution is always a virtue.

the OP's outright ban is not caution, its foolishness.


----------



## pandorasboxg (Jan 24, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i grow my own vegetables.
> some farmer growing GMO corn 5 miles away doesnt change my vegetable growing ability.
> the very worst thing somebody else growing GMO corn might do to my garden is pollinate my shit with their shit.
> 
> ...


 in the other sides defense under present law Monsanto could sue you for planting your hybrid seeds if they can prove it was pollinated by there plants, even if it was by nature or unintentional. im not really that concerned with health side effects at this point because there is no evidence on either side. it does disturb me that you can be sued because nature pollinated your plants with someone else s genetics that happens to have their patented gene. if your natural property is near a Monsanto farm you have no legal way of competing with them with natural genetics because of cross contamination. ironically you can't sue them for contaminating your natural crop, instead they get to sue you. also with certain plants and animals it could alter the indigenous species dna such as salmon with gmo salmon resulting in unpredictable consequences over time and in the evolutionary processes


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 24, 2013)

pandorasboxg said:


> what happens when that fish breeds with wild salmon disrupting the food chain and mutating the local population? what will the effects be off a mutated salmon not designed by nature on the food supply? also farmed salmon tastes like crap and is even worse for the environment than wild troll caught salmon.


We have wild trolls a-plenty here, so where are all the fish!? cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 24, 2013)

pandorasboxg said:


> in the other sides defense under present law Monsanto could sue you for planting your hybrid seeds if they can prove it was pollinated by there plants, even if it was by nature or unintentional. im not really that concerned with health side effects at this point because there is no evidence on either side. it does disturb me that you can be sued because nature pollinated your plants with someone else s genetics that happens to have their patented gene. if your natural property is near a Monsanto farm you have no legal way of competing with them with natural genetics because of cross contamination. ironically you can't sue them for contaminating your natural crop, instead they get to sue you. also with certain plants and animals it could alter the indigenous species dna such as salmon with gmo salmon resulting in unpredictable consequences over time and in the evolutionary processes


the wind blown pollen cases were thrown out with prejudice. 

the whackadoo econaut press machine ignores the fact that the courts have already rejected that bullshit.


----------



## potpimp (Jan 24, 2013)

Unpredictable and unintended consequences. Remember the professor (Jeff Goldblum) on Jurassic Park? It's a great analogy.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 25, 2013)

potpimp said:


> Unpredictable and unintended consequences. Remember the professor (Jeff Goldblum) on Jurassic Park? It's a great analogy.


Got no proof? 

Reference Jurassic Park. 

Cool story bro.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 25, 2013)

potpimp said:


> Unpredictable and unintended consequences. Remember the professor (Jeff Goldblum) on Jurassic Park? It's a great analogy.


a lawyer gets eaten on the toilet, and NEWMAN dies. 

are you arguing against creating jurrasic park? 

cuz im not seeing the downside.


----------



## potpimp (Jan 25, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Got no proof?
> 
> Reference Jurassic Park.
> 
> Cool story bro.


It's my F'n metaphor; I'll use it if I want.



Dr Kynes said:


> a lawyer gets eaten on the toilet, and NEWMAN dies.
> 
> are you arguing against creating jurrasic park?
> 
> cuz im not seeing the downside.


The professor didn't get eaten. Lawyers getting eaten = a good thing.


----------



## buckaroo bonzai (Jan 25, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> the wind blown pollen cases were thrown out with prejudice.
> 
> the whackadoo econaut press machine ignores the fact that the courts have already rejected that bullshit.



are you one of the Monsanto provacatuers? debunkers?


you don't know what happened to Percy Schmeiser????


what courts...? mr Schmeiser was destroyed by Monsanto .....??

anyone that takes the side of genetically manipulated Monsanto 'franken'-corn either works for them or is brain damaged like a majority of the population in the US we are now seeing from eating that shit----?

excito-toxins....neuro-toxins.....holes in cell walls in stomachs.....fertility rates in rats fed with that stuff.....
---3rd generation rats fed GMO are sterile byrussian scientists research--they don't want it there
europe has mandatory labeling!......and most reject it.....it's synthetic food?

ould you spray round up on your salad and eat it?
you support Monsanto controlling every aspect of cannabis genes like food???

you must support the NWO----? 
and all it represents...


you sir sound like the Dr of an evil agenda!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 26, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> its possible that an asteroid could strike out of nowhere tomorrow
> 
> 
> the "what if" gambit is nothing without evidence
> ...


i'll make my grand entry into this thread by pointing out that a lack of evidence so far does not disprove the theory that GMO food could potentially be harmful.

might as well make the "missing link thus evolution is crap" argument.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 26, 2013)

and to anyone wondering, dr. kynes has a way with words but not with science.

he's one of them "bircher" types. they're the group that says water fluoridation is an evil communist conspiracy.

he's also got a leg up on the world's scientific community with respect to anthropogenic climate change, yet he has collected no rewards for his endeavors, no worldwide accolades, not even a legion of adoring fans like alex jones.

just a rhetorical flourish that plays well with the eternally stoned crowd.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 26, 2013)

buckaroo bonzai said:


> are you one of the Monsanto provacatuers? debunkers?
> 
> 
> you don't know what happened to Percy Schmeiser????
> ...


*



In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified &#8220;Roundup Ready Canola&#8221; plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[SUP][2][/SUP] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998

Click to expand...

*


> .[SUP][2][/SUP] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.



Percy Schmeiser knew exactly what he was doing it wasn't a case of innocent "wind blown pollen"


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 26, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i'll make my grand entry into this thread by pointing out that a lack of evidence so far does not disprove the theory that GMO food could potentially be harmful.
> 
> might as well make the "missing link thus evolution is crap" argument.


and without evidence that GMO is harmful its kinda a moot point

very low quality studies have been done in a attempt to show GMO is the worst thing ever yet everytime they have used very questionable methods or the results were not repeatable

there isnt anything novel in the gmo plant nutrition that we havent eaten before there are no new chemicals or proteins produced by the plants that we havent eaten before

anti GMO has become an ideology that knows GMO is so very bad but cannot for the life of them come up with a reason why


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 26, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> and without evidence that GMO is harmful its kinda a moot point
> 
> very low quality studies have been done in a attempt to show GMO is the worst thing ever yet everytime they have used very questionable methods or the results were not repeatable
> 
> ...


you're asserting that something is true (that GMO foods have no dangerous or undesirable side effects) because of lack of evidence to the contrary. that is called argument from ignorance.

who knows if it will take 35 years for us to slap our heads and say "oh, shit. these GMO carrots make us shoot lasers out of our eyes, and the potatoes make us crack addicts".

the point is that GMO technology is very young and not that well studied. my only political position on them so far is that i want all GMO food labeled so that consumers may make informed decisions. otherwise, the jury is still out.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 26, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> and to anyone wondering, dr. kynes has a way with words but not with science.
> 
> he's one of them "bircher" types. they're the group that says water fluoridation is an evil communist conspiracy.
> 
> ...




this thread needed more mindless fearmongering and ad hominen attacks.

now the circle is complete.


----------



## hexthat (Jan 26, 2013)

My opinion is Monsanto already has made a Begomovirus for Cannabis. All they need is an outbreak and a resistant strain and in a few years all weed would be Monsanto's.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 26, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> Percy Schmeiser knew exactly what he was doing it wasn't a case of innocent "wind blown pollen"*


*

tut tut tut. 

the fact that real cases involving windblown pollen have been thrown out of court, and only those cases where the defendant was proved to be essentially copying GMO crops for resale were actiually prosecuted is irrelevant. 

it's the seriousness of the charge that matters. 

CERN should be shut down because some whackadoos think it will create a "mini black hole", and saying they're crazy means you're part of the 7 foot lizard alien conspiracy from the 9th dimension. 
9/11 was an inside job, because of "nano-thermite" and somebody saying "pull it". if you disagree you are most definately part of the conspiracy. (and probably a member of a CIA Psy Ops team.)
Wild accusations of being a "bircher" means that everything you ever said is discounted, cuz sodium fluoride is really a health potion. 
Nuclear power should be abandoned because ummm... Chernobyl! the danger is too great!
The Apollo program is a fraud, and if you think it was real, then youre part of the cover-up!

wild eyed loons have such a marvelous record of helping society and technology advance, why would anyone ever doubt them?*


----------



## hexthat (Jan 26, 2013)

Virus can be transmitted from plant to plant from just smoking infected plant mater. Very few growers disinfect themselves after smoking.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 26, 2013)

hexthat said:


> My opinion is Monsanto already has made a Begomovirus for Cannabis. All they need is an outbreak and a resistant strain and in a few years all weed would be Monsanto's.


there have as yet been zero reported cases of mosaic virus in cannabis. 

you may as well hold the opinion that the feds have contracted with space aliens to develop a weed death ray. 

there is just as much evidence for either hypothesis.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 26, 2013)

hexthat said:


> Virus can be transmitted from plant to plant from just smoking infected plant mater. Very few growers disinfect themselves after smoking.


mosaic viruses are universally transmitted by insect vectors such as aphids and whiteflies. 

there is a fungal spore which is harmless on tobacco but which can infect tomatoes, devastating entire feilds. as a result some tomatoe farms do not allow smoking on their property.
this has caused the rumor you are repeating, but even then, it is UNBURNT tobacco which spreads the spores, not the smoke. 

smoke is free from pathogens, since it is a result of combustion. 

in brief,

its a tobacco bourne fungus
it infects only tomatoes and a few varieties of peppers, not dope. 
it is from unburnt tobacco
it is not a mosaic virus
it is not transmitted by smoke, but as a side effect of _smoking_. 
it was not developed by monsanto, it was developed by nature.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> this thread needed more mindless fearmongering and ad hominen attacks.
> 
> now the circle is complete.


seeing your complete portfolio of crazy beliefs is pertinent to everything.

unlike underwater basket weaving, which is apropos to nothing.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Jan 26, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Pray good sir, do tell us what these "problems down the line" potentially are, if you can?
> 
> Apples are gonna grow teeth and take over? The United States of Granny Smiths shall rise?
> 
> Shall there be red versus green racism??


Yep, apples with teeth.

Or perhaps it could lead to potatoes that take control of your mind, leading to an uncontrollable urge to drink, turning all of Ireland in to insufferable drunks.

Ohh, wait .....


----------



## st0wandgrow (Jan 26, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Pray good sir, do tell us what these "problems down the line" potentially are, if you can?
> 
> Apples are gonna grow teeth and take over? The United States of Granny Smiths shall rise?
> 
> Shall there be red versus green racism??


Was it not Monsanto that at one time claimed Agent Orange was safe?

A couple decades later, thousands of insane US troops coming home from Vietnam disproved that.

Whoops.

Sorry if I don't trust a profit driven company with a track record of dishonest "science" to be fucking with my food. The incidence of diabetes in the United States has doubled since the 1970's. Is there a genetic link to this, or is it due to the food we are consuming? Either way, I don't want to be their test study.


----------



## bde0001 (Jan 26, 2013)

what exactly is genetically engineered cannabis?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 26, 2013)

bde0001 said:


> what exactly is genetically engineered cannabis?


exactly, it's a MacGuffin, a strawman, a fiction created to advance the agenda of the anti-GMO crowd despite their lack of evidence of harm. 

by declaring wild doomsday scenarios, you should be so overcome by unreasoning fear that you simply agree with whatever they say. 

if you do not agree, or are not paralyzed with urine drenched terror, then youre part of the conspiracy.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Was it not Monsanto that at one time claimed Agent Orange was safe?
> 
> A couple decades later, thousands of insane US troops coming home from Vietnam disproved that.
> 
> ...


ansd i dont think scientific agendas should be set by scary campfire stories, spooky tales of "Bloody Mary" and chain letters. 

evidence wins out over baseless allegations and ominous predictions every single time.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Jan 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> ansd i dont think scientific agendas should be set by scary campfire stories, spooky tales of "Bloody Mary" and chain letters.
> 
> evidence wins out over baseless allegations and ominous predictions every single time.


I don't disagree with that, but is the verdict already in? Is it not plausible that the side effects from GMO's are still inconclusive, and could paint a different story down the line than what you're suggesting?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> *I don't disagree with that, but is the verdict already in?** Is it not plausible that the side effects from GMO's are still inconclusive, and could paint a different story down the line than what you're suggesting?


** double negative and a statement disguised as a question. 
*No, the verdict is NOT in. as yet there is NO conclusive proof (or even verifiable indications) that GMO's are a hazard to anything but targeted pests and diseases. 
This entire thread has been one wild claim after another, and each claim has been supported with ZERO evidence, merely more wild claims. 
Not a single allegation made in opposition to GMO's has been supported by any repuatble research, experiment or evidence. 
The allegations are CRAZY, inconsistent, illogical and unsupported by any evidence. 
More allegations do not prove the previous allegations true. 

while certainly someday science may provide evidence that GMO's are an unwise line of research, but until harm is proved, prohibiting GMO research is not only unwarranted, but un-american. 

someday all the doomsayers and fearmongers may be proved correct... 
and in some distant future science may prove that Scientology was right all along. 
with the alien ghosts, Galactic Overlords, Space Opera and everything. 

science could prove one day that smoking is good for you, chocolate cures cancer, and drinking your own urine gives you superpowers. 

but i think ill wait for proof before i start my day with a steaming mug of piss.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 26, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> you're asserting that something is true (that GMO foods have no dangerous or undesirable side effects) because of lack of evidence to the contrary. that is called argument from ignorance.
> 
> who knows if it will take 35 years for us to slap our heads and say "oh, shit. these GMO carrots make us shoot lasers out of our eyes, and the potatoes make us crack addicts".
> 
> the point is that GMO technology is very young and not that well studied. my only political position on them so far is that i want all GMO food labeled so that consumers may make informed decisions. otherwise, the jury is still out.


well lets just put aside the appeal to emotion wrapped in argument from ignorance "maybe it will take 35 years for us to slap our heads and say "oh, shit. these GMO carrots make us shoot lasers out of our eyes, and the potatoes make us crack addicts" stance 

and lets even put aside the gmo part because it does not matter how the food came into being it is the end result (the offspring/ grain) that is what we're really talking about

now we've put all that aside what have we got?

a novel food source and how might we best go about seeing if its safe to eat?

well the first thing they did was analyse it's content for toxins, nutrient content, or any other baddies that it might contain

you then have data which you can easily compare to say a parent lineage see how they match up together

oh look they've matched now what step do you take?

well you could feed both groups to test animals and see compare the 2 of them for toxins, nutrition growth etc and see what the difference is

well as the feedstock being given to the animals is the same guess what you get the same results between the animal groups

looks like theres evidence that this novel food group is safe


this novel food source has now had more testing than any other new food source and that includes novel naturally bred crosses


the people who are against GMO as an ideology have again and again tried to find dangerous results while studying GMO and the only way they can do it is with cherry picking results or downright shoddy experimentation



the argument that maybe just maybe in 35 years we'll all die a horrible death from GMO is an argument from ignorance and its an argument against the the data we have at hand


but for the ideologues none of that matters because "monsanto = pure evil" in their eyes even tho they cannot even give a realistic reason why its true


----------



## hexthat (Jan 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> exactly, it's a MacGuffin, a strawman, a fiction created to advance the agenda of the anti-GMO crowd despite their lack of evidence of harm.
> 
> by declaring wild doomsday scenarios, you should be so overcome by unreasoning fear that you simply agree with whatever they say.
> 
> if you do not agree, or are not paralyzed with urine drenched terror, then youre part of the conspiracy.



You have some issues.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 26, 2013)

hexthat said:


> You have some issues.


he had a point

GMO cannabis was an invention by the op to get everyone into his anti GMO argument


----------



## bde0001 (Jan 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> exactly, it's a MacGuffin, a strawman, a fiction created to advance the agenda of the anti-GMO crowd despite their lack of evidence of harm.
> 
> by declaring wild doomsday scenarios, you should be so overcome by unreasoning fear that you simply agree with whatever they say.
> 
> if you do not agree, or are not paralyzed with urine drenched terror, then youre part of the conspiracy.


What? who is declaring doomsday scenerios?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 26, 2013)

bde0001 said:


> What? who is declaring doomsday scenerios?


have you not read this thread yet? i can tell you its a thrilling dire warning from the anti GMO about the catastrophic consequences that might just might happen yet they cannot find evidence to show


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 26, 2013)

bde0001 said:


> What? who is declaring doomsday scenerios?


the OP of this very thread, his crowd of anti-GMO bandwagon riders, and in fact all the anti-GMO cassandras in this thread.

DOZENS of nightmare scenarios
DOZENS of doomsday prophesies
DOZENS of cries that SOMETHING be done to protect us from an imaginary threat

ZERO evidence to support their claims. 

read this thread and youll learn all you need to know.


----------



## desert dude (Jan 26, 2013)

My compliments to Kynes, and Ginja, and the others who are fighting the valiant battle to push back the dark shroud of ignorance and superstition. I have insufficient patience to join you in the fight. Please carry on.


----------



## potpimp (Jan 26, 2013)

desert dude said:


> My compliments to Kynes, and Ginja, and the others who are fighting the valiant battle to push back the dark shroud of ignorance and superstition. I have insufficient patience to join you in the fight. Please carry on.


No problem man, they're on Monsanto's payroll so they're on company time.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

potpimp said:


> No problem man, they're on Monsanto's payroll so they're on company time.


some people carry water for free, ya know.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

potpimp said:


> No problem man, they're on Monsanto's payroll so they're on company time.


oh no letting people know how wrong they are is a pet hobby of mine

of course ideologues like yourself who harbour irrational hatred for monsanto will never change your minds

but at least anyone else reading will see theres a rational side to this


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> oh no letting people know how wrong they are is a pet hobby of mine
> 
> of course ideologues like yourself who harbour irrational hatred for monsanto will never change your minds
> 
> but at least anyone else reading will see theres a rational side to this


rational to me seems to include the willingness to concede that we don't know yet everything there is to know.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> rational to me seems to include the willingness to concede that we don't know yet everything there is to know.


ok i've conceded that we dont know everything there is to know

now what i am i supposed to be doing with that information? 

lock myself away in my house scared to go out because i cannot possibly know everything that will happen when i step outside the door?

see i've been out before and it was identical to all the other times i've been out but now apparently theres some mysterious undefinable thing that might possibly happen


the line you just gave was one i heard many many times from the nutcases who thought the world was going to end in 2012 "we don't know yet everything there is to know."


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> ok i've conceded that we dont know everything there is to know
> *
> now what i am i supposed to be doing with that information? *
> 
> ...


for one, advocate for GMO labeling so consumers can be informed. i for one notice a definite difference when i have peas out of my own garden versus when i have GMO based crap, which more and more food is becoming.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> for one, advocate for GMO labeling so consumers can be informed. i for one notice a definite difference when i have peas out of my own garden versus when i have GMO based crap, which more and more food is becoming.



im not worried enough to spend my time advocating for that just as i see no point putting a sign on the inside of peoples front doors telling them how dangerous its is to scare them unnecessarily without evidence to support doing so

and dont forget this thread is specifically about banning it outright


the beans from your garden is no proof either as theres many factors contributing to the taste

the main one is the very short amount of time it takes going from plant to your plate


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> im not worried enough to spend my time advocating for that just as i see no point putting a sign on the inside of peoples front doors telling them how dangerous its is to scare them unnecessarily without evidence to support doing so
> 
> and dont forget this thread is specifically about banning it outright
> 
> ...


i had no idea that my pointing out the inability to know all there is to know yet and the obvious physiological differences i feel when consuming local over GMO was akin to hanging a paranoid sign in your house by the front door.

small, organic farmers here in the US just got shafted in the fiscal cliff negotiations while larger, monied interests who are completely reliant on GMO kept their subsidies. have you heard them crying about it?

if anything, we'd subsidize what we know is healthy until the jury is out on GMO. it is what it is, but my voice is going to the proven underdogs over the GMOs. an examination of how our farming has evolved over the last 50 or so years can be alarming. a lot of change in a short time, with little real knowledge about its long term effects.


----------



## Krondizzel (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i had no idea that my pointing out the inability to know all there is to know yet and the obvious physiological differences i feel when consuming local over GMO was akin to hanging a paranoid sign in your house by the front door.
> 
> small, organic farmers here in the US just got shafted in the fiscal cliff negotiations while larger, monied interests who are completely reliant on GMO kept their subsidies. have you heard them crying about it?
> 
> if anything, we'd subsidize what we know is healthy until the jury is out on GMO. it is what it is, but my voice is going to the proven underdogs over the GMOs. an examination of how our farming has evolved over the last 50 or so years can be alarming. a lot of change in a short time, with little real knowledge about its long term effects.


You have no idea what I am capable of.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i had no idea that my pointing out the inability to know all there is to know yet and *the obvious physiological differences i feel when consuming local over GMO* was akin to hanging a paranoid sign in your house by the front door.
> 
> small, organic farmers here in the US just got shafted in the fiscal cliff negotiations while larger, monied interests who are completely reliant on GMO kept their subsidies. have you heard them crying about it?
> 
> if anything, we'd subsidize what we know is healthy until the jury is out on GMO. it is what it is, but my voice is going to the proven underdogs over the GMOs. an examination of how our farming has evolved over the last 50 or so years can be alarming. a lot of change in a short time, with little real knowledge about its long term effects.


if its not labeled then what tells you your eating GMO over local? 

yes i hear the small "organic" farmers crying alot about it

mainly in the form of demonising GMO food with made up stories and bunk "studies"


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> have you not read this thread yet? i can tell you its a thrilling dire warning from the anti GMO about the catastrophic consequences that might just might happen yet they cannot find evidence to show


 Remember when those people were having allergic reactions to fish genes in theyre tomatos?? Didnt some of them die? I cant remember, can you?



Dr Kynes said:


> the OP of this very thread, his crowd of anti-GMO bandwagon riders, and in fact all the anti-GMO cassandras in this thread.
> 
> DOZENS of nightmare scenarios
> DOZENS of doomsday prophesies
> ...


This thread has gone on wayy to long, i believe because of you. You remind me of the monsanto hitler. I still cant believe someone with your intellegence can have such skewed ideals on genetics. A tomato grown in my garden is better than one grown by commercial growers. How many fucking pages is it going to take to get you to admit it???


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Remember when those people were having allergic reactions to fish genes in theyre tomatos?? Didnt some of them die? I cant remember, can you?


you mean the tomatoes that were never commercialised? well they must have been damn toxic to kill people who never had a chance to eat them




> This thread has gone on wayy to long, i believe because of you. You remind me of the monsanto hitler. I still cant believe someone with your intellegence can have such skewed ideals on genetics. *A tomato grown in my garden is better than one grown by commercial growers. *How many fucking pages is it going to take to get you to admit it???


what the fuck has any of that got to do with GMO?

commercial farmers grow mostly for bulk whether or not the use GMO to do so

you can grow mostly for taste so you can pick the breed that tastes better 


look at it this way you get commercial growers of weed that will happily grow a "big bud" style of weed that doesnt get you so high but gives massive yeilds

you grow for your own personal weed and you can choose the connoisseur plants that you enjoy the most
none of that is to do with gmo


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> have you not read this thread yet? i can tell you its a thrilling dire warning from the anti GMO about the catastrophic consequences that might just might happen yet they cannot find evidence to show





Dr Kynes said:


> the OP of this very thread, his crowd of anti-GMO bandwagon riders, and in fact all the anti-GMO cassandras in this thread.
> 
> DOZENS of nightmare scenarios
> DOZENS of doomsday prophesies
> ...





ginjawarrior said:


> you mean the tomatoes that were never commercialised? well they must have been damn toxic to kill people who never had a chance to eat them
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you know the tomatos that were geneticly modified that im talking about then?
Um yes i doooo lmao 
next...
When you go in favor of commercial growing practices you loose the quality of your crop, dont tell me this makes no sence to you, you just posted it. Add that to the way our farming practices are shifting ttward, which is GMO and wheres the quality go? Out the damn window, thats where. And i have you and monsanto hitler claiming this is not going to happen and monsanto rocks. Blablabla, you tards keep rockin this thread just to argue, nobody cares anymore, we know your wrong.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> if its not labeled then what tells you your eating GMO over local?


i can visit the farm if i'd like (and often do!).

it's a bit of a hassle though, and more costly to boycott GMO foods (th the best extent possible). i'd rather just see it out there for the consumer to see plainly. i mean, GMO producers have nothing to fear by labeling their product as such, do they?



ginjawarrior said:


> yes i hear the small "organic" farmers crying alot about it
> 
> mainly in the form of demonising GMO food with made up stories and bunk "studies"


i doubt that anyone on this thread was just shafted by the fiscal cliff slam. you'd probably have heard them say so by now.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> So you know the tomatos that were geneticly modified that im talking about then?


yes they were developed to resist frost under tests it showed that it didnt work the project was crapped and they never saw the shelves

so your hysterical propagander about them killing people is just plain nonsense



> Um yes i doooo lmao


huh you do what?


> next...
> When you go in favor of commercial growing practices you loose the quality of your crop, dont tell me this makes no sence to you, you just posted it. Add that to the way our farming practices are shifting ttward, which is GMO and wheres the quality go? Out the damn window, thats where. And i have you and monsanto hitler claiming this is not going to happen and monsanto rocks. Blablabla, you tards keep rockin this thread just to argue, nobody cares anymore, we know your wrong.


taste =/= equal nutritional value

and to your tomato reference you do realise that GMO tomatoes are not sold in the usa anymore?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> look at it this way you get commercial growers of weed that will happily grow a "big bud" style of weed that doesnt get you so high but gives massive yeilds
> 
> you grow for your own personal weed and you can choose the connoisseur plants that you enjoy the most
> none of that is to do with gmo


if that ever happened to cannabis, that would be welcome. i'd still love to see a label to know where and how my cannabis came from.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> taste =/= equal nutritional value


i would beg to differ. i have no sense of smell, so a large part of how i evaluate my food (fuel) is how i feel after i eat it. there's a certain taste and feel to eating natural, well cooked food over any sort of processed, GMO crap.

i am a bit of a food snob though.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i can visit the farm if i'd like (and often do!).


and the farmer tells you that its GMO peas he's growing rather than natural? 

if not im curious without the labelling how you can tell



> it's a bit of a hassle though, and more costly to boycott GMO foods (th the best extent possible). i'd rather just see it out there for the consumer to see plainly. i mean, GMO producers have nothing to fear by labeling their product as such, do they?


why not have natural organic producers put a "guaranteed GMO free" label on their produce?

theres a propaganda campaign based on fear against GMO all labelling does is gives that campaign legitimacy when theres no evidence to support it

organic produce labelled "GMO FREE" allows people to choose does it not?








> i doubt that anyone on this thread was just shafted by the fiscal cliff slam. you'd probably have heard them say so by now.


well im sure some the articles C+P'd here have their origins

and the fiscal cliff has hit small business everywhere not just in farming this side argument of yours is specious


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> yes they were developed to resist frost under tests it showed that it didnt work the project was crapped and they never saw the shelves
> 
> so your hysterical propagander about them killing people is just plain nonsense
> 
> ...


Ok your right.......all food eaten by the people of the world should be geneticlly modified and mass produced. I also think that monsanto should run everything so their monopoly over the american consumers dollar can produce more geneticlly modified food.



this is by far the stupidest thing ive ever written...and you two blubbering baffoons actually belive it. Bahahahahaaaa, take your degree and burn it you try hards.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> if that ever happened to cannabis, that would be welcome. i'd still love to see a label to know where and how my cannabis came from.


organic cannabis growers are always the first to tell you how the cannabis was grown


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i would beg to differ. i have no sense of smell, so a large part of how i evaluate my food (fuel) is how i feel after i eat it. there's a certain taste and feel to eating natural, well cooked food over any sort of processed, GMO crap.
> 
> i am a bit of a food snob though.


anecdotal subjective experience =/= data come on buck you should be better than that


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Ok your right.......all food eaten by the people of the world should be geneticlly modified and mass produced. I also think that monsanto should run everything so their monopoly over the american consumers dollar can produce more geneticlly modified food.
> 
> 
> 
> this is by far the stupidest thing ive ever written...and you two blubbering baffoons actually belive it. Bahahahahaaaa, take your degree and burn it you try hards.


i think this is fitting for your post


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> i think this is fitting for your post


By your lack of an intellegent answer and your resorting to comedy to win I would say that your conceding and you belive my entire post and cant argue any of it. Thread closed, thanks for comin out monsanto employees


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Ok your right.......all food eaten by the people of the world should be geneticlly modified and mass produced. I also think that monsanto should run everything so their monopoly over the american consumers dollar can produce more geneticlly modified food.
> 
> 
> 
> this is by far the stupidest thing ive ever written...and you two blubbering baffoons actually belive it. Bahahahahaaaa, take your degree and burn it you try hards.





Ninjabowler said:


> By your lack of an intellegent answer and your resorting to comedy to win I would say that your conceding and you belive my entire post and cant argue any of it. Thread closed, thanks for comin out monsanto employees


answer to what exactly? where in that rant of yours was there a question? 

you spat your dummy out and i gave the appropriate response


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> answer to what exactly? where in that rant of yours was there a question?
> 
> you spat your dummy out and i gave the appropriate response


You dont need a question to respond do you? (Theres a question you can answer simply)
do you not have a response to my statement? Should i repost it or are you going to just post more pictures of why you two monsanto employees are still rockin this thread after 100 pages of the same arguement. Waaaaaah...they called our bosses genetic butchers!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> *Ok your right.......all food eaten by the people of the world should be geneticlly modified and mass produced. I also think that monsanto should run everything so their monopoly over the american consumers dollar can produce more geneticlly modified food.
> 
> 
> 
> this is by far the stupidest thing ive ever written...and you two blubbering baffoons actually belive it. Bahahahahaaaa, take your degree and burn it you try hards.*





Ninjabowler said:


> You dont need a question to respond do you? (Theres a question you can answer simply)
> do you not have a response to my statement? Should i repost it or are you going to just post more pictures of why you two monsanto employees are still rockin this thread after 100 pages of the same arguement. Waaaaaah...they called our bosses genetic butchers!


please can you point out the part of the post that you thought was cogent and you consider deserves a reply rather than dismissal for being the childish rant i see


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> please can you point out the part of the post that you thought was cogent and you consider deserves a reply rather than dismissal for being the childish rant i see


Are you blind?? The whole first paragraph says it all, if i were to tell you that you were right and i was wrong, thats exactly what it would sound like. Do you agree with that statement?...................Or is this just a facade so you can argue every night, night after night?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i would beg to differ. i have no sense of smell, so a large part of how i evaluate my food (fuel) is how i feel after i eat it. there's a certain taste and feel to eating natural, well cooked food over any sort of processed, GMO crap.
> 
> i am a bit of a food snob though.


here you go buck now im not asking you to watch the whole video just 2 segments
9mins 20 seconds in to 11 mins 20 seconds in

and 15mins 45 seconds to 19 mins

[youtube]drMh0Py6vQk[/youtube]

yes its a youtube video but its a very simple demonstration that shows your subjective view on your food is easily skewed


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> please can you point out the part of the post that you thought was cogent and you consider deserves a reply rather than dismissal for being the childish rant i see


I even separated it with emicons for you, wtf?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Are you blind?? The whole first paragraph says it all, if i were to tell you that you were right and i was wrong, thats exactly what it would sound like. Do you agree with that statement?...................Or is this just a facade so you can argue every night, night after night?


*"Ok your right.......all food eaten by the people of the world should be geneticlly modified and mass produced. I also think that monsanto should run everything so their monopoly over the american consumers dollar can produce more geneticlly modified food."*
heres where you set up the strawman

*"his is by far the stupidest thing ive ever written...and you two blubbering baffoons actually belive it. Bahahahahaaaa, take your degree and burn it you try hards."
*heres where you point and laugh at the strawman you created


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> here you go buck now im not asking you to watch the whole video just 2 segments
> 9mins 20 seconds in to 11 mins 20 seconds in
> 
> and 15mins 45 seconds to 19 mins
> ...


Not watching any big business propaganda your spreading, just look at he girl on the left, shes an employee of propaganda just like you and monsanto hitler. Hail the almighty dollar! Down with the health of our society!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Not watching any big business propaganda your spreading, just look at he girl on the left, shes an employee of propaganda just like you and monsanto hitler. Hail the almighty dollar! Down with the health of our society!


its a good thing it wasnt directed at you then isnt it?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> *"Ok your right.......all food eaten by the people of the world should be geneticlly modified and mass produced. I also think that monsanto should run everything so their monopoly over the american consumers dollar can produce more geneticlly modified food."*
> heres where you set up the strawman
> 
> *"his is by far the stupidest thing ive ever written...and you two blubbering baffoons actually belive it. Bahahahahaaaa, take your degree and burn it you try hards."
> *heres where you point and laugh at the strawman you created


You still arent commenting. Did they teach you that in yiur monsanto training...avoidance


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> You still arent commenting. Did they teach you that in yiur monsanto training...avoidance


fallacious statements do not need addressing aside from pointing out they are fallicous

you set up a position that hasnt been argued in this thread and then proceeded to laugh at your imagined postition

what is this the playground?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> fallacious statements do not need addressing aside from pointing out they are fallicous
> 
> you set up a position that hasnt been argued in this thread and then proceeded to laugh at your imagined postition
> 
> what is this the playground?


Read the OP. sorry if youve turned this into your own debate but i believe that this is a discussion relating to genetic engineering. My statement simply points out the stance you and monsanto hitler are taking on the OP. youve skirted making a rebuttal what four times now. Is that what you believe? Answer the question.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Read the OP. sorry if youve turned this into your own debate but i believe that this is a discussion relating to genetic engineering. *My statement simply points out the stance you and monsanto hitler are taking on the OP*. youve skirted making a rebuttal what four times now. Is that what you believe? Answer the question.


oh really thats my stance? should be a cake walk for you to back it up and prove you havent created a straw man

lets break it down into bite sized bits

*"all food eaten by the people of the world should be geneticlly modified and mass produced*"
cite?
*"monsanto should run everything so their monopoly over the american consumers dollar can produce more geneticlly modified food"
*cite?

i'll just kick back here and wait for them


----------



## Krondizzel (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Read the OP. sorry if youve turned this into your own debate but i believe that this is a discussion relating to genetic engineering. My statement simply points out the stance you and monsanto hitler are taking on the OP. youve skirted making a rebuttal what four times now. Is that what you believe? Answer the question.


Genetic engineering. I must read this thread now.


----------



## Krondizzel (Jan 27, 2013)

Okay this has nothing to do with what I thought it might.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> oh really thats my stance? should be a cake walk for you to back it up and prove you havent created a straw man
> 
> lets break it down into bite sized bits
> 
> ...


So are you saying that your not with monsanto hitler anymore? You guys just parted ways, all the gmos are safe shit your talking about was just a game? Your avoiding the topic again bud. Ok lets try this one more time or are you just scared to admit where your stance is......
Do you think all people of the world should be eating geneticlly modified food?...got that? Easy right?
And......
do you think that monsanto should run everything so their monopoly over the american consumers dollar can produce more geneticlly modified food?

wait for it.....here comes the spiiiiiiiiiin.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> So are you saying that your not with monsanto hitler anymore? You guys just parted ways, all the gmos are safe shit your talking about was just a game? Your avoiding the topic again bud. Ok lets try this one more time or are you just scared to admit where your stance is......
> Do you think all people of the world should be eating geneticlly modified food?...got that? Easy right?
> And......
> do you think that monsanto should run everything so their monopoly over the american consumers dollar can produce more geneticlly modified food?
> ...


your not very good at this are you
*"all food eaten by the people of the world should be geneticlly modified and mass produced"*

is a stance i have never taken. its a figment of your imagination 

*"monsanto should run everything so their monopoly over the american consumers dollar can produce more geneticlly modified food"

*is a stance i have never taken. its a figment of your imagination



you were doing much much better with your "fish tomato that was never sold but killed a bunch of people routine"


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> if its not labeled then what tells you your eating GMO over local?
> 
> yes i hear the small "organic" farmers crying alot about it
> 
> mainly in the form of demonising GMO food with made up stories and bunk "studies"


Well heres you bashing GMO "studies"


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> if its not labeled then what tells you your eating GMO over local?
> 
> yes i hear the small "organic" farmers crying alot about it
> 
> mainly in the form of demonising GMO food with made up stories and bunk "studies"





ginjawarrior said:


> and the farmer tells you that its GMO peas he's growing rather than natural?
> 
> if not im curious without the labelling how you can tell
> 
> ...


And heres you stating theres a propaganda campaign against your precious gmos, and trashing legitimacy of the claims against it.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> have you not read this thread yet? i can tell you its a thrilling dire warning from the anti GMO about the catastrophic consequences that might just might happen yet they cannot find evidence to show


Oh and heres you spouting off the monsanto anthem at the begining of your day!

these are your words spin doctor, you just dont have the balls to take the stance youve been defending lol im out, dueces puppet.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Well heres you bashing GMO "studies"





Ninjabowler said:


> And heres you stating theres a propaganda campaign against your precious gmos, and trashing legitimacy of the claims against it.





Ninjabowler said:


> Oh and heres you spouting off the monsanto anthem at the begining of your day!
> 
> these are your words spin doctor, you just dont have the balls to take the stance youve been defending lol im out, dueces puppet.


good for you you found the quote button!!!!!

now lets see you match any of those quotes you found to the stance you claim i have 

1.
*"all food eaten by the people of the world should be geneticlly modified and mass produced"
*2.*
"monsanto should run everything so their monopoly over the american consumers dollar can produce more geneticlly modified food"
*


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> if its not labeled then what tells you your eating GMO over local?
> 
> yes i hear the small "organic" farmers crying alot about it
> 
> mainly in the form of demonising GMO food with made up stories and bunk "studies"





ginjawarrior said:


> good for you you found the quote button!!!!!
> 
> now lets see you match any of those quotes you found to the stance you claim i have
> 
> ...


*
And like i said, your too damn scared to stand up for what you belive. This conversation is like this thread.....going no where!! You are too scared to admit how much you love monsanto and gmos, and how mich you love monsanto hitler. Instead youd rather play the spin card all day and play dumb when someone tells you to shit or get off the pot and take a stand. You seem like a smart guy, its to bad your heads stuck in the ground, dont worry, youll be safe there *


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

Wait for the spiiiiiiin.............


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> And like i said, your too damn scared to stand up for what you belive. This conversation is like this thread.....going no where!! You are too scared to admit how much you love monsanto and gmos, and how mich you love monsanto hitler. Instead youd rather play the spin card all day and play dumb when someone tells you to shit or get off the pot and take a stand. You seem like a smart guy, its to bad your heads stuck in the ground, dont worry, youll be safe there [/B][/B][/B][/B]


you have lied about my position and set up a strawman as i have shown over the last few pages

the intellecually honest thing for you to do would be to apologise for you misstatement and go on with your buisness 

yet you have decided to double down on stupid

look at it this way
i can be perfectly happy eating a gmo food without the claim *"all food eaten by the people of the world should be geneticlly modified and mass produced"* 
i can point out where people are lying about monsanto without *"monsanto should run everything so their monopoly over the american consumers dollar can produce more geneticlly modified food"
*

do you get that? i do realise by the standard of the discussion that this concept is way over your head


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> if its not labeled then what tells you your eating gmo over local?
> 
> Yes i hear the small "organic" farmers crying alot about it
> 
> mainly in the form of demonising gmo food with made up stories and bunk "studies"





ginjawarrior said:


> good for you you found the quote button!!!!!
> 
> Now lets see you match any of those quotes you found to the stance you claim i have
> 
> ...


*
*


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> you have lied about my position and set up a strawman as i have shown over the last few pages
> 
> the intellecually honest thing for you to do would be to apologise for you misstatement and go on with your buisness
> 
> ...


*
Blablabla, what is this one foot in the water crap? Quit dancing around your position and be a man, stand up for what you believe in bud, its ok, nobodys gonna hurt ya *


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> fuck me your stupid
> 
> where in any of that did i say
> 
> ...


In for a penny, in for a pound


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Eat up then, you can have my share too......And you have the audacity to call me the dumb mother fucker. Hahahaaaa. For the sake of my children and theirs to come, i hope you and monsanto supporters see the truth before its to late.


ahh yeah an appeal to emotion "wont you think of the children"

to show something is the truth you must show evidence of it

something your side seems to find impossible to do


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> ahh yeah an appeal to emotion "wont you think of the children"
> 
> to show something is the truth you must show evidence of it
> 
> something your side seems to find impossible to do


Watch out! The corn shall rise again!


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> ahh yeah an appeal to emotion "wont you think of the children"
> 
> to show something is the truth you must show evidence of it
> 
> something your side seems to find impossible to do


The evidence is yet to come with gm foods. Can you find evidence that tampering with our food supply has hurt us in the past? Oh yes you can bud. Look at hormones in dairy cattle. Deny that shit all you want bud, youve got big buisiness backing the claims that milk treated with rbst or whatever its called, is just fine to drink but its not. That lableing is just a way that they can avoid getting sued from all the contaminated milk theyve given to the public. Just put your head back in the sand, yur safer there.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

Compelling evidence above, GM food must be dangerous afterall.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Compelling evidence above, GM food must be dangerous afterall.


[youtube]L7SkrYF8lCU[/youtube]


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> still impossible for you?


So once again it looks like theyve figured you out soooooooo.........spin it quick before you look stupid. Why dont you ask the cow how it feels being jacked up with milk steroids. Wait, let me guess..
Cows cant talk, or pay taxes, or pay monsanto..screw those cows. Or maybe this one,
id like to see one "study" that says that cows milk is bad for you. Or maybe this one, 
Find my words that say altering our food supply is just fine in my books. 
Like i said, burn that degree you have, it hasnt done you any good.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> So once again it looks like theyve figured you out soooooooo.........spin it quick before you look stupid. Why dont you ask the cow how it feels being jacked up with milk steroids. Wait, let me guess..
> Cows cant talk, or pay taxes, or pay monsanto..screw those cows. Or maybe this one,
> id like to see one "study" that says that cows milk is bad for you. Or maybe this one,
> Find my words that say altering our food supply is just fine in my books.
> Like i said, burn that degree you have, it hasnt done you any good.


I'd like to see just one study that even vaguely indicates commercially available GM food poses ANY health risk whatsoever. 

Have at it, Organic Boy.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> The evidence is yet to come with gm foods. Can you find evidence that tampering with our food supply has hurt us in the past? Oh yes you can bud. Look at hormones in dairy cattle. Deny that shit all you want bud, youve got big buisiness backing the claims that milk treated with rbst or whatever its called, is just fine to drink but its not. That lableing is just a way that they can avoid getting sued from all the contaminated milk theyve given to the public. Just put your head back in the sand, yur safer there.


i read all your insane posts over the last 5 or so pages.

you have provided no proof to support your claims. 
you added NEW wild crazy insane claims to this bloated thread, aand CONTINUED the claim that disagreeing with you is proof of being in league with monsanto and hitler. 

for the millionth time, prove your claims or stuff it. 

rBST is a hormone which increases milk production in cattle. 

rBST had serious downsides for the cattlemen who used it, it was BAD FOR THIER COWS. most cattlemen stopped using it because their cows are important to them. 

those cattlemen who choose to continue to use rBST dont get my business. 

rBST is still legal in the US, but most dairy farms dont use it at all. amazing. 

the voices of cattlemen, who KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT has nearly eliminated this practice, without resorting to legislation.

all the fearmongering about rBST was detrimental to the real facts, and caused some farmers to dig in their heels. rBST would have flopped like a goddamned turd if the lefties hadnt started the terror campaign. 

the surest way to get a farmer to do something you dont want is to tell him he cant do it. rural folks dont like you city slickers telling us what to do, and if you shut the fuck up and slink back to your titty bars and all night dubstep raves, we will do our own thing. 

but you dont get that. you think your opinion is somehow valuable, that we should feel blessed by your wisdom. 

us farmers will grow what we want, and youll eat it. you aint got no choice. you need us, we dont need you.

also, we rub our dicks on your "organic" vegetables before we truck em up to the safeway.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I'd like to see just one study that even vaguely indicates commercially available GM food poses ANY health risk whatsoever.
> 
> Have at it, Organic Boy.


What a coincedence, thats same argument used with asbestos, coal mining, silicon mining, tobacco companies, silicone breast implants, tanning beds, and on and on and on....untill they saw the truth. But ignorance is bliss. Im done argueing. Have fun guys, maybe you can keep this thread going around in circles for another hundred pages


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i read all your insane posts over the last 5 or so pages.
> 
> you have provided no proof to support your claims.
> you added NEW wild crazy insane claims to this bloated thread, aand CONTINUED the claim that disagreeing with you is proof of being in league with monsanto and hitler.
> ...


Well if it isnt monsanto hitler back to tell us all how he works for monsanto....have fun tryin to convince people to to fuck the planet.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

ninjabowler said:


> well if it isnt monsanto hitler back to tell us all how he works for monsanto....have fun tryin to convince people to to fuck the planet.


lol!!

Loud noises!!


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> so no evidence yet?


Redesigning the World:
Ethical Questions about Genetic Engineering
Redesigning the World


For tw and those that don't understand that there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns that make genetic engineering a risk to us all that only serves the few, here is some recent news, but first lets review the fact that we don't really have any idea yet of what we are really doing when we start re-sequencing or redesigning DNA, the debate ending quote of destiny:


[video=youtube;_w5JqQLqqTc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc[/video]




Hitler's entire dream was based on genetic superiority.
What would Hitler have done with the genetic engineering capabilities of today's technology?
Now imagine all the corporate mechanisms of control that exist in America and how such has been used over the years to bring even more centralized control.
Now imagine what those same corps and their puppet govs will do with genetic engineering technology?
IBM and Bayer and DuPont etc are the same corps that were in business with Hitler and were in full support of his dream of a master race.
Now IBM et al wants us all to help them 'build a smarter planet'...if anyone can add 2 + 2 then they should be able to add up whats going on with genetic engineering.
Some folks here it seems can only see a Pollyanna version or piece of the picture that suits them such as how such technology could help us all, but unless put into the context of who's developing the technology and for what, such a view is like seeing the toe of a beast yet remaining blind to the rest of the body, especially the hungry mouth.
Its one thing to wish for good, but in this case its more like wishing for a less painful way to be eaten.


20 January 2013 


'Quadruple helix' DNA seen in human cells
Jonathan Amos By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News
A representation of the four-stranded structure (L) and fluorescent markers reveal its presence inside cells (R) A representation of the four-stranded structure (L) with fluorescent markers revealing its presence inside cells (R)
Continue reading the main story 
Related Stories

DNA: A landmark in science
'Big Data' and a new era of medicine
Tiny machine apes production line

Cambridge University scientists say they have seen four-stranded DNA at work in human cells for the first time.

The famous "molecule of life", which carries our genetic code, is more familiar to us as a double helix.

But researchers tell the journal Nature Chemistry that the "quadruple helix" is also present in our cells, and in ways that might possibly relate to cancer.

They suggest that control of the structures could provide novel ways to fight the disease.

"The existence of these structures may be loaded when the cell has a certain genotype or a certain dysfunctional state," said Prof Shankar Balasubramanian from Cambridge's department of chemistry.

"We need to prove that; but if that is the case, targeting them with synthetic molecules could be an interesting way of selectively targeting those cells that have this dysfunction," he told BBC News.
Tag and track

It will be exactly 60 years ago in February that James Watson and Francis Crick famously burst into the pub next to their Cambridge laboratory to announce the discovery of the "secret of life".

What they had actually done was describe the way in which two long chemical chains wound up around each other to encode the information cells need to build and maintain our bodies.

Today, the pair's modern counterparts in the university city continue to work on DNA's complexities.

Balasubramanian's group has been pursuing a four-stranded version of the molecule that scientists have produced in the test tube now for a number of years.

It is called the G-quadruplex. The "G" refers to guanine, one of the four chemical groups, or "bases", that hold DNA together and which encode our genetic information (the others being adenine, cytosine, and thymine).

The G-quadruplex seems to form in DNA where guanine exists in substantial quantities.

And although ciliates, relatively simple microscopic organisms, have displayed evidence for the incidence of such DNA, the new research is said to be the first to firmly pinpoint the quadruple helix in human cells.
'Funny target'

The team, led by Giulia Biffi, a researcher in Balasubramaninan's lab, produced antibody proteins that were designed specifically to track down and bind to regions of human DNA that were rich in the quadruplex structure. The antibodies were tagged with a fluorescence marker so that the time and place of the structures' emergence in the cell cycle could be noted and imaged.

This revealed the four-stranded DNA arose most frequently during the so-called "s-phase" when a cell copies its DNA just prior to dividing.

Prof Balasubramaninan said that was of key interest in the study of cancers, which were usually driven by genes, or oncogenes, that had mutated to increase DNA replication.

If the G-quadruplex could be implicated in the development of some cancers, it might be possible, he said, to make synthetic molecules that contained the structure and blocked the runaway cell proliferation at the root of tumours.

"We've come a long way in 10 years, from simple ideas to really seeing some substance in the existence and tractability of targeting these funny structures," he told the BBC.

"I'm hoping now that the pharmaceutical companies will bring this on to their radar and we can perhaps take a more serious look at whether quadruplexes are indeed therapeutically viable targets."
Prof Shankar Balasubramanian Prof Shankar Balasubramanian in front of a painting by artist Annie Newman that represents quadruplex DNA 



Good news trend for yes voters:


IBM to &#8216;financialize&#8217; water; the last frontier in monopolizing human rights and installing neo-feudalism


Release Date: January 23, 2013
Issued By: Waterfund LLC

NEW YORK, NY &#8211; January 23, 2013 &#8211; Waterfund LLC announced today that it has signed an agreement with IBM (NYSE: IBM) to develop a Water Cost Index (WCI).

Scientists from IBM Research will apply Big Data expertise, acting as a calculation agent, to analyze large and diverse unstructured data sets. This will be used to develop of a WCI framework that would estimate the cost of water in different regions around the world. With its market and financial product expertise, Waterfund will work to structure and commercialize the WCI.

Population growth, massive urbanization and climate change are placing increasing demands on our limited water supply. Forty one percent of the world&#8217;s population &#8211; that&#8217;s 2.3 billion people &#8211; live in water-stressed areas; this number is expected to grow to 3.5 billion by 2025. And according to the United Nations, water use has been growing at more than twice the rate of population increase over the last century.

With advances in technology &#8212; deep computing and Big Data analytics linked to sophisticated sensor networks and smart meters &#8212; IBM is helping clients and partners make smarter decisions about water management. By monitoring, measuring and analyzing water systems, from rivers and reservoirs to pumps and pipes, we can better understand the issues around water. IBM is applying its expertise in smart systems and Big Data to help companies, governments and citizens understand and more effectively deal with these issues.

As governments are increasingly forced to turn to the private sector to fund the construction and maintenance of complex water networks, the Rickards Real Cost Water Index&#8482; will serve as a benchmark for helping measure hundreds of critical projects on a like-for-like basis. Index values will reflect estimated water production costs measured in US dollars per cubic metre for a variety of major global water infrastructure projects ranging from retail water utilities and wholesale water utilities to major transmission projects.


Carry on

* *


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Redesigning the World:
> Ethical Questions about Genetic Engineering
> Redesigning the World


ethical questions but still no evidence


> For tw and those that don't understand that there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns that make genetic engineering a risk to us all that only serves the few, here is some recent news, but first lets review the fact that we don't really have any idea yet of what we are really doing when we start re-sequencing or redesigning DNA, the debate ending quote of destiny:
> 
> 
> [video=youtube;_w5JqQLqqTc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc[/video]


cute but still no evidence?





> Hitler's entire dream was based on genetic superiority.
> What would Hitler have done with the genetic engineering capabilities of today's technology?
> Now imagine all the corporate mechanisms of control that exist in America and how such has been used over the years to bring even more centralized control.
> Now imagine what those same corps and their puppet govs will do with genetic engineering technology?
> ...


oh good a godwin

and still no evidence?




> 20 January 2013
> 
> 
> 'Quadruple helix' DNA seen in human cells
> ...


and?

still no evidence




> Good news trend for yes voters:
> 
> 
> IBM to &#8216;financialize&#8217; water; the last frontier in monopolizing human rights and installing neo-feudalism
> ...


absolutly nothing to do with GMO what the fuck are you posting it here?


anyway thought you said you had no credibilty here anymore? that your "plans" for this forum had been ruined?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> ethical questions but still no evidence
> 
> cute but still no evidence?
> 
> ...


I love the way GAYprotection seems to think an opinion piece or an Internet article is the same as a published, peer reviewed scientific journal. 

Reee-taaaaar-deeeed!


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 27, 2013)

OK tw maybe this simple equation will make it easier for ya...

Genetic engineering from Monsanto et al is to nature what Hitler was to music and the arts or like what tw is to adding and critical thinking or as Frank is to a MASH unit...there now all should be clear and there should be no more need for me here...pig on the wing'

NAZI APPROVED MUSIC

Under the Nazi regime, all music produced had to fit within certain standards defined as "good" German music. Suppression of specific artists and their works was common, yet musicians were permitted limited artistic freedom. The Nazis attempted to create a balance between censorship and creativity in music to appease the German people.

This blend of art and politics led to a three-prong policy regarding musicians and artists:

Loyal Nazi members who were talented musicians were guaranteed a job.
Loyal Nazi members who were not talented musicians were not guaranteed a job.
Any non-Jewish person who demonstrated a "genius" for music and was a member of the Reichsmusikkammer (Reich Music Chamber) was permitted employment. This exception in policy permitted musicians like conductor Wilhelm Furtwangler and composer Richard Strauss to continue working. 
Music Approved of by the Third Reich

Art of the Holocaust 

Music and Politics in Hitlers Germany:
http://web.jmu.edu/history/mhr/Cathcart/Cathcart.pdf 

The Downside of Human Genetic Engineering
Human Genetic Engineering Cons: Why This Branch of Science is so Controversial

Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering
Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> OK tw maybe this simple equation will make it easier for ya...Genetic engineering from Monsanto et al is to nature what Hitler was to music and the arts or like what tw is to adding and critical thinking or as Frank is to a MASH unit...there now all should be clear and there should be no more need for me here...pig on the wing'NAZI APPROVED MUSICUnder the Nazi regime, all music produced had to fit within certain standards defined as "good" German music. Suppression of specific artists and their works was common, yet musicians were permitted limited artistic freedom. The Nazis attempted to create a balance between censorship and creativity in music to appease the German people.This blend of art and politics led to a three-prong policy regarding musicians and artists: Loyal Nazi members who were talented musicians were guaranteed a job. Loyal Nazi members who were not talented musicians were not guaranteed a job. Any non-Jewish person who demonstrated a "genius" for music and was a member of the Reichsmusikkammer (Reich Music Chamber) was permitted employment. This exception in policy permitted musicians like conductor Wilhelm Furtwangler and composer Richard Strauss to continue working. Music Approved of by the Third Reich Art of the Holocaust Music and Politics in Hitler&#8217;s Germany:http://web.jmu.edu/history/mhr/Cathcart/Cathcart.pdf The Downside of Human Genetic EngineeringHuman Genetic Engineering Cons: Why This Branch of Science is so ControversialArguing For and Against Genetic EngineeringArguing For and Against Genetic Engineering


Music has nothing to do with GMOs, your analogy is retarded. Any published scientific papers supporting your side?


----------



## Grandpapy (Jan 27, 2013)

They (Monsanto types) have with the aid of the FDA's "blind eye", cost american farmers Millions in losses and the american consumer Millions in increased prices.
After being banned in Europe, they re-introduce it here! Why not just shoot the farmer instead?

This requires careful reading to compare dates:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder

It's not a matter of weather or not GMO is safe, but a matter of, weather or not the FDA cares more for you, or "Corp. America" 
We already know how "all american" they are.
imo.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

Im glad my monsanto hitler title i gave the monsanto employee makes sence to you guys, these monsanto SS are so ignorant to the fact that the FDA and monsanto own the media, you cant publish any facts without millions to fight monsanto and eveybody knows it. Besides, who would even want to try and discredit monsanto? Its like asking to spend millions, maybe billions on somthing that will never yield a return. Thats not the best business plan out there now is it?
Hail monsanto SS! Hail monsanto Hitler! You ignorant employees just keep asking wheres the proof? Theyll publish it eventually and file it right next to asbestos. Just stick your heads in the sand, everythings fine!


----------



## desert dude (Jan 27, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> OK tw maybe this simple equation will make it easier for ya...
> 
> Genetic engineering from Monsanto et al is to nature what Hitler was to music and the arts or like what tw is to adding and critical thinking or as Frank is to a MASH unit...there now all should be clear and there should be no more need for me here...pig on the wing'
> 
> ...



From one of the articles you linked to. I am not going to tell you which one, you will just have to read them yourself:

"In addition, the world of Gattaca, for all its faults, features a world that, *far from being defined along Hitler-esque racial lines, has in fact transcended racism.* Being blond-haired and blue-eyed loses its racially elitist undertones because such traits are easily available on the genetic supermarket. Hair color, skin color, and eye color become a subjective matter of choice, no more significant than the color of one&#8217;s clothes. If anything, genetic engineering will probably encourage, not discourage, racial harmony and diversity."


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Grandpapy said:


> They (Monsanto types) have with the aid of the FDA's "blind eye", cost american farmers Millions in losses and the american consumer Millions in increased prices.
> After being banned in Europe, they re-introduce it here! Why not just shoot the farmer instead?
> 
> This requires careful reading to compare dates:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder
> ...


from your own citation, the only part which pertains to GMO's at all. 
[h=3][/h] *"A connection between Bt maize and CCD was raised in experiments conducted in Germany that were described on the Internet but never published in a scientific journal. In these studies honeybees were fed Bt maize pollen and, although healthy bees had no acute or chronic toxic symptoms, in one experiment where bees were infested with parasites, the study was aborted because Bt pollen appeared to accelerate the bees&#8217; decline. Although not repeatable in subsequent experiments, Bt in GE corn pollen thus became a possible cause of CCD.[SUP][138][/SUP]
*
*However, there are no data in the scientific literature supporting direct or indirect damage to bees caused by currently approved GE crops engineered to make Bt proteins. For example, in 2008 a meta-analysis[SUP][139][/SUP] of 25 independent studies assessing effects of Bt Cry proteins on honeybee survival (mortality) showed that Bt proteins used in commercialized GE crops to control lepidopteran and coleopteran pests do not negatively impact the survival of honeybee larvae or adults. Additionally, larvae consume only a small percent of their protein from pollen, and there is also a lack of geographic correlation between GE crop locations and regions where CCD occurs.[SUP][138][/SUP] "
*


only captive bees FED pollen could establish the link between GMO's and bees. 

bees however do not eat corn pollen. bees visit flowers to collect nectar, and the pollen adheres to their bodies to be deposited on the next flower they visit, and random mixed pollen is stored in the hive to be converted into a fungal mass for protein. bees have no interest in corn pollen. even their pollen collection is a secondary action behind the collection of nectar for honey production. 
the bees had to be FED corn pollen since in the wild bees do not interact with corn. corn pollinates via large (rice sized and larger) pollen packets which fertilize the leaf internodes to develop ears of grain. corn tassels do not provide nectar, and thus lack the primary attractant to make bees want to bother with corn. corn pollen is too large to adhere to bees, the packets are too large to be carried home by bees, and bees have less interest in corn than they do in marble statuary of kids pissing into fountains. the entire "GMO corn = bee colony collapse syndrome" hypothesis is ridiculous on it's face. 

publishing this kind of twaddle gets journals laughed into obscurity, this is why it was never actually published, just shopped to eco-websites where dipshits who dont know how corn grows will accept this story as fact and repeat it to their gullible pals at "occupy" rallies.


----------



## desert dude (Jan 27, 2013)

Here is some pretty good advice from one of the mad hatter's links:

"At the same time, we should not allow our fear of change to prevent our society from exploring this promising new field of science, one that promises so many medical and social benefits. A strategy that defines itself against the core idea of scientific progress cannot succeed. Instead of attempting to bury our heads in the sand, we should seek to harness genetic engineering for its positive benefits, even as we take careful steps to ameliorate its potential downsides."


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

You are making your boss at monsanto headquarters proud arent you? kiss-ass


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> well lets just put aside the appeal to emotion wrapped in argument from ignorance "maybe it will take 35 years for us to slap our heads and say "oh, shit. these GMO carrots make us shoot lasers out of our eyes, and the potatoes make us crack addicts" stance
> 
> and lets even put aside the gmo part because it does not matter how the food came into being it is the end result (the offspring/ grain) that is what we're really talking about
> 
> ...


Dang. I'm gonna start eating my carrots. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Hahaaa, your idol hitler put a gun in his mouth too. Farley died having fun and Hitler died like a coward  Running away from the problems he started that spun out of control. Hmm...sounds like monsantos fate.


youre the only one shouting about hitler in this thread, i assumed this was due to your being a useless twat, but i see youre attempting to erect another poorly constructed strawman. 

i suppose you have evidence of monsanto's wrongdoing, proof that GMO's are deadly poison, and picture of me cashing checks from monsanto's payroll office. 

you just cant show them to us, because *THEY* are out to get you, and *THEY* dont want us to know the troof. 

any moment now youll start saying things like "wake up" and "sheeple" and "FEMA camps" 

i guess your just the only person wise enough to put the conspiracy together, well besides David Icke. but then he has an advantage, being the reincarnation of jesus and all.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

Hey Dr. Hitler, are you pro monoculture also? I mean monsanto should be able to fix everything when a problem arises right? They are gods arent they?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> and the farmer tells you that its GMO peas he's growing rather than natural?
> 
> if not im curious without the labelling how you can tell
> 
> ...


but there's nothing to fear about GMO, why would you be reluctant in the least to label as such?

and not every small business got slammed by the fiscal cliff like small, organic farmers were.



ginjawarrior said:


> organic cannabis growers are always the first to tell you how the cannabis was grown


we're kind of like the vegans at the dinner party. how do you know if your cannabis was grown organically? don't worry, they'll fucking tell ya.

still would love to see labels to aid the consumer in making informed decisions. the "free market" works better when information is less imperfect.



ginjawarrior said:


> anecdotal subjective experience =/= data come on buck you should be better than that


i could measure it objectively if i wanted to. there's a world of difference between eating 1000 calories of processed, GMO crap versus 1000 calories of nutritious, non GMO, real and actual food.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> but there's nothing to fear about GMO, why would you be reluctant in the least to label as such?
> 
> and not every small business got slammed by the fiscal cliff like small, organic farmers were.
> 
> ...


I challenge the bolded since it has tremendous emotional appeal. But does it have science behind it? Aren't 1000 calories ... 1000 calories? cn


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Dang. I'm gonna start eating my carrots. cn


somehow, they taste better right out of the ground and rinsed off quickly than they taste damn fresh at the farmer's market.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> youre the only one shouting about hitler in this thread, i assumed this was due to your being a useless twat, but i see youre attempting to erect another poorly constructed strawman.
> 
> i suppose you have evidence of monsanto's wrongdoing, proof that GMO's are deadly poison, and picture of me cashing checks from monsanto's payroll office.
> 
> ...


Evidence of wrong doing?

how about the farmers sued into submisson?
how about the reporters who have lost jobs?
how about responsible agricultue being made obsolete?

your argueing for monsters dude, thats why everyones againt you on this one. The evidence is all there, you just need to open your eyes.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I challenge the bolded since it has tremendous emotional appeal. But does it have science behind it? Aren't 1000 calories ... 1000 calories? cn


1000 calories can be much different from 1000 calories.

it would be super easy to measure objectively. put someone on GMO, processed food for a month, put someone else on non-processed, GMO free, organic food for a month. have them switch roles after a month. take objective measures of health such as weight, cholesterol, blood pressure and survey them on subjective measures about how they feel, energy levels, etc.

i guarantee there will be an objective, measurable difference.

i can get 1000 calories by eating 7 twinkies or i could get 1000 calories with a well balanced meal out of my garden. which do you think will serve me better?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Evidence of wrong doing?
> 
> how about the farmers sued into submisson?
> how about the reporters who have lost jobs?
> ...


Go ahead and tell me all those farmers just made up theyre stories. Do it spin doctors. You guys have perfected ignorance of the truth so lets see if you can deny this..........aaaa, here it comes, "show me the court case number and lie detector tests saying those farmers arent lying"
quick, head in the sand and spiiiiiiiiiin


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> hey dipshit. if you eat any product of any modern farm youre pro monoculture too.
> 
> do you even know what that word means? nope, didnt think so.
> 
> ...


so glad i'm off the hot pockets. shit is like crack, with one major failing: it comes out frozen at 1:29, and scorched beyond consumption at 1:31.*

there really is no way to cook a hot pocket correctly.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> 1000 calories can be much different from 1000 calories.
> 
> it would be super easy to measure objectively. put someone on GMO, processed food for a month, put someone else on non-processed, GMO free, organic food for a month. have them switch roles after a month. take objective measures of health such as weight, cholesterol, blood pressure and survey them on subjective measures about how they feel, energy levels, etc.
> 
> ...


Let's compare like to like. let's make Southwestern fare using the same recipe, one organic, the other GM megatech. What then? 
Also, you'd need a few thousand people in each group (test and control) to even out individual differences.

But the bottom line here is that you diverted attention away from any experimental support for the premise (by talking about a hypothetical experiment and your presumption of its result) and reiterated that it sounds like a good idea to you. But without the work done by independents and to clinical standards, it's still an argument from emotion. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Evidence of wrong doing?
> 
> how about the farmers sued into submisson?
> how about the reporters who have lost jobs?
> ...


if the evidence is so obvious why cant you provide any of it? 

why do you instead create strawman arguments, more ridiculous allegations, and more ad hominem attacks? 

im arguing against mindless fear, idiocy disguised as logic, and the self serving OP and his feigned cleverness which is a gossamer veil that fails utterly in concealing his self-interest in pushing an agenda based entirely on lies. 

at least he has a reason for his stupidity cupidity and decetion, youre pushing his agenda because youre dumb enough to believe his tall tales, and too lazy to read his purported evidence, ALL OF WHICH IS WORTHLESS 

half his citations oppose his position, but he counts on dimwits accepting his word for it rather than taking the effort to read what he posts. 

copy/past of links off a porn link dump would support his claims better than his "evidence".


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> so glad i'm off the hot pockets. shit is like crack, with one major failing: it comes out frozen at 1:29, and scorched beyond consumption at 1:31.*
> 
> there really is no way to cook a hot pocket correctly.


sure there is. 

wrap it in foil, place it on the top of your engine, by the time you get to your favorite fishin hole that shit will be perfect.

the crust will be flaky and crisp, the insides fully cooked, and all the cheese will be melty, but not volcanic. 

this works on frozen burritos too.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Let's compare like to like. let's make Southwestern fare using the same recipe, one organic, the other GM megatech. What then?
> Also, you'd need a few thousand people in each group (test and control) to even out individual differences.
> 
> But the bottom line here is that you diverted attention away from any experimental support for the premise (by talking about a hypothetical experiment and your presumption of its result) and reiterated that it sounds like a good idea to you. But without the work done by independents and to clinical standards, it's still an argument from emotion. cn


1000 calories is a 1000 calories, right?

so have 5 twinkies and a 64 oz coca cola, i'll have some eggs fresh from the vent, a baked potato, and a salad with peas, carrots and maters out of my own garden. maybe some fresh squeezed lemonade to wash it all down with that came straight from my citrus meyeri tree.

i mean, 1000 calories is 1000 calories, right?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> 1000 calories is a 1000 calories, right?so have 5 twinkies and a 64 oz coca cola, i'll have some eggs fresh from the vent, a baked potato, and a salad with peas, carrots and maters out of my own garden. maybe some fresh squeezed lemonade to wash it all down with that came straight from my citrus meyeri tree.i mean, 1000 calories is 1000 calories, right?


Calories are an extremely inaccurate unit of measurement.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Go ahead and tell me all those farmers just made up theyre stories. Do it spin doctors. You guys have perfected ignorance of the truth so lets see if you can deny this..........aaaa, here it comes, "show me the court case number and lie detector tests saying those farmers arent lying"
> quick, head in the sand and spiiiiiiiiiin


replying to yourself is pretty weak. 

your allegations are just allegations if you dont drop any proof on the table. 

i could allege that youre a fat turd with skid marks on your underpants, a hanna montana body pillow "waifu" propped in the corner of your twin bed, and semen stains on your faded Spongebob Squarepants sheets. 

while i may not have any proof of my claims, at least my allegations sound probable.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Calories are an extremely inaccurate unit of measurement.


i know. even the difference between 1000 calories between certain grains (usually the white ones, damn evil whiteys) and red meat is significant.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> 1000 calories is a 1000 calories, right?
> 
> so have 5 twinkies and a 64 oz coca cola, i'll have some eggs fresh from the vent, a baked potato, and a salad with peas, carrots and maters out of my own garden. maybe some fresh squeezed lemonade to wash it all down with that came straight from my citrus meyeri tree.
> 
> i mean, 1000 calories is 1000 calories, right?


I've already addressed that. Leyt's compare organic to GM in category: eggs, grains, meats. I don't think there is such a thing as an organic Twinkie.
But to be fair, keep calorie count (and subsidiary ratios of fat, protein, carb) equal. 

Got any studies to support your claim that organic is plainly healthier than the non-organic equivalent? cn


----------



## desert dude (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> *1000 calories is a 1000 calories, right*?
> 
> so have 5 twinkies and a 64 oz coca cola, i'll have some eggs fresh from the vent, a baked potato, and a salad with peas, carrots and maters out of my own garden. maybe some fresh squeezed lemonade to wash it all down with that came straight from my citrus meyeri tree.
> 
> i mean, 1000 calories is 1000 calories, right?


Only to a calorimeter.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> hey dipshit. if you eat any product of any modern farm youre pro monoculture too.
> 
> do you even know what that word means? nope, didnt think so.
> 
> ...


Ummm, i think id do just fine without your GM products, ya, weve growen our own food for years and its not hard so i dont think my "fat ass would starve". I dont eat hot pockets by the way, id rather eat all these....I dont need your GM food, i dont need your monoculture, and nobody needs your BS monsanto hitler


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Calories are an extremely inaccurate unit of measurement.


Dissenting opinion. Calories are measured in calorimeters, very sensitive instruments. And the energetics of metabolic reactions are known to a high degree of precision. 
Can you point out a systematic error that allows these quantities to be very precise and yet "extremely inaccurate"? cn


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I've already addressed that. Leyt's compare organic to GM in category: eggs, grains, meats. I don't think there is such a thing as an organic Twinkie.
> But to be fair, keep calorie count (and subsidiary ratios of fat, protein, carb) equal.
> 
> Got any studies to support your claim that organic is plainly healthier than the non-organic equivalent? cn


i'm not even gonna google to see if there are any studies. but if you're trying to tell me there is no difference between 1000 calories worth of mcdonald's GMO fed, antibiotic ridden, packed in like sardine beef and 1000 calories worth of grass fed, free range, hormone and antibiotic free beef, i'll go ahead and proudly proclaim that no human being who is capable of looking at their own feces should need a study to tell the difference.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> replying to yourself is pretty weak.
> 
> your allegations are just allegations if you dont drop any proof on the table.
> 
> ...


Nice spin, so are you denying that farmers have been sued into submission by monsanto? Do you deny that theres many, many farmers that would rather spit on monsanto employees rather than save them from drowning?

your have published proof of it or it doesnt count argument is getting pretty weak, because everyone knows you cant publish against monsanto genetic engineering without millions to spend on lawsuits. We see through your smoke show


----------



## desert dude (Jan 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I've already addressed that. Leyt's compare organic to GM in category: eggs, grains, meats. I don't think there is such a thing as an organic Twinkie.
> But to be fair, keep calorie count (and subsidiary ratios of fat, protein, carb) equal.
> 
> Got any studies to support your claim that organic is plainly healthier than the non-organic equivalent? cn


I would like to see this experiment done.

Here is another experiment I would like to see done:

1. Raise a typical suburban garden of tomatoes, carrots, onions, sweet corn, etc using "organic" methods.
2. Raise the identical garden using non-organic methods (fertilizers from petroleum, etc).
3. Conduct a taste test by feeding the produce picked fresh from each garden to willing participants and have them judge which is "organic" and which is "non organic". My prediction is that the judgments by participants will be completely random, i.e. no statistical difference between the gardens.


----------



## Grandpapy (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> from your own citation, the only part which pertains to GMO's at all.
> *"A connection between Bt maize and CCD was raised in experiments conducted in Germany that were described on the Internet but never published in a scientific journal. In these studies honeybees were fed Bt maize pollen and, although healthy bees had no acute or chronic toxic symptoms, in one experiment where bees were infested with parasites, the study was aborted because Bt pollen appeared to accelerate the bees decline. Although not repeatable in subsequent experiments, Bt in GE corn pollen thus became a possible cause of CCD.[SUP][138][/SUP]
> *
> *However, there are no data in the scientific literature supporting direct or indirect damage to bees caused by currently approved GE crops engineered to make Bt proteins. For example, in 2008 a meta-analysis[SUP][139][/SUP] of 25 independent studies assessing effects of Bt Cry proteins on honeybee survival (mortality) showed that Bt proteins used in commercialized GE crops to control lepidopteran and coleopteran pests do not negatively impact the survival of honeybee larvae or adults. Additionally, larvae consume only a small percent of their protein from pollen, and there is also a lack of geographic correlation between GE crop locations and regions where CCD occurs.[SUP][138][/SUP] "
> ...


So the FDA was thinking of you and me when they re-introduced a banned pesticide?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Ummm, i think id do just fine without your GM products, ya, weve growen our own food for years and its not hard so i dont think my "fat ass would starve". I dont eat hot pockets by the way, id rather eat all these....I dont need your GM food, i dont need your monoculture, and nobody needs your BS monsanto hitler


yep. farming is easy as fuck. thats why everybody does it. all those amish assholes who survive outside modern society are just trying to conceal how truely easy their shit is. they spend most of their time in the titty bar hidden under the barn. 

yep. you grow ALL your own food. you got a rice paddy, beef cattle, a dairy barn, chicken coop, slaughterhouse, herb garden, wheat field, sugar refinery, corn field, potatoe field vegetable garden and a salt mine all on your back porch, and it produces all year round. 

i bet you havent even seen the inside of a supermarket in decades right? 

i guess youre just the modern grizzly adams. 

huzzah. 

you get crazier every time you flap your meat-hole.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

desert dude said:


> I would like to see this experiment done.
> 
> Here is another experiment I would like to see done:
> 
> ...


and i would love to see scarlett johanson naked in my bed tonight, but that's not really the topic of discussion.

i think anyone capable of scoring not worse than two standard deviations below average on a WAIS-IV could tell the difference between corn that came out of 180 bushel per acre, roundup ready, GMO mega farm like nodrama's (not to mention the gubbmint welfare checks they get!) and corn that came from a small, organic farmer in the foothills of cornelius.

it's like comparing a cheese log with an actual log.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Grandpapy said:


> So the FDA was thinking of you and me when they re-introduced a banned pesticide?


which pesticide?
when was this supposed to be? 
whats your source? 

re-launching a previously banned pesticide is hard as fuck. youre gonna have to show your work there bro.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

desert dude said:


> One minor correction: "Everyone" is not against Kyne on this one, just the morons. Kynes has so thoroughly cleaned your clock on this topic that you ought to resign from RIU and never post on the internet again.


So when i post evidence he asks for its time for me to resign?? Baaahahahahaa your a funny man the evidence doesnt lie and it stinggggs doesnt it. BURN


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i'm not even gonna google to see if there are any studies. but if you're trying to tell me there is no difference between 1000 calories worth of mcdonald's GMO fed, antibiotic ridden, packed in like sardine beef and 1000 calories worth of grass fed, free range, hormone and antibiotic free beef, i'll go ahead and proudly proclaim that no human being who is capable of looking at their own feces should need a study to tell the difference.


In my instance, the two have been the same. I feel no better eating "well" than I do eating the same sort of food after a drive-thru. Anecdotal, i know, but no worse than what you're bringing to the table. I _am _stating that you're trying to present an argument from emotion as fact. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Nice spin, so are you denying that farmers have been sued into submission by monsanto? Do you deny that theres many, many farmers that would rather spit on monsanto employees rather than save them from drowning?
> 
> your have published proof of it or it doesnt count argument is getting pretty weak, because everyone knows you cant publish against monsanto genetic engineering without millions to spend on lawsuits. We see through your smoke show


"everybody knows that..." 

"When i was in cambodia as a part of the SOG team..." 

"yeah baby im a millionaire playboy jetfighter pilot with a twelve inch cock and a bentley..." 

"no, dude im totally not a cop, if i was a cop i would have to tell you..."

"of course ill still respect you in the morning..." 

"nah man, you give me the cash and ill go get the dope from my guy..." 

lies! lies! lies! all lies!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> So when i post evidence he asks for its time for me to resign?? Baaahahahahaa your a funny man the evidence doesnt lie and it stinggggs doesnt it. BURN


desertdouche likes to exalt himself (symptom of the senility, i would guess) but he has proven he can't even analyze straightforward scientific data right in front of his eyes with any degree of accuracy whatsoever.*

it's one of those psychological phenomena whereas someone decides first then justifies later.

a good example of desertdouchery can be found here:*https://www.rollitup.org/politics/578892-post-ec-predictions-here-print.html

kynes is not exactly a steward of science either. he's still convinced that water fluoridation is an evil commie plot and that he has PWNT the world scientific community with respect to anthropogenic climate change.

decide first, justify later is how these people operate.

not a good way to go about things.


----------



## desert dude (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> and i would love to see scarlett johanson naked in my bed tonight, but that's not really the topic of discussion.
> 
> i think anyone capable of scoring not worse than two standard deviations below average on a WAIS-IV could tell the difference between corn that came out of 180 bushel per acre, roundup ready, GMO mega farm like nodrama's (not to mention the gubbmint welfare checks they get!) and corn that came from a small, organic farmer in the foothills of cornelius.
> 
> it's like comparing a cheese log with an actual log.


If Scarlett did show up in your bed you'd just hug her and cry, Buck. Why put yourself through that humiliation?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> In my instance, the two have been the same. I feel no better eating "well" than I do eating the same sort of food after a drive-thru. Anecdotal, i know, but no worse than what you're bringing to the table. I _am _stating that you're trying to present an argument from emotion as fact. cn


really? you are really telling me that you notice no difference between a mcdonalds cow and a free range, grass fed cow?

i guess you're not a foodie. my condolences.


----------



## ASMALLVOICE (Jan 27, 2013)

Whew, this is an enormous thread, my head hurts.

If I may interject here. The average age of an American farmer/rancher is crowding 60 years of age and the amount of new ones are on the decline at an ever increasing rate. They are taking AG out of the schools with gross precision. Within the next 15 years 90%+ of the produce grown inthis country will be done by government run facilities and they will use nothing but GMO products. So it is coming whether we wish it to or not.

If you want non gmo produce, I would suggest trying to procure some non gmo seeds and learn to grow for yourself....just a thougth to ponder

Peace and to hell with gmo's

Asmallvoice


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> So when i post evidence he asks for its time for me to resign?? Baaahahahahaa your a funny man the evidence doesnt lie and it stinggggs doesnt it. BURN


what evidence did you post? 

ohh yeah, more claims with no evidence.... '

you havent provided a single citation in support of your claims. not even the shitty ones the OP and his sockpuppet threw out. 

not even the retarded fake study from france with the onco-mice, not even a wikipedia link. 

not even an opinion pice from isis.org, where all articles are brimming over with inline citations, which all lead back to the same author. an author who believes in "structured water" homeopathy, and "Gaia Theory" 

all you have done is flap your lips and make more baseless charges.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

versus







my body knows the difference, i'm surprised that anyone could testify to the contrary.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yep. farming is easy as fuck. thats why everybody does it. all those amish assholes who survive outside modern society are just trying to conceal how truely easy their shit is. they spend most of their time in the titty bar hidden under the barn.
> 
> yep. you grow ALL your own food. you got a rice paddy, beef cattle, a dairy barn, chicken coop, slaughterhouse, herb garden, wheat field, sugar refinery, corn field, potatoe field vegetable garden and a salt mine all on your back porch, and it produces all year round.
> 
> ...


No, thats rediculous, not touching GM products is near impossible with the tight hold monsanto has on our govenment. I choose to spend my consumer dollar on products that dont put responsible farmers out of buisiness when i can. Anyone can do it. Oh and hell ya, you should see my herb garden and outside garden, and inside garden! They dont give me everything i need but whatever helps keep money out of monsantos pocket and away from your CEO Dr. GMO


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> really? you are really telling me that you notice no difference between a mcdonalds cow and a free range, grass fed cow?
> 
> i guess you're not a foodie. my condolences.


I notice no difference between McDonald's ground beef and the local grass-fed stuff but flavor. I have not noticed any nutritional differences, and that was the focus of the conversation iirc. cn


----------



## Grandpapy (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> which pesticide?
> when was this supposed to be?
> whats your source?
> 
> re-launching a previously banned pesticide is hard as fuck. youre gonna have to show your work there bro.


Post #1168

*

This requires careful reading to compare dates:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder​
​

*


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

http://nelsonfarm.net/
Monsanto sues farmers


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

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

Monsanto sues farmers


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> but there's nothing to fear about GMO, why would you be reluctant in the least to label as such?
> 
> and not every small business got slammed by the fiscal cliff like small, organic farmers were.
> 
> ...


i notice your still shying away from my "how do you do know if its GMO" question

and as to your subjectivity

i refer you beck to this post


ginjawarrior said:


> here you go buck now im not asking you to watch the whole video just 2 segments
> 9mins 20 seconds in to 11 mins 20 seconds in
> 
> and 15mins 45 seconds to 19 mins
> ...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I notice no difference between McDonald's ground beef and the local grass-fed stuff but flavor. I have not noticed any nutritional differences, and that was the focus of the conversation iirc. cn


you don't get that warm, fuzzy feeling in your gut followed by a solid bowel movement as opposed to a vapid, hollow feeling in the tummy followed by a bowel movement that could moonlight as some sort of modern art?

if i eat crap food, it is usually followed by a prolonged food coma, even well after initial digestion. if i eat good food, i feel well nourished and am able to function after initial digestion.

i just don't understand how anyone can not notice the difference. it's why i spend so much more money on food now.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/monsanto-sues-pennsylvania-farmer-for-saving-seeds.htm

Monsanto files 145 cases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!theres your proof that monsanto is evil. Do you want more? lmao rotfl bahahahahhaaaa


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Dissenting opinion. Calories are measured in calorimeters, very sensitive instruments. And the energetics of metabolic reactions are known to a high degree of precision.
> Can you point out a systematic error that allows these quantities to be very precise and yet "extremely inaccurate"? cn


I mean in the context of people using it to measure the overall nutritional content of food as though it were an absolute, whereas it is merely the energy portion of the food, disregarding the other "stuff" your body needs.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> i notice your still shying away from my "how do you do know if its GMO" question


i guess i just have to take their word for it. would be kind of silly of them to grow GMO crops in non-GMO fashion. it's be like paying the hooker first and skipping out on the sex.

not gonna watch any videos. i'll tell you what i told the rawn pawl people: use your words.


----------



## desert dude (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx
> 
> Monsanto sues farmers


So what? ...............


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> you don't get that warm, fuzzy feeling in your gut followed by a solid bowel movement as opposed to a vapid, hollow feeling in the tummy followed by a bowel movement that could moonlight as some sort of modern art?
> 
> if i eat crap food, it is usually followed by a prolonged food coma, even well after initial digestion. if i eat good food, i feel well nourished and am able to function after initial digestion.
> 
> i just don't understand how anyone can not notice the difference. it's why i spend so much more *of my wifes *money on food now.


Sorry, couldn't help myself, Im Irish so I'm probably just drunk or something


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> you don't get that warm, fuzzy feeling in your gut followed by a solid bowel movement as opposed to a vapid, hollow feeling in the tummy followed by a bowel movement that could moonlight as some sort of modern art?
> 
> if i eat crap food, it is usually followed by a prolonged food coma, even well after initial digestion. if i eat good food, i feel well nourished and am able to function after initial digestion.
> 
> i just don't understand how anyone can not notice the difference. it's why i spend so much more money on food now.


Bottom line is I don't. My xgf had me eating "healthier" and for me the only consequence was that I enjoyed eating less. No improvements or declines in digestion or vitality. 
If I had even a slight improvement with the "better" food, I'd sharply reduce my patronage of fast food and would be eating the "better" food. But since i don't, i won't ding the "swill" food on what amounts to me to an aesthetic/philosophical argument. 
I respect that different people will be more sensitive to dietary change than I am. But matters like diet are also especially prone to placebo effects. A true double-blind study is needed, but nutritional science is a bit of a desert these days. Who will spearhead and fund the study? It would have to be an independent, i.e. not a food co and not an eco foundation ... cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> desertdouche likes to exalt himself (symptom of the senility, i would guess) but he has proven he can't even analyze straightforward scientific data right in front of his eyes with any degree of accuracy whatsoever.*
> 
> it's one of those psychological phenomena whereas someone decides first then justifies later.
> 
> ...


so sodium fluoride scraped from the stacks of a fertilizer plant really is a health potion? and the hazard warnings marking it as "Highly Toxic" and the prohibitions of transporting it by air freight, and the fact that if i fluoridated lake tahoe with the same dose they put in our water i would be arrested as a terrorist are all just part of a John Birch Society plot to defame this important "Nutracuetical" dietary supplement which we are all forced to accept whether we want it or not? 

the shoe is on the other foot bucky. defend your pro-fluoride stance, and explain why we should all enjoy the benefits of sodium fluoride. 

i can offer you plenty of reasons why its poison, most importantly, it's MSDS which says clearly on top...

POISON. 

https://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927595

lethal dose for a human is estimated between 5 and 10 grams. 

aww yeah.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i guess i just have to take their word for it. would be kind of silly of them to grow GMO crops in non-GMO fashion. it's be like paying the hooker first and skipping out on the sex.
> 
> not gonna watch any videos. i'll tell you what i told the rawn pawl people: use your words.


you still havent answered the xplicite question of "did they tell you its GMO"?

because without the labeling how can you even say it tastes better or you have better nutrition when its not GMO?

we already had someone here complaining about GMO tomatoes when theres no GMO tomatos being sold

and your still not commenting on the vid i showed


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I mean in the context of people using it to measure the overall nutritional content of food as though it were an absolute, whereas it is merely the energy portion of the food, disregarding the other "stuff" your body needs.


I am living proof of the short-to-mid-term nutritional completeness of fast food. Ignore the apparent epilepsy please. ~eckeck!~ cn


----------



## desert dude (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/monsanto-sues-pennsylvania-farmer-for-saving-seeds.htm
> 
> Monsanto files 145 cases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!theres your proof that monsanto is evil. Do you want more? lmao rotfl bahahahahhaaaa


From your link:

"
Additionally, according to the article, "Monsanto has filed 145 lawsuits since 1997 against farmers who saved seeds." And they have the funds to do it when you consider that according to the _New York Times_, 94 percent of soybeans and 72 percent of corn are being grown with GMO seeds.


Farmer are cornered. With a monopoly on the industry the company can increase prices and farmers have to pay for it. In the end, this cycle will hurt farmers who depend on the seeds because farmers can't risk the litigation that would ensue should they replant them. So year after year, no matter the cost, farmers buy the seeds that can and often does create a dead zone on their property."

If Monsanto seeds are used in 94% of soy bean fields then Monsanto must be doing something right. They don't give those seeds away for free.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Sorry, couldn't help myself, Im Irish so I'm probably just drunk or something


no worries, i'm rolling in it right now. but the upcoming move should set me back to square one. not exactly possible to transport my grow with me across multiple red states, will have to start all over again.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so sodium fluoride scraped from the stacks of a fertilizer plant really is a health potion? and the hazard warnings marking it as "Highly Toxic" and the prohibitions of transporting it by air freight, and the fact that if i fluoridated lake tahoe with the same dose they put in our water i would be arrested as a terrorist are all just part of a John Birch Society plot to defame this important "Nutracuetical" dietary supplement which we are all forced to accept whether we want it or not?
> 
> the shoe is on the other foot bucky. defend your pro-fluoride stance, and explain why we should all enjoy the benefits of sodium fluoride.
> 
> ...


drinking a little bit of chlorine will also kill you, but when you dilute it to parts per million it works wonders for our water supply.

do you birchers also get your panties in a wad about chlorine?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

desert dude said:


> So what? ...............


He said he wanted evidence that monsanto is destroying responsible agriculture, and here it is.....theyre sueingdeny, deny, deny....its allllllll lies....head in the sand....i love monsanto and monsanto hitler...



Dr Kynes said:


> if the evidence is so obvious why cant you provide any of it?
> 
> 
> why do you instead create strawman arguments, more ridiculous allegations, and more ad hominem attacks?
> ...


 are you going to hide from this evidence too?


----------



## Grandpapy (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> which pesticide?
> when was this supposed to be?
> whats your source?
> 
> re-launching a previously banned pesticide is hard as fuck. youre gonna have to show your work there bro.




The EPA's huge backlog on reviewing pesticides and recent court cases that threatened to force some common chemicals off the market, spurred Congress into final action. Aides to House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-VA), and Democrat Henry Waxman D-CA), a leading environmentalist, wrote a bill in mid-July behind closed doors.
The greatest bone of contention came over the Delaney Clause - Republicans wanted to impose more relaxed standards than did the Democrats. But since GOP lawmakers were anxious for an election year environmental bill, and lobbyists were just plain tired of fighting, the House, on July 23, unanimously passed the bill by an expedited procedure known as suspension of the rules.
The Senate passed the identical measure a day later without debate nor a dissenting vote.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/backgrounders/pesticides.html


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> drinking a little bit of chlorine will also kill you, but when you dilute it to parts per million it works wonders for our water supply.
> 
> do you birchers also get your panties in a wad about chlorine?


chlorine is used to kill pathogens, not to treat diagnose or prevent any particular disease. 
chlorine evaporates out of water in a few hours, dissipates rapidly if you boil it, and can be removed with a charcoal filter. fluoride requires reverse osmosis or distillation to remove it, it stays in your body for extended periods, is slow to excrete, and is used as a medication without regards to dosage, consent or need. 

but a peanut butter sammich is considered a deadly weapon on a schoolbus, and my guns are a menace to society.

why are you so keen on banning everything under the sun except sodium fluoride in our water, and your dope patch?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

desert dude said:


> From your link:
> 
> "
> Additionally, according to the article, "Monsanto has filed 145 lawsuits since 1997 against farmers who saved seeds." And they have the funds to do it when you consider that according to the _New York Times_, 94 percent of soybeans and 72 percent of corn are being grown with GMO seeds.
> ...


If you call doing somthing right paying off politicians, and do you even read what you write? Your making the arguement for my side. Thats why your just the leader of the SS and not the leader of the GMO party. Hitler would have you excecuted for siding with the opposition


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> chlorine is used to kill pathogens, not to treat diagnose or prevent any particular disease.
> chlorine evaporates out of water in a few hours, dissipates rapidly if you boil it, and can be removed with a charcoal filter. fluoride requires reverse osmosis or distillation to remove it, it stays in your body for extended periods, is slow to excrete, and is used as a medication without regards to dosage, consent or need.
> 
> but a peanut butter sammich is considered a deadly weapon on a schoolbus, and my guns are a menace to society.
> ...


tell me about how bad fluoride in the water is when diluted to parts per million.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> no worries, i'm rolling in it right now. but the upcoming move should set me back to square one. not exactly possible to transport my grow with me across multiple red states, will have to start all over again.


You moving? Why's that?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Grandpapy said:


> The EPA's huge backlog on reviewing pesticides and recent court cases that threatened to force some common chemicals off the market, spurred Congress into final action. Aides to House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-VA), and Democrat Henry Waxman D-CA), a leading environmentalist, wrote a bill in mid-July behind closed doors.
> The greatest bone of contention came over the Delaney Clause - Republicans wanted to impose more relaxed standards than did the Democrats. But since GOP lawmakers were anxious for an election year environmental bill, and lobbyists were just plain tired of fighting, the House, on July 23, unanimously passed the bill by an expedited procedure known as suspension of the rules.
> The Senate passed the identical measure a day later without debate nor a dissenting vote.
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/backgrounders/pesticides.html


relaxing epa restrictions on allowed pesticide residue levels is not re-legalizing DDT. 

DDT is still banned in the USA. 

this citation had nothing to do with allowing the use of any previously banned pesticide, and certainly not DDT which is used as a boogeyman in the opening paragraphs. 

the previous pesticide levels were so stringent (zero residue allowed) that modern lab tests made ALL pesticide use on food crops impossible, and changes to the old (and wacky) law was essential. 

further this citation deals with the EPA and it's pesticide residue regulations, not the FDA and banned pesticides being re-released.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> You moving? Why's that?


we'll know for sure on 2/22. wife has already flown around the country doing interviews for internship, results pending.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> relaxing epa restrictions on allowed pesticide residue levels is not re-legalizing DDT.
> 
> DDT is still banned in the USA.
> 
> ...


Half the anti-GMO crowd have already described Roundup as a pesticide...details are clearly lost on them.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Half the anti-GMO crowd have already described Roundup as a pesticide...details are clearly lost on them.


pesticide, herbicide, what's the difference? they're all delicious. i sprinkle a little herbicide on my mashed potatoes to taste.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> pesticide, herbicide, what's the difference? they're all delicious. i sprinkle a little herbicide on my mashed potatoes to taste.


The only white crystalline powder Id be interested in consuming is primarily an export of South America


----------



## Grandpapy (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> relaxing epa restrictions on allowed pesticide residue levels is not re-legalizing DDT.
> 
> DDT is still banned in the USA.
> 
> ...


DDT? Don't look at the headline, look at where they suspend the rules.

In Europe, the interaction of the phenomenon of "dying bees" with imidacloprid has been discussed for quite some time now.[SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP][SUP][54][/SUP] It was a study from the "Comité Scientifique et Technique (CST)" which was in the center of discussion, which led to a partial ban of imidacloprid in France. The imidacloprid pesticide Gaucho was banned, in 1999 by the French Minister of Agriculture Jean Glavany, primarily due to concern over potential effects on honey bees.[SUP][55][/SUP][SUP][56][/SUP][SUP][57][/SUP] Consequently when fipronil, a phenylpyrazole insecticide and in Europe mainly labeled "Regent", was used as a replacement, it was also found to be toxic to bees, and banned partially in France in 2004.[SUP][58][/SUP]
In February 2007, about forty French deputies, led by UMP member Jacques Remiller, requested the creation of a Parliamentary Investigation Commission on Overmortality of Bees, underlining that honey production was decreasing by 1,000 tons a year for a decade. As of August 2007, no investigations were yet opened.[SUP][59][/SUP] Five other insecticides based on fipronil were also accused of killing bees. However, the scientific committees of the European Union are still of the opinion "that the available monitoring studies were mainly performed in France and EU-member-states should consider the relevance of these studies for the circumstances in their country".[SUP][60][/SUP]
Around the same time French beekeepers succeeded in banning neonicotinoids, the Clinton administration permitted pesticides which were previously banned,[SUP][61][/SUP] including imidacloprid. In 2004, the Bush Administration reduced regulations further and pesticide applications increased.[SUP][62][/SUP][SUP][63][/SUP]


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

Grandpapy said:


> DDT? Don't look at the headline, look at where they suspend the rules.
> 
> In Europe, the interaction of the phenomenon of "dying bees" with imidacloprid has been discussed for quite some time now.[SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP][SUP][54][/SUP] It was a study from the "Comité Scientifique et Technique (CST)" which was in the center of discussion, which led to a partial ban of imidacloprid in France. The imidacloprid pesticide Gaucho was banned, in 1999 by the French Minister of Agriculture Jean Glavany, primarily due to concern over potential effects on honey bees.[SUP][55][/SUP][SUP][56][/SUP][SUP][57][/SUP] Consequently when fipronil, a phenylpyrazole insecticide and in Europe mainly labeled "Regent", was used as a replacement, it was also found to be toxic to bees, and banned partially in France in 2004.[SUP][58][/SUP]
> In February 2007, about forty French deputies, led by UMP member Jacques Remiller, requested the creation of a Parliamentary Investigation Commission on Overmortality of Bees, underlining that honey production was decreasing by 1,000 tons a year for a decade. As of August 2007, no investigations were yet opened.[SUP][59][/SUP] Five other insecticides based on fipronil were also accused of killing bees. However, the scientific committees of the European Union are still of the opinion "that the available monitoring studies were mainly performed in France and EU-member-states should consider the relevance of these studies for the circumstances in their country".[SUP][60][/SUP]
> Around the same time French beekeepers succeeded in banning neonicotinoids, the Clinton administration permitted pesticides which were previously banned,[SUP][61][/SUP] including imidacloprid. In 2004, the Bush Administration reduced regulations further and pesticide applications increased.[SUP][62][/SUP][SUP][63][/SUP]


Just as an aside, France is fucking stupid anyways. 

Next?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

i find it hard to believe that kynes can get his panties in a bunch about water fluoridation but barely seems to flinch at the near complete and utter overhaul of our agricultural system within the last 50~ years.

food is fuel and i like mine to be high grade. the practices ushered in by GMO and their effects are not well studied. it's not something i would defend until the picture was more complete.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i find it hard to believe that kynes can get his panties in a bunch about water fluoridation but barely seems to flinch at the near complete and utter overhaul of our agricultural system within the last 50~ years.
> 
> food is fuel and i like mine to be high grade. the practices ushered in by GMO and their effects are not well studied. it's not something i would defend until the picture was more complete.


Well unless Monsanto is splicing up a vegetable capable of decapitating a man with a single blow of its razor sharp leaves...the evidence suggests that the varieties in use thus far are safe.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> He said he wanted evidence that monsanto is destroying responsible agriculture, and here it is.....theyre sueingdeny, deny, deny....its allllllll lies....head in the sand....i love monsanto and monsanto hitler...
> 
> are you going to hide from this evidence too?


no. you interpreted my demand you prove your claims or shut the fuck up as a request for an opinion piece that "proves" the entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement that monsanto sues people over violating their contracts. 

but youre not terribly intelligent so thats to be expected. 

heres how this shit works dummy. 

*ASSERTION: *we should not put fluoride in our drinking water. 
*ALLEGATION: *sodium fluoride is a poison, and dosing our water with poison is a stupid thing to do. 
*EVIDENCE:
*if you go in your bathroom and look at your toothpaste tube, if it has fluoride in it it will BY LAW also have this warning: Do Not Swallow. in case of accidental ingestion contact the poison control center. 
Heres a link to the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for sodium fluoride (primary source of fluoride for drinking water in the US) https://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927595 ohh look it IS poison... 
a dentist with 30 years experience (one of many) who opposes fluoridation: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/07/warning-never-swallow-regular-toothpaste.aspx
nad heres a website dedicated to the fluoride issue. http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/water/ 
and right at the top youll find this quote:* "Fluoridation goes against all principles of pharmacology. Its obsolete." -- Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine/Physiology. *


see how that goes? 

assertion, sets up my argument. 
allegation, sets up my reasoning. 
evidence, provides links to FACTUAL sources, actual facts, and websites which are related directly to my assertion and my allegation. 

see? no straw men, no sidetracking with unrelated bullshit, no word salad homonym games, and if somebody has counterpoints they want to provide, like the ADA's stance on fluoride or whatever, i am highly unlikely to accuse them of being part of the Aquafresh Conspiracy. 

and thats why you are Clownshoes.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> no. you interpreted my demand you prove your claims or shut the fuck up as a request for an opinion piece that "proves" the entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement that monsanto sues people over violating their contracts.
> 
> but youre not terribly intelligent so thats to be expected.
> 
> ...


fluoride is not poisonous when diluted to parts per million. might as well argue against water chlorination, despite all of its very positive benefits.

or do you like cholera?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 27, 2013)

To all the Pro-GM crowd, please eat GMO's to your hearts content... Obamacares on the way in so at least treatment won't cost so much when cancers eating the arse out of you or you're showing signs of chronic organ disease or allergies... As far as population control goes, this is a great test to see if you're worth keeping around.

Show me ONE document from the big 3 in the GM field that PROVES GMO's are safe for human consumption without adverse or unwanted side effects...

Not some bullshit Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta or their FDA lapdogs deem safe without any testing, review, independent auditing or oversight...


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> no. you interpreted my demand you prove your claims or shut the fuck up as a request for an opinion piece that "proves" the entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement that monsanto sues people over violating their contracts.
> 
> but youre not terribly intelligent so thats to be expected.
> 
> ...


Your skilled in debate, good for you, that doesnt make you right


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> To all the Pro-GM crowd, please eat GMO's to your hearts content... Obamacares on the way in so at least treatment won't cost so much when cancers eating the arse out of you or you're showing signs of chronic organ disease or allergies... As far as population control goes, this is a great test to see if you're worth keeping around.
> 
> Show me ONE document from the big 3 in the GM field that PROVES GMO's are safe for human consumption without adverse or unwanted side effects...
> 
> Not some bullshit Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta or their FDA lapdogs deem safe without any testing, review, independent auditing or oversight...


Give me evidence that they are harmful. 

You don't try disprove something without an indication it exists first. 

Put your thinking cap on next time.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Grandpapy said:


> DDT? Don't look at the headline, look at where they suspend the rules.
> 
> In Europe, the interaction of the phenomenon of "dying bees" with imidacloprid has been discussed for quite some time now.[SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP][SUP][54][/SUP] It was a study from the "Comité Scientifique et Technique (CST)" which was in the center of discussion, which led to a partial ban of imidacloprid in France. The imidacloprid pesticide Gaucho was banned, in 1999 by the French Minister of Agriculture Jean Glavany, primarily due to concern over potential effects on honey bees.[SUP][55][/SUP][SUP][56][/SUP][SUP][57][/SUP] Consequently when fipronil, a phenylpyrazole insecticide and in Europe mainly labeled "Regent", was used as a replacement, it was also found to be toxic to bees, and banned partially in France in 2004.[SUP][58][/SUP]
> In February 2007, about forty French deputies, led by UMP member Jacques Remiller, requested the creation of a Parliamentary Investigation Commission on Overmortality of Bees, underlining that honey production was decreasing by 1,000 tons a year for a decade. As of August 2007, no investigations were yet opened.[SUP][59][/SUP] Five other insecticides based on fipronil were also accused of killing bees. However, the scientific committees of the European Union are still of the opinion "that the available monitoring studies were mainly performed in France and EU-member-states should consider the relevance of these studies for the circumstances in their country".[SUP][60][/SUP]
> Around the same time French beekeepers succeeded in banning neonicotinoids, the Clinton administration permitted pesticides which were previously banned,[SUP][61][/SUP] including imidacloprid. In 2004, the Bush Administration reduced regulations further and pesticide applications increased.[SUP][62][/SUP][SUP][63][/SUP]


ohh what fresh hell is this? 

this is some new shit. it has no relation to your old shit. 

sorry bro, but this is the citation you provided, it has nothing to do with any of the shit youre talking about. 

i dont know where you found this NEW shit, but this NEW shit also doesnt have shit about the FDA unbanning a pesticide. the closest it comes is the stattement: "*Around the same time French beekeepers succeeded in banning neonicotinoids, the Clinton administration permitted pesticides which were previously banned,**[61] " *but inline citation [61][SUP][/SUP] goes right back to your old shit which makes no such claim. welcome to wikipedia. it's written by dolts who dont know what theyre talking about. 

i was in the pesticide game for more than a decade, and i cant think of a single case of the FDA or EPA unbanning a controlled use pesticide once they banned it. 

im not sayin youre lying, im saying show me which pesticide got unbanned and when. 








[h=2]RE-REGULATION OF PESTICIDES[/h] *Fall '96*
 
 "Without chemicals, so went the television commercial, life would be impossible. But some chemicals do more harm than good.

Some 850 million pounds of chemicals are used each year to produce the nation's food supply. These are pesticides, the chemicals that allow farmers to combat insects, weeds, rodents and mold that threaten their fruits and vegetables.


 Outside Links[SIZE=-1][HR][/HR] [HR][/HR] *HR1627: A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and for other purposes, signed into law, August 1996.* [HR][/HR] [/SIZE] Widespread use of pesticides began shortly after World War II. But in 1962, when Rachel Carson's _ *Silent Spring *_linked pesticides to problems with human health and the environment, Americans started to become more concerned about how their food was processed, and years of debate ensued. "Along with the possibility of the extinction of mankind by nuclear war," Carson wrote, "the central problem of our age has become the contamination of man's total environment with such substances -- substances that accumulate in the tissues of plants and animals and alter the very material of heredity upon which the shape of the future depends.'' 

 A decade later, one of the best known of these pesticides, DDT, was banned in the United States. As technology improved, it became easier to find minute traces of carcinogens in processed food. Since new traces were now constantly being discovered, the question soon became, how far should regulation attempt to go, before regulation became counter productive?
For two decades, Congress has tried to pass a bill to improve pesticides regulation, split between those who wanted the Environmental Protection Agency to speed up approval of pesticides, and those who were concerned that any change would threaten the public's health.
The 104th Congress finally rewrote a version of federal pesticide regulation that could satisfy itself and a president, and on August 3, 1996, President Clinton signed their efforts into law.
Although the measure does away with the Delaney Clause of the 1958 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act which prohibited processed foods with any trace of any chemical that was proven to cause cancer, it still imposes a very strict standard that many opponents had hoped would not pass. The new provision says the EPA must ensure that pesticide residues on both processed and raw food do not pose more than a one in a million chance of causing cancer. The EPA would have to review the standards within 10 years.
In addition, the EPA could set more stringent standards for foods that are eaten by children, who are more susceptible to pesticide poisoning. The agency will, nonetheless, be allowed to use its discretion to admit slightly higher pesticide residues, if to do otherwise would force certain fruits and vegetables off the market.
Moreover, the EPA will publish a pamphlet listing the advantages and disadvantages of pesticides, letting consumers know which foods had pesticide residue in excess of the new one in a million standard. The pamphlet will be available in supermarkets.
Other highlights:
CHILDREN: In addition to the EPA setting more stringent standards for foods that are eaten by children, the departments of Agriculture, and Health and Human Services were instructed to study children's eating habits and pesticide exposure.
STATES: The legislation prevents individual states from passing tougher pesticide regulations than the federal rules, unless a state petitions the EPA for permission and the EPA does not reject the application.
PESTICIDE REVIEW: The EPA was told to speed up the its review of pesticides used on fruits and vegetables. Generally, the agency would have one year to act on requests to use a particular pesticide. The EPA also would have to speed up the procedures for registering pesticides used for disinfecting and sanitizing.
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS:
The EPA's huge backlog on reviewing pesticides and recent court cases that threatened to force some common chemicals off the market, spurred Congress into final action. Aides to House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-VA), and Democrat Henry Waxman D-CA), a leading environmentalist, wrote a bill in mid-July behind closed doors.
The greatest bone of contention came over the Delaney Clause - Republicans wanted to impose more relaxed standards than did the Democrats. But since GOP lawmakers were anxious for an election year environmental bill, and lobbyists were just plain tired of fighting, the House, on July 23, unanimously passed the bill by an expedited procedure known as suspension of the rules.
The Senate passed the identical measure a day later without debate nor a dissenting vote." 



none of that shit is in your citation.
bring up even more DIFFERENT unrelated shit still leaves your initial claim of some particular pesticide being un-banned swinging in the breeze.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Your skilled in debate, good for you, that doesnt make you right


thats not debate skill, nor is it trickery it's how you make a claim and back it up. 

if you make a claim, and cannot back it up your claim is UNSUPPORTED. 

unsupported claims dont mean shit. 

if you want to make a claim that monsanto is plotting to steal your weed, or murder your cat, or touch your dick, all you gotta do is provide a little proof. 

when monsanto is the accused, you dont even need too much proof, since they really are bastards, but you need SOMETHING or your just pissing all over your giant floppy squeaky multicoloured shoes.


----------



## Grandpapy (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> ohh what fresh hell is this?
> 
> this is some new shit. it has no relation to your old shit.
> 
> ...


emm, yes. my first post #1168

I believe I stated it required "careful reading".


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

Grandpapy said:


> emm, yes. my first post #1168
> 
> I believe I stated it required "careful reading".


the wikipedia link features an inline citation (number 61) which goes to a PBS newshour story from 1996 which does not have any relation to the line it purports to be the source authority for. 

lets recap: *"Around the same time French beekeepers succeeded in banning neonicotinoids, the Clinton administration permitted pesticides which were previously banned,[61] "

*but [61] leads to: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/backgrounders/pesticides.html

which in no way supports the claim that the FDA (or the EPA even) has unbanned a pesticide EVER, but instead discusses a relaxing of the impossible pesticide residue standards which made all pesticide use on food crops impossible, and was never actually enforced since the regulations were idiotic. 

and still doesnt explain how the wiki-author gets "*the Clinton administration permitted pesticides which were previously banned"* from the citation listed. 

it just doesnt work. 

you may recall the Alar scare, when local news broadcasts were awash with "pesticide residue on our apples!!!" stories, which resulted in multiple scientific facepalms. 

the Alar residue was NOT NEW, but the testing methods which detected the residue were. Alar was a shockingly safe product, and the only way to get the levels of Alar required for their 5 per million lifetime cancer risk claims was to guzzle *5000 gallons *of apple juice a day. 

pesticides are not "poisons" like arsenic or hydrogen cyanide, farmers do not gas their crops with Zyklon B and the mad claims of the anti-GMO crowd are still just farts in a hurricane.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> thats not debate skill, nor is it trickery it's how you make a claim and back it up.
> 
> if you make a claim, and cannot back it up your claim is UNSUPPORTED.
> 
> ...


you supported your claim with a single dentist and an alarmist website. you had to stay away from the actual science of it because it turns out that when diluted to parts per million, fluoride is harmless. despite all your protestations.

that's what happens when you decide first and justify later, kynes. you get stuck defending these silly bircher conspiracies. aren't there any other groups that you can join who oppose multiculturalism and all the nasty shit that comes out of non-anglo cultures yet who don't espouse ridiculous commie conspiracy theories?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> fluoride is not poisonous when diluted to parts per million. might as well argue against water chlorination, despite all of its very positive benefits.
> 
> or do you like cholera?


even when diluted to the recommended 5 PPM, sodium fluoride is still toxic, because it's still sodium fluoride. at 5 ppm arsenic wont kill you, but at 5 ppm hydrogen cyanide sure will. both are still poisonous. 

if i piss in a swiming pool my piss is now highly dilute. but will you take a drink? it is after all still piss. and i eat a lot of asparagus.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> you supported your claim with a single dentist and an alarmist website. you had to stay away from the actual science of it because it turns out that when diluted to parts per million, fluoride is harmless. despite all your protestations.
> 
> that's what happens when you decide first and justify later, kynes. you get stuck defending these silly bircher conspiracies. aren't there any other groups that you can join who oppose multiculturalism and all the nasty shit that comes out of non-anglo cultures yet who don't espouse ridiculous commie conspiracy theories?









^^^

???


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> you supported your claim with a single dentist and an alarmist website. you had to stay away from the actual science of it because it turns out that when diluted to parts per million, fluoride is harmless. despite all your protestations.
> 
> that's what happens when you decide first and justify later, kynes. you get stuck defending these silly bircher conspiracies. aren't there any other groups that you can join who oppose multiculturalism and all the nasty shit that comes out of non-anglo cultures yet who don't espouse ridiculous commie conspiracy theories?


i didnt say i was winning he fluoride argument, but i am actually providing evidence for my claims. 

my claims and assertions regarding fluoride have SOME substance. and SOME is orders of magnitude better then NONE. 

also, its not just that one dentist, theres LOTS of dentists opposed to fluoridation, and the national kidney foundation has now gone from Pro-fluoride to Nuetral, which means in about 150 years maybe we might end this boondoggle. 

slow gradual change. and when fluoride is gone, you wont even miss it. unlike the right to keep and bear arms. we'll have sellers remorse on that issue within weeks of our submission.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> even when diluted to the recommended 5 PPM, sodium fluoride is still toxic, because it's still sodium fluoride. at 5 ppm arsenic wont kill you, but at 5 ppm hydrogen cyanide sure will. both are still poisonous.
> 
> if i piss in a swiming pool my piss is now highly dilute. but will you take a drink? it is after all still piss. and i eat a lot of asparagus.


oh noes!

fluoride! commies are coming to make us effeminate and gay and take us over!

fluoride is not poisonous when diluted to parts per million. the worst that can happen is fluorosis, which is the equivalent of taking a rough crap.*

oh noes! fluorosis! look how horrible (and rare) it is!







_*DAMN YOU COMMUNIST RUSSIA! LEAVE OUR TEETH ALONE AND STOP MAKING OUR BABIES GHAY AND MULTICULTURAL!*_


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i didnt say i was winning he fluoride argument, but i am actually providing evidence for my claims.
> 
> my claims and assertions regarding fluoride have SOME substance. and SOME is orders of magnitude better then NONE.
> 
> ...


yep, because water fluoridation and gun bans that no one is proposing is the same damn thing.

you have lost your goddamn mind, kynes.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> yep, because water fluoridation and gun bans that no one is proposing is the same damn thing.
> 
> you have lost your goddamn mind, kynes.


Lets not forget how the CIA engineered "the AIDs" to kill the gays and the blacks. 

Your tin-foil won't protect you now!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> yep, because water fluoridation and gun bans that no one is proposing is the same damn thing.
> 
> you have lost your goddamn mind, kynes.


and yet, the fluoride thing, and the "kynes is a bircher" bullshit are your pathetic strawmen. my choosing to indulge your pathology is entirely separate from your ignorant assumptions. 

you can call me a "bircher" all you like, your words disturb only the air, and while i dont particularly fancy fluoride in my water, i dont actually worry about it. 

these little games are your only recourse to distract and evade when confronted with facts, such as :

Sodium Fluoride has a *Lethal Dosage* of 5-10 grams. 
there is no known Lethal Dosage for BT corn, roundup ready tofu or Flav-R-Savr tomatoes. 

even that silly frenchman and his silly "experiment" with mice genetically engingeered to get cvancer was unable to determine a Lethal Dosage for roundup ready corn. 

he did however "prove" that spiking a mouse's water with Roundup will make it live longer and healtheir than mice denied the health benefits of Roundup, so thats something. 

*Monsanto. 
We Make The Things That Make Rodents Healthier. *


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> and yet, the fluoride thing, and the "kynes is a bircher" bullshit are your pathetic strawmen. my choosing to indulge your pathology is entirely separate from your ignorant assumptions.
> 
> you can call me a "bircher" all you like, your words disturb only the air, and while i dont particularly fancy fluoride in my water, i dont actually worry about it.
> 
> ...


not a distraction or evasion at all, it's an indictment of what you let pass for science. it's extremely selective.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> not a distraction or evasion at all, it's an indictment of what you let pass for science. it's extremely selective.


and the attempted distraction continues. 

despite your obvious inability to provide the Lethal Dose for roundup ready corn, and your inability to find any statement in which i declare myself a member of the John Birch Society you maintain the fiction. 

i am NOT a member of the John Birch Society, i have never been a member, and will never be a member. 

i have never espoused any of the claims the John Birch Society makes, nor have i ever cited their sources for any reason. 

just the fact that is am not a fan of fluoride (which many people oppose, not just the John Birch Society) and think multicutluralism is crap (which many other people also oppose, besides the John Birch Society) is not evidence that i secretly take my marching orders from the JBS website or whatever claim you come up with next. 

you are playing the same pointless ad hominem game that "newworldimbecile" indulges in when he calls me a "Zionist Piggie Jew" for darinng to hold a different opinion on israel, or "diverseasylum" "dnainmymouth" and that fat fuck "ninjablower" play at when they accuse me of being paid by monsanto. 

when you cant prove your own claims, distract with a new, and even more outrageous claim... 

drop your supreme knowledge on us master uncleduckfucker. whats the lethal dosage for GMO wheat? 

if you cant provide an answer, then go with ninjablower to the airport men's room and start working the glory hole. 

nobody want to answer your foot tapping in this giant public toilet of a thread.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> and the attempted distraction continues.
> 
> despite your obvious inability to provide the Lethal Dose for roundup ready corn, and your inability to find any statement in which i declare myself a member of the John Birch Society you maintain the fiction.
> 
> ...


Between 2 - 5% of the population can't eat any wheat...so theres that just to muddy the water for you guys further. 

Please tho, continue.


----------



## nitro harley (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> oh noes!
> 
> fluoride! commies are coming to make us effeminate and gay and take us over!
> 
> ...


I hope you went in and got that looked at..............nitro..


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i have never espoused any of the claims the John Birch Society makes, nor have i ever cited their sources for any reason.*


i never said GMOs were lethal, dipshit.

too bad you can't erase history, either. dumbass.



Dr Kynes said:


> *lets all run away from the facts and truths exposed by the John Birch Society, and the wisdom of their founders and leaders.* if we call them racist then we can burn them at the stake right? lets call them crazy too, then we can piss on the ashes! lets say they are conspiracy nuts, then we can put the piss soaked ashes into a lead lined urn and dispose of it with our spent nuclear fuel rods! Brilliant!
> 
> *the John Birch Society has the desire to defend REAL AMERICA from the multicultural wasteland of bullshit, limp dicked liberals, and mindless drones of the leftist establishment. *claiming the John Birch Society is made up of out of touch octogenarians with racist tendencies and a pathological fear of everything that they oppose is absolute crap. if the John Birch Society is wrong, then please explain:
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i never said GMOs were lethal, dipshit.
> 
> too bad you can't erase history, either. dumbass.


too bad that was all in response to your allegation that im a member of the john birch society (which is as untrue now as it was then) and none of those statements are an admission of membership (cuz i aint one) nor an invocation of their crazy theories. 

"they are not nazis" is not "i love them and believe all the shit they believe" 

just like "israel has the right to defend itself" does not equate to "im a zionist piggie jew who wants to murder every palestinian and steal their land" 

those statements above are still true, and your assertions that im a "bircher" are still 100% false. 

sorry dumbass. 

and you still havent provided the Lethal Dosage information for Starlink corn.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Give me evidence that they are harmful.
> 
> You don't try disprove something without an indication it exists first.
> 
> Put your thinking cap on next time.


Actually after reading through this thread, I do support GMO for those who are stupid enough to ingest it...

We need to get rid of the useless eaters and current control measures are not working fast enough...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> too bad that was all in response to your allegation that im a member of the john birch society (which is as untrue now as it was then) and none of those statements are an admission of membership (cuz i aint one) nor an invocation of their crazy theories.
> 
> "they are not nazis" is not "i love them and believe all the shit they believe"
> 
> ...


that little rant about your bircher buddies defending the "real america" was prompted by nothing. you love them. you may not be a member, but you're definitely a bircher.

kinda funny how you love them so much but refuse to admit it now. it's a pretty embarrassing group, i know.

and i never claimed that GMOs were lethal. if you can find the quote where i did, i will send you my billfold of worthless federal reserve notes (valued at $2,261) and all cannabis in my possession (unknown amount).

otherwise quit asking me to defend what i never asserted. that is a true strawman, not your whiny pussy protestations about how you totally don't love the birchers.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> that little rant about your bircher buddies defending the "real america" was prompted by nothing. you love them. you may not be a member, but you're definitely a bircher.
> 
> kinda funny how you love them so much but refuse to admit it now. it's a pretty embarrassing group, i know.
> 
> ...


and yet... 

you have asserted that GMO's should be banned, yet anyone who proposes removing the fluoride from our water supply is CAAARAAAZY!

you established the corollary that those opposing fluoride should also oppose GMO's so one would expect the opposite to be true. 

ahh but it aint. 

universally recognized poison in the water supply = good
despite no evidence of hazard, gmo food = evil. 

what conclusion are we to draw other than GMO's must be MORE toxic than sodium fluoride. 

also, youre half right, that particular comment above, was not a response to you calling me a "bircher" (that time) but it was in a thread about the JBS, and thus not "prompted by nothing".


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i never said GMOs were lethal, dipshit.
> 
> too bad you can't erase history, either. dumbass.


Kynes must be a farmer or come from a strong farming background... His post on the Birchers is fucking hilarious...

Does he really hold those views on Kissinger, Rockerfellers and just happened to forget the Rothchilds?

Talk about being in denial...


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Actually after reading through this thread, I do support GMO for those who are stupid enough to ingest it...
> 
> We need to get rid of the useless eaters and current control measures are not working fast enough...


Iv heard gays are 44x more likely to contract HIV and subsequently AIDs. 

Ban "the gay" and save lives!

See the logic?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Iv heard gays are 44x more likely to contract HIV and subsequently AIDs.
> 
> Ban "the gay" and save lives!
> 
> See the logic?


So misinformed...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> and yet...
> 
> you have asserted that GMO's should be banned....


lolwut?

same offer. you find the quote where i claim this, you get the billfold of federal reserve notes and my unknown amount of top shelf cannabis.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

the most i have claimed is that GMOs should be labeled clearly so consumers can make informed decisions and subsidies should go to small, organic farmers more so than large scale, mechanized, production farmers.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Kynes must be a farmer or come from a strong farming background... His post on the Birchers is fucking hilarious...
> 
> Does he really hold those views on Kissinger, Rockerfellers and just happened to forget the Rothchilds?
> 
> Talk about being in denial...


it was a palinesque rant in full throated defense of "THE REAL AMERICA!" from the rest of us (non) anglo americans living high on the hog in our cities, sending our kids to school with children of other skin tones, and not solving every problem we have by making tender, delicate love to our sisters.

the south exists in california, it's called the entire central valley. there is an idaho in california, too. it's called "the mythical state of jefferson" (but seriously, they think jefferson, the very northern part of CA, is its own sovereign state. kinda LOL and cute all at once).


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> So misinformed...


Well if you can post even one link to a journal article even implying GM food MIGHT be dangerous and I'll agree with your assertion. 

Until then, shut the fuck up Crocodile Dundee.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Well if you can post even one link to a journal article even implying GM food MIGHT be dangerous and I'll agree with your assertion.
> 
> Until then, shut the fuck up Crocodile Dundee.


I have untill then have another guiness you drunk fukin mick...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Kynes must be a farmer or come from a strong farming background... His post on the Birchers is fucking hilarious...
> 
> Does he really hold those views on Kissinger, Rockerfellers and just happened to forget the Rothchilds?
> 
> Talk about being in denial...


the rothchilds are europeans, they dont have their descenants in congress like the rockerfellers, and they havent been striding around the whitehouse like they own the joint for 50 years like kissinger. 

if i have to list all the dickheads on the planet ill never get done, and youll once again TL,DSMB (Too Long, and a Dingo Stole My Baby) at me. 

fuck, i mentioned the trilateral commission, the council on foreign relations aand the bilderbergers, that pretty much covers the rothschilds, and my hate for the fedral reserve cartel is well established. 

i just dont mention the rothschilds too often, cuz im a zionist piggie jew, and i dont like to defame the chosen people in public.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> it was a palinesque rant in full throated defense of "THE REAL AMERICA!" from the rest of us (non) anglo americans living high on the hog in our cities, sending our kids to school with children of other skin tones, and not solving every problem we have by making tender, delicate love to our sisters.
> 
> the south exists in california, it's called the entire central valley. there is an idaho in california, too. it's called "the mythical state of jefferson" (but seriously, they think jefferson, the very northern part of CA, is its own sovereign state. kinda LOL and cute all at once).


protip: im not at all "anglo"

the angles were germanic raiders and invaders who established dominance in what is now "england" (land of the angles) displacing the previous inahbitants the saxons (germanis raiders and invaders) who displaced the Britains who used to live there. 

the angles held dominance for quite some time in the areas of eastern Britain currently labeled "________ Anglia" while the saxons retained nominal control in the western portions of southern britain. 

the angles were eventually displaced by the Normans (germanic raiders and invaders). 

thats why english is so grammatically close to german today, and many of our words have germanic roots.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> I have untill then have another guiness you drunk fukin mick...


Well post it up then, Penal-Colony Descendant.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> the rothchilds are europeans, they dont have their descenants in congress like the rockerfellers, and they havent been striding around the whitehouse like they own the joint for 50 years like kissinger.
> 
> if i have to list all the dickheads on the planet ill never get done, and youll once again TL,DSMB (Too Long, and a Dingo Stole My Baby) at me.
> 
> ...


JP Morgan is the US front for the Rothchilds dumbass...

You make connections between the elitists but don't realise they're the same one's pushing GMO's - how fucking stupid are you????

The same one's behind the "green farming revolution", population control, political assasinations & regieme change - and as you should very well know that's just the tip of the iceberg....

Kissinger got some great ideas on population control & how to use food as a weapon too... He articulates the point very well when addressing bilderberg...

But you're obviously one piss poor farmer if you can't connect the dots and realise you serve them too...


----------



## potpimp (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> ...we rub our dicks on your "organic" vegetables before we truck em up to the safeway.


 I knew it! You and ginsuwarrior are Mexican migrant workers. ...with a food sex fetish.


----------



## Figong (Jan 27, 2013)

Any have a genetics lab handy for some independent testing?


----------



## potpimp (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> fuck, i mentioned the trilateral commission, the council on foreign relations aand the bilderbergers, that pretty much covers the rothschilds, and my hate for the fedral reserve cartel is well established.


Damn... I'm tempted to rep you for this. Todah for that.



Dr Kynes said:


> i just dont mention the rothschilds too often, cuz im a zionist piggie jew, and i dont like to defame the chosen people in public.


Oy vey! All families have black sheep. I don't think they are observant but I'll ask the Rebbe.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 27, 2013)

potpimp said:


> Damn... I'm tempted to rep you for this. Todah for that.


He admits they exist and are at work, but they got nothing to do with GMOs... The bilderbergs will not touch our food supply...

WTF????


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> He admits they exist and are at work, but they got nothing to do with GMOs... The bilderbergs will not touch our food supply...
> 
> WTF????


Still waiting on those links that prove the sky is falling, Chicken Little.


----------



## potpimp (Jan 27, 2013)

I know. At least now I understand why he's so passionate. Global control of food is a must for global domination and that will happen. A lot of very bad things have to happen and this is just one of them.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Still waiting on those links that prove the sky is falling, Chicken Little.


I know you lack education over in the *UK *but i'm not doing your research for you.

As I've stated, if you believe GMO is healthy eat it all you want... The ones that are worth saving want the useless eaters gone...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

and now we devolve into wild conspiracy theories.


----------



## potpimp (Jan 27, 2013)

I bet Uncle Buck has Jesse Ventura's first season on DVD.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 27, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> I know you lack education over in the *UK *but i'm not doing your research for you.
> 
> As I've stated, if you believe GMO is healthy eat it all you want... The ones that are worth saving want the useless eaters gone...


In other words, you ain't got shit. 

Thanks for playing, loser.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 27, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> and now we devolve into wild conspiracy theories.


JFK, RFK, MLK would probably disagree... if they could...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 27, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> JFK, RFK, MLK would probably disagree... if they could...


they.

THEY!

_*THEY!!!*_


----------



## potpimp (Jan 27, 2013)

I know who killed JFK.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

THIS JUST IN !!! .....polls showing the undecided vote at 7% of members, pro monsanto genetically engineered squats at 17% +\- employees of monsanto gracing us with their presence, and a resounding 76% of real RIU members vote against any gene tampering or mass production with sub standard quality control. 
Well I think that ends this arguement...ahem.. Can you say GTFO??WE WIN!!!!! 
Bye, bye loouoo..sa..eers !!


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> protip: im not at all "anglo"
> 
> the angles were germanic raiders and invaders who established dominance in what is now "england" (land of the angles) displacing the previous inahbitants the saxons (germanis raiders and invaders) who displaced the Britains who used to live there.
> 
> ...


It sounds like you have the voice of four, or am i mistaken? Theres alway multiple answers to questions with you. How many employees are helping you to win this debate monsanto hitler? 
Let them know i think they are doing a swell job, im just wondering whos turn it is to grab coffee?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i guess i just have to take their word for it. would be kind of silly of them to grow GMO crops in non-GMO fashion. it's be like paying the hooker first and skipping out on the sex.
> 
> not gonna watch any videos. i'll tell you what i told the rawn pawl people: use your words.


you saying you knew what GMO food tastes like but there is no labeling saying its GMO

im not asking how you knew if something WASNT GMO

I wonder how you know something was?

"my garden peas taste better than GMO"

and what on earth is growing in a non-gmo fashion? extra pesticides and extra fertilizers ?


and as to the video it showed 2 experiments

1st expermient they went to KFC bought chicken coleslaw sweetcorn and a couple of other items

they then stripped it down and made it into a soup and served it to people in a "bistro" setting and asked them what sort of quality/ how nutritious they thought the food was with a 1 being a fast food level and 10 being gourmet

the answers went from a 7 to 10 for everyone that ate it with comments like "you'd never get food like this in a fast food place"


the second experiment they had 2 groups of people eat exactly the same salad from Taco bell

the first group was told it came from taco bell the second group was told it came from a fancy restaurant

the first group commented that the salad was greasy and not so healthy but when asked they actually guessed the calorific content pretty well
the second group who thought it was from a fancy restaurant thought it was a very good salad and that it was incredibly healthy yet when they guessed the calories they were all well short of the real amount


now you can claim that your body can tell the difference between GMO and organic BUT you are only fooling yourself and coming across as pretty pompous in the process


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 28, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> THIS JUST IN !!! .....polls showing the undecided vote at 7% of members, pro monsanto genetically engineered squats at 17% +\- employees of monsanto gracing us with their presence, and a resounding 76% of real RIU members vote against any gene tampering or mass production with sub standard quality control.
> Well I think that ends this arguement...ahem.. Can you say GTFO??WE WIN!!!!!
> Bye, bye loouoo..sa..eers !!


Actually, your poll indicates people have no preference for Monsanto Cannabis (which they dont even make), it has nothing whatsoever to do with the retarded Bill posted with it. 

The only thing you're winning at is being a total whackjob loser. 

Stick that and the poll straight up your candy ass (you might enjoy the latter item in that context tho).


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> you saying you knew what GMO food tastes like but there is no labeling saying its GMO
> 
> im not asking how you knew if something WASNT GMO
> 
> ...


no offense, but you're asking some pretty stupid questions, and only a little bit is my fault.

i buy my peas from the same place i buy strawberries and stop in often for humanely raised, grass fed beef (with gluten free and lactose free options for the wife) at the diner on the same corner (they hook it up!).

it is at the intersection of river road and farmington, just southwest of the cruise in diner. peas are grown alongside the strawberries, and i guarantee they are not GMO.*

how do i know if something IS gmo? pretty easy. i look to see if any number of corn derived ingredients are added to the food. if there is anything like HFCS, i just go ahead and assume right there that it was derived from GMO corn and know that 90-99% of the time my assumption is correct.

i absolutely know the difference between those peas and my peas versus a package of peas from the store with some sort of preservative or GMO derived additive. i can taste it and i can feel it after.



ginjawarrior said:


> and as to the video it showed 2 experiments
> 
> 1st expermient they went to KFC bought chicken coleslaw sweetcorn and a couple of other items
> 
> ...


if you've ever seen portlandia, you know that my wife and i are a little more careful about what we eat. i have been on a personal vendetta for the better part of a year to give as little of my money as possible to GMO producers. it is inevitable that we sometimes eat at restaurants that use products derived from GMOs and we often have no choice but to buy a coke or stop in to mcdonalds or the like for something to eat.

tricked we may often be, but conscious of what we are eating we always are. and sometimes we just go ahead and give in to the inevitable new wave that is the GMO, mass produced, inhumanely raised, uncaringly packaged and processed CRAP.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 28, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Actually, your poll indicates people have no preference for Monsanto Cannabis (which they dont even make), it has nothing whatsoever to do with the retarded Bill posted with it.
> 
> The only thing you're winning at is being a total whackjob loser.
> 
> Stick that and the poll straight up your candy ass (you might enjoy the latter item in that context tho).


Wwwwwwrong again hitlers foot soldier!!! We dont want any GM weed, or GM anything!!! Theres a reason your side lost the poll, this is a site full of farmers....and we dont want anybody feking with our plants!!! So pack up your soap box and GTFO because nobody cares how loud you are...you lost...do you think kicking this dead horse is going to get you some more votes on the poll? I doubt it, your just going to make yourself look like sore losers. I feel bad for you guys, someone has to lose, i guess that would be your side.....right?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

desertdouche once said to me some anecdote about "the pig who squeals the loudest" in relation to my objection to pennsylvania voter ID laws which were later rendered unconstitutional.

my main exposure to GMO first came from squealing stoners in this website. shortly after, i noticed a barrage of ads on TV about HFCS being so awesome and natural, and thought to myself that they were squealing louder.

after looking into it more, i was surprised to learn about just how much our food supply has changed in the last 50~ years or so. our diets have completely changed. and GMO is often synonymous with this change in our food supply. and those who defend it squeal the loudest.

there is no way to know what this change in the food supply will do to us. i do know that altering the diet of feed cows onto GMO feed instead of their natural supply of grass means that they would die anyway if we did not harvest their beef once fattened.

don't even get me started on what these large scale practices synonymous with GMOs means for our chicken friends. i urge you not to google cal cruz hatcheries if you wish to remain unattached from what your consumption habits may mean.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> JP Morgan is the US front for the Rothchilds dumbass...
> 
> You make connections between the elitists but don't realise they're the same one's pushing GMO's - how fucking stupid are you????
> 
> ...


the morgans are not fronts for the rothchilds. 

thats aluminium foil hat nonsense. the morgan cartel and the rothchild cartel naturally have some crossover, but so do Ford and General Motors. 

giant organizations working in the same business are part of a very small and exclusive club, and their top level (and low to mediaum level as well) employees change regularly

even in a cuthroat business like military aviation, if you select random memebrs from the boards of Boeing, Northrup, and Ratheon and put em in a room, youll find they've probably already met. 

dont be a dipshit (i know thats real hard for you) the international banking community is not run by evil jews lurking in the shadows, in fact some of the biggest players in the banking industry are CHINESE, and i can assure you those guys are not gonna be popping by my house for Purim. 

im not gonna throw out the charge of racism, cuz thats too easy, what im gonna do is throw out the charge that youre intellectually lazy, and simply accept the claims of any slack-jawed dimwit who makes a charge you find consistent with your world-view. 

your world-view just happens to be centered around the notion that jews are the source of all troubles. and thats not racist, is actually just pathetic.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 28, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> It sounds like you have the voice of four, or am i mistaken? *Theres alway multiple answers to questions with you.* How many employees are helping you to win this debate monsanto hitler?
> Let them know i think they are doing a swell job, im just wondering whos turn it is to grab coffee?


thats not "multiple answers". thats a fucking timeline you fat ignorant lump of jelly. 

Britains lived in britain (amazing) till they got conquored and dominated by the Saxons (germanic invaders) who then lost half of Britain to the Angles (germanic invaders) wh then BOTH (saxons and angles) lost ALL their shit to the Normans (germanic invaders) who retained ownership of the land to this day. 

thats why the royal family of England is German, rather than British. 
*
"The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of his family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I."* ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor

ohh shit son. thats ONE thing, not 4 things. 

watch more sesame street. you didnt catch the complex bits the first time around.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> the morgans are not fronts for the rothchilds.
> 
> thats aluminium foil hat nonsense. the morgan cartel and the rothchild cartel naturally have some crossover, but so do Ford and General Motors.
> 
> ...


seriously you make me laugh... your pathetic little rants are sooooooo predictable.... do you have a template set out that makes replying quicker? really, how many times do you want to use the same old JDL principles... I mention the rothchilds along with some other very prominent families and you go getting a major case of vaginitis... 

I've never even implied, let alone said, jews are the source of the world's trouble. That's just the retarded "iron dome" of your mind intercepting realities you choose to ignore. It's served as your only defence thus far why stop... As the saying goes ignorance is bliss...

But don't worry because the trilateral commission, the council on foreign relations and the bildeberger group would never ever touch our food supply, in any way shape or form, unless of course it's benficial to the populaces....


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> thats not "multiple answers". thats a fucking timeline you fat ignorant lump of jelly.
> 
> Britains lived in britain (amazing) till they got conquored and dominated by the Saxons (germanic invaders) who then lost half of Britain to the Angles (germanic invaders) wh then BOTH (saxons and angles) lost ALL their shit to the Normans (germanic invaders) who retained ownership of the land to this day.
> 
> ...


does this post relate to anything, or whats going on with all this?? Are you playin the crazy card now? This has nothing to do with the thread, you lost, your smart, but ya lost. Sucks dude but ya gotta deal with it one day. The numbers dont lie, ya lost........and im not fat


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> seriously you make me laugh... your pathetic little rants are sooooooo predictable.... do you have a template set out that makes replying quicker? really, how many times do you want to use the same old JDL principles... I mention the rothchilds along with some other very prominent families and you go getting a major case of vaginitis...
> 
> I've never even implied, let alone said, jews are the source of the world's trouble. That's just the retarded "iron dome" of your mind intercepting realities you choose to ignore. It's served as your only defence thus far why stop... As the saying goes ignorance is bliss...
> 
> But don't worry because the trilateral commission, the council on foreign relations and the bildeberger group would never ever touch our food supply, in any way shape or form, unless of course it's benficial to the populaces....


so, lets break this down.

i dont like the CFR beldebergers, trilateral commission, or the federal reserve, this results in your bizarre nonsequitor rant against the Rothschilds. 

i retort that i dont throw out the rothchilds because throwing stones at assholes who happen to be jews usually winds up being about jews in general. 

and this prompts even MORE non-sequitors in which you claim the Morgan group is secretly backed by the Rothschilds (which is untrue) 

and now you are calling me a JDL stooge. 

really is there anything in the world that DOESNT lead back to "Jews R Evil" in your sad little mind? 

JP Morgan was a dick. all dicks are NOT secretly the servants of some nefarious jewish conspiracy. 
everyone who thinks youre an idiot for going to the Jew well so damned often is not a member of Mossad, or an employee of the Simon Wiesenthal center. 
Maybe when so many people call you a nutcase when you start screaming about jews, they might be on to something. 
Maybe its really not a plot to make you look crazy. 
Maybe your propensity to BLAME THE JEW really is crazy.

nahh that cant be it. 
Israeli intelligence has a whole department dedicated to making you sound like a fool when you start throwing out JEWS at every opportunity. 
i know, because im the section chief. we have an awesome budget of stolen american aid money that was supposed to go to palestinians, and we use it all to stalk you. 

Nobody else, Just you. 

Mozzeltov.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 28, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> does this post relate to anything, or whats going on with all this?? Are you playin the crazy card now? This has nothing to do with the thread, you lost, your smart, but ya lost. Sucks dude but ya gotta deal with it one day. The numbers dont lie, ya lost........and im not fat


yes tubby. it relates to bucky's belief that "anglo" is synonymous with "white" when in fact he is wrong as fuck, since the Angles are a single group of germans (among many) who have occupied britain in the past. 

thats why it was headed up with the "Protip:" label. 

"Prottip:" indicates an aside, a minor correction of a factual error or a mistaken assumption which is not germane to the over-arching discussion. 

for example:

Protip: using half a dozen smileys in every post does not improve the impact of your argument. Thats why when preparing a resume, a legal breif or a business proposal, dotting your I's with little hearts and signing with "XOXOXO" or a doddle of Hello Kitty doesnt get results.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> no offense, but you're asking some pretty stupid questions, and only a little bit is my fault.
> 
> i buy my peas from the same place i buy strawberries and stop in often for humanely raised, grass fed beef (with gluten free and lactose free options for the wife) at the diner on the same corner (they hook it up!).
> 
> ...


you made the statement that you could taste the difference between GMO and not GMO

i had assumed you were doing it on a honest level by comparing like for like but was wondering how you knew it was GMO you were eating in the first place

now it seems with with the bolded comment what your actually doing is comparing farm fresh home cooked meals with processed food 

thus conflating GMO with industrial cooking

rather dishonest dont you think?

and the question of what is the GMO style of farming might seem weird to you but to me the idea that gmo by necessity is farmed differently to a level where to any observer it should be obvious is plain ridicules 




> if you've ever seen portlandia, you know that my wife and i are a little more careful about what we eat. i have been on a personal vendetta for the better part of a year to give as little of my money as possible to GMO producers. it is inevitable that we sometimes eat at restaurants that use products derived from GMOs and we often have no choice but to buy a coke or stop in to mcdonalds or the like for something to eat.
> 
> tricked we may often be, but conscious of what we are eating we always are. and sometimes we just go ahead and give in to the inevitable new wave that is the GMO, mass produced, inhumanely raised, uncaringly packaged and processed CRAP.


i have never seen portlandia but i do not think i need to get a good idea about what you are talking about

but even if you travled to the ends of the earth to buy the highest quality vegetables harvested on a full moon by naked priestesses of the temple of gaia and purchased on platers of the purest the only difference in the nutrients make up in the plant is that which is boosted by your own smug factor and it would never be something your body could tell the difference


seriously if you really think your body has these powers theres a million dollar prize offered for skills such as these 

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so, lets break this down.
> 
> i dont like the CFR beldebergers, trilateral commission, or the federal reserve, this results in your bizarre nonsequitor rant against the Rothschilds.
> 
> ...


If you can't make the connections between the Rothchilds and the institution's you've mentioned, then you've got no idea. Honestly you're rants are so dismally lacking in any aspect of cohesion or common sense many times I just laugh when reading you're posts as they're tainted with arrogance and egocentrism. 

We all know when you're small little mind is in a bind and unable to process, as you immediately start in with the "jewish conspiracy" bullshit then, throw in some hitler references - anything to avoid staying on topic or addressing the hypocritical, ignorant viewpoints you parrot as absolute truth...

In fact, you&#8217;re the only person in this section that brings up an alledged &#8220;jewish conspiracy&#8221; ad nauseam... 

Show me where I parrot the jewish bullshit you accuse me of? - otherwise it's just another delusional, crack induced fallacy you're famous for.

And please, mossad is staffed by professionals, not JDL wannabes. I doubt you&#8217;d pass the psychological screen for the later, let alone the first...


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 28, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Wwwwwwrong again hitlers foot soldier!!! We dont want any GM weed, or GM anything!!! Theres a reason your side lost the poll, this is a site full of farmers....and we dont want anybody feking with our plants!!! So pack up your soap box and GTFO because nobody cares how loud you are...you lost...do you think kicking this dead horse is going to get you some more votes on the poll? I doubt it, your just going to make yourself look like sore losers. I feel bad for you guys, someone has to lose, i guess that would be your side.....right?


Lol, so you're construing the results of the poll like that?

You're actually SO stupid, Im considering you as the first person Iv ever put on ignore for fear that I might catch whatever brain disease you clearly have.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i dont like the CFR beldebergers, trilateral commission, or the federal reserve, this results in your bizarre nonsequitor rant against the Rothschilds.


Just to address your misconception of an alledged "nonsequitor" - the rothschilds rightly hold their place with the families and institutions previously mentioned.

Global Power and Global Government: Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System Part One

Origins of the American Empire: Revolution, World Wars and World Order - Global Power and Global Government: Part 2

Next time, don't be a poor consumer of information


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> desertdouche once said to me some anecdote about "the pig who squeals the loudest" in relation to my objection to pennsylvania voter ID laws which were later rendered unconstitutional.
> 
> my main exposure to GMO first came from squealing stoners in this website. shortly after, i noticed a barrage of ads on TV about HFCS being so awesome and natural, and thought to myself that they were squealing louder.
> 
> ...


need some sprinkles for that pile of sanctimony? you pious wanker


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Just to address your misconception of an alledged "nonsequitor" - the rothschilds rightly hold their place with the families and institutions previously mentioned.
> 
> Global Power and Global Government: Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System Part One
> 
> ...


lol this coming from a TWOOFER is hilarious


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 28, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Lol, so you're construing the results of the poll like that?
> 
> You're actually SO stupid, Im considering you as the first person Iv ever put on ignore for fear that I might catch whatever brain disease you clearly have.


Hey foot soldier, can my pumpkins vote for NO GMO too? I think theyd vote NO GMO!! And for the record, the poll states that that we dont want genetic engineering or people like you, monsanto hitler, and his SS of GM food pushing nazi douchbags on our site. We want Quality over Quantity  We want our craft to stay in our gardens and out of philip morris fields, after all, we havent needed to do anything more than whats being done now to stay buzzin  heres a picture of my non GMO pumpkins for you monsanto nazis
SAY NO TO GMO! AND SAY YES TO LIFE!


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> lol this coming from a TWOOFER is hilarious


Ohh the butt-hurt...Squeal piggy squeal!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Squeal piggy squeal!


and thats the best you got?

its no wonder why you fall for stupid conspiracies


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> and thats the best you got?
> 
> its no wonder why you fall for stupid conspiracies


Oh thats right your government owns and controls the FED try again


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> you made the statement that you could taste the difference between GMO and not GMO


YES you can taste the difference... Can you even tell the difference?

Please pick which tomatoe is GM and which is not...




Oh and FYI it's not the beer can...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> YES you can taste the difference... Can you even tell the difference?
> 
> Please pick which tomatoe is GM and which is not...
> 
> ...


its a trick question its neither as gmo tomatoes are neither grown or sold in austrailia 



> Currently, the only genetically modified food crops produced in Australia are canola and cotton, but a variety of other GM foods can be imported and used as an ingredient in packaged foods.





> *IMPORTED GM FOODS *
> Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), allows manufacturers to use a wide range of GM food ingredients imported from overseas. These include specific GM varieties of soybeans, corn, rice, potatoes and sugarbeet.


http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1216977/Factbox-GM-foods-in-Australia


i must say congratulations for proving to us that your fears are completely irrational


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 28, 2013)

This thread will eventually devolve into a pig roast and these GMO lovers are going to be the pig


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> YES you can taste the difference... Can you even tell the difference?
> 
> Please pick which tomatoe is GM and which is not...
> 
> ...


gross, look at that wax covered ball of water


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> its a trick question its neither as gmo tomatoes are neither grown or sold in austrailia
> 
> i must say congratulations for proving to us that your fears are completely irrational


Just had to prove a point with the stupids... Just like implying an individuals body cannot tell the difference between GM & non GM.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 28, 2013)

The danger of GMO's


The question of whether or not genetically modified foods (GMO's) are safe for human consumption is an ongoing debate that does not seem to see any resolution except in the arena of public opinion. Due to lack of labeling, Americans are still left at a loss as to whether or not what is on the table is genetically modified. This lack of information makes the avoiding and tracking of GM foods an exercise in futility. Below are just some of the food products popularly identified to be genetically modified:


1. Corn - Corn has been modified to create its own insecticide. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that tons of genetically modified corn has been introduced for human consumption. Monsanto has revealed that half of the US's sweet corn farms are planted with genetically modified seed. Mice fed with GM corn were discovered to have smaller offspring and fertility problems.


2. Soy - Soy has also been genetically modified to resist herbicides. Soy products include soy flour, tofu, soy beverages, soybean oil and other products that may include pastries, baked products and edible oil. Hamsters fed with GM soy were unable to have offspring and suffered a high mortality rate.


3. Cotton - Like corn and soy, cotton has been designed to resist pesticides. It is considered food because its oil can be consumed. Its introduction in Chinese agriculture has produced a chemical that kills cotton bollworm, reducing the incidences of pests not only in cotton crops but also in neighboring fields of soybeans and corn. Incidentally, thousands of Indian farmers suffered severe rashes upon exposure to BT cotton.


4. Papaya - The virus-resistant variety of papaya was commercially introduced in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas comprised three-fourths of the total Hawaiian papaya crop. Monsanto bestowed upon Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Coimbatore technology for developing papaya resistant to the ringspot virus in India.


5. Rice - This staple food from South East Asia has now been genetically modified to contain a high amount of vitamin A. Allegedly, there are reports of rice varieties containing human genes to be grown in the US. The rice will create human proteins useful for dealing with infant diarrhea in the 3rd world. China Daily, an online journal, reported potential serious public health and environment problems with genetically modified rice considering its tendency to cause allergic reactions with the concurrent possibility of gene transfers.


6. Tomatoes - Tomatoes have now been genetically engineered for longer shelf life, preventing them from easily rotting and degrading. In a test conducted to determine the safety of GM tomatoes, some animal subjects died within a few weeks after consuming GM tomatoes.


7. Rapeseed - In Canada, this crop was renamed canola to differentiate it from non-edible rapeseed. Food stuff produced from rapeseed includes rapeseed oi (canola oil) l used to process cooking oil and margarine. Honey can also be produced from GM rapeseed. German food surveillance authorities discovered as much as a third of the total pollen present in Canadian honey may be from GM pollen. In fact, some honey products from Canada were also discovered to have pollen from GM rapeseed.


8. Dairy products - It has been discovered that 22 percent of cows in the U.S. were injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH). This Monsanto created hormone artificially forces cows to increase their milk production by 15 percent. Milk from cows treated with this milk inducing hormone contains increased levels of IGF-1 (insulin growth factors-1). Humans also have IGF-1 in their system. Scientists have expressed concerns that increased levels of IGF-1 in humans have been associated with colon and breast cancer.


9. Potatoes - Mice fed with potatoes engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki Cry 1 were found to have toxins in their system. Despite claims to the contrary, this shows that Cry1 toxin was stable in the mouse gut. When the health risks were revealed, it sparked a debate.


10. Peas - Peas that have been genetically modified have been found to cause immune responses in mice and possibly even in humans. A gene from kidney beans was inserted into the peas creating a protein that functions as a pesticide.


The GMO link to strange disease


As early as 2008, NaturalNews.com reported about a condition called Morgellon's disease. The article went on to report the symptoms of the disease as follows: crawling, stinging, biting and crawling sensations; threads or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; granules, lesions. Some patients report fatigue, short term memory loss, mental confusion, joint pain and changes in vision. Furthermore, there have been reports of substantial morbidity and social dysfunction leading to a dip in work productivity, job loss, total disability, divorce, loss of child custody and home abandonment.


Prior to its reporting, the condition was dismissed as a hoax, but upon further investigation, the evidence pointed out that the disease was real and may be related to genetically modified food.


Despite this link being established, the CDC declared Morgellon's disease of unknown origin. Worse, the medical community could not offer any information to the public regarding a cause for the symptoms.


When a research study was conducted on fiber samples taken from Morgellons patients, it was discovered that the fiber samples of all the patients looked remarkable similar. And yet, it did not seem to match any common environmental fiber. When the fiber was broken down, and it's DNA extracted, it was discovered to belong to a fungus. Even more surprising was the finding that the fibers contained Agrobacterium, a genus gram-negative bacteria with the capacity of transforming plant, animal and even human cells.


Morgellon's disease is not the only condition associated with genetically modified foods. A growing body of evidence has shown that it may cause allergies, immune reactions, liver problems, sterility and even death. Moreover, based on the only human feeding experiment conducted on genetically modified food, it was established that genetic material in genetically modified food product can transfer into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and still continue to thrive.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035734_GMOs_foods_dangers.html#ixzz2JIPQuPFg


----------



## VILEPLUME (Jan 28, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

If you don't know who this guy is, start reading. He saved a billion people, yes a "billion" people!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Just had to prove a point with the stupids... *Just like implying an individuals body cannot tell the difference between GM & non GM.*


ahh doubling down on dumb i see 

you just showed that you could not tell that those tomatoes were gmo or not

and i would love to hear the mechanism the body possess that allows it to tell the different between 2 nutritionally identical items


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> The danger of GMO's
> 
> 
> The question of whether or not genetically modified foods (GMO's) are safe for human consumption is an ongoing debate that does not seem to see any resolution except in the arena of public opinion. Due to lack of labeling, Americans are still left at a loss as to whether or not what is on the table is genetically modified. This lack of information makes the avoiding and tracking of GM foods an exercise in futility. Below are just some of the food products popularly identified to be genetically modified:
> ...


my god just when i thought this thread couldnt be any more dumb someone has to bring morgellons into it

the disease of crazy people getting fluff from their clothes in wounds

bravo sir very entertaining


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> ahh doubling down on dumb i see
> 
> you just showed that you could not tell that those tomatoes were gmo or not
> 
> and i would love to hear the mechanism the body possess that allows it to tell the different between 2 nutritionally identical items


OGTR regulates gmos in aus not FSANZ or SBS. I know people that cannot eat GM corn as they break out in mild rashes and just general itchiness. Only GM corn does this to them.

Obviously your suffering from cell division dysfunction - layoff the GMOs


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> OGTR regulates gmos in aus not FSANZ or SBS. I know people that cannot eat GM corn as they break out in mild rashes and just general itchiness. Only GM corn does this to them.
> 
> Obviously your suffering from cell division dysfunction - layoff the GMOs


are you on a mission to see how many things you can get wrong in one day?
*

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/gmcurrentapplication1030.cfm



Applications and current status

Click to expand...

*


> (June 2012)
> All applications for genetically modified food must be assessed on a case-by-case basis by FSANZ. The assessment report for each application is available by clicking on the link below.


http://www.ogtr.gov.au/


> [h=1]Office of the Gene Technology Regulator[/h] The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator has been established within the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing *to provide administrative support* to the Gene Technology Regulator in the performance of his functions under the _Gene Technology Act 2000_.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 28, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Hey foot soldier, can my pumpkins vote for NO GMO too? I think theyd vote NO GMO!! And for the record, the poll states that that we dont want genetic engineering or people like you, monsanto hitler, and his SS of GM food pushing nazi douchbags on our site. We want Quality over Quantity  We want our craft to stay in our gardens and out of philip morris fields, after all, we havent needed to do anything more than whats being done now to stay buzzin  heres a picture of my non GMO pumpkins for you monsanto nazis
> SAY NO TO GMO! AND SAY YES TO LIFE!


I grow my own food in the summer, I don't grow GM because it more expensive and unnecessary for my purposes. 

I don't however feel the need to try decide what other people will grow.

I also have the option in the shop to buy GM or non-GM food and have preference nor dislike for neither. 

You lot are fucking facists tho, trying to stop other people being free just so you can spread your smelly, unwashed, irrational fear around to other dolts stupid enough to believe your bullshit. 

People on the poll voted No to Monsanto Cannabis, reading anymore into is disingenuous at best and a blatant lie at worst. 

Suck it you dirty hippy and get a fucking job, you might not have time to care what other people do/eat/grow then.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> are you on a mission to see how many things you can get wrong in one day?
> *
> 
> http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/gmcurrentapplication1030.cfm
> ...


*

Stop cherry picking information... GMO - Genetically Modified Organism.

If you'd bother to read a little further you'd see;




The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR)

The OGTR supports the 
Gene Technology Regulator, and is part of the Commonwealth Department of Health 
and Ageing. The OGTR is located in Canberra and comprises some 50 scientific, 
legal, policy, compliance and administrative staff.

Click to expand...





The Gene Technology Regulator (the Regulator)

Dr Joe Smith commenced as 
Gene Technology Regulator on 23 March 2009. In this role, he is the statutory 
office holder responsible for administering the national regulatory system for 
gene technology as set out in the Gene Technology Act 
2000.

Click to expand...





Roles and functions

The Regulator is an office holder with significant 
independence - similar to the Auditor-General and the Tax Commissioner. The 
Regulator is appointed by the Governor-General only with the agreement of the 
majority of all jurisdictions.

Section 27 of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (the Act) sets out the 
functions of the Regulator as follows: 

to perform functions in relation to Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) 
licences as set out in Part 5 of the Act which outlines the licensing system 
under which a person can apply to the Regulator for a licence authorising 
dealings with GMOs;
to develop draft policy principles and policy guidelines, as requested by 
the Ministerial Council;
to develop codes of practice;
to issue technical and procedural guidelines in relation to GMOs;
to provide information and advice to other regulatory agencies about GMOs 
and GM products;
to provide information and advice to the public about the regulation of 
GMOs;
to provide advice to the Ministerial Council about:
the operations of the Regulator and the Gene Technology Technical Advisory 
Committee
the effectiveness of the legislative framework for the regulation of GMOs, 
including in relation to possible amendments of relevant legislation.

to undertake or commission research in relation to risk assessment and the 
biosafety of GMOs;
to promote the harmonisation of risk assessments relating to GMOs and GM 
products by regulatory agencies;
to monitor international practice in relation to the regulation of GMOs;
to maintain links with international organisations that deal with the 
regulation of gene technology and with agencies that regulate GMOs in countries 
outside Australia; and
Such other functions as far as are conferred on the Regulator by the Act, 
the regulations or any other law.


Click to expand...

Anything else you'd like to get wrong?*


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 28, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I grow my own food in the summer, I don't grow GM because it more expensive and unnecessary for my purposes.
> 
> I don't however feel the need to try decide what other people will grow.
> 
> ...


Im retired foot soldier so i dont need to work but your welcome to keep on keepin on. I can assure you im not a hippy, im wearing golf shorts and a collared shirt at the moment. I dont like monsanto, i dont like seeing the name monsanto when i turn my ipad on, i dont like anything thats not natural bud. Genetic engineering is not right. Nobody should tamper with mother natures plan, things work themselves out. All genetic engineering does IMPO is stretch out failures assosiated with poor farm management and increasing population. Food in supermarkets already tastes like shit, pro GMO companies just exsacerbate the problem by using lesser quality products everyday. Theres a picture a couple of posts up that proves the quality so you cant argue that and if the trend continues in that direction your children and theirs will all suffer the concequences of our inability to stand up for what we believe in. I believe in no GMO and thats what im standing up for 
SAY NO TO GMO !!!


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Jan 28, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Im retired foot soldier so i dont need to work but your welcome to keep on keepin on. I can assure you im not a hippy, im wearing golf shorts and a collared shirt at the moment. I dont like monsanto, i dont like seeing the name monsanto when i turn my ipad on, i dont like anything thats not natural bud. Genetic engineering is not right. Nobody should tamper with mother natures plan, things work themselves out. All genetic engineering does IMPO is stretch out failures assosiated with poor farm management and increasing population. Food in supermarkets already tastes like shit, pro GMO companies just exsacerbate the problem by using lesser quality products everyday. Theres a picture a couple of posts up that proves the quality so you cant argue that and if the trend continues in that direction your children and theirs will all suffer the concequences of our inability to stand up for what we believe in. I believe in no GMO and thats what im standing up for
> SAY NO TO GMO !!!


That's called the new school hippy, hippy.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Stop cherry picking information... GMO - Genetically Modified Organism.
> 
> If you'd bother to read a little further you'd see;
> 
> ...


fuck me your dumb we were talkign about the regulation of "GM foods" in austrailia

when you piped up with this pearl of wisdom
*"OGTR regulates gmos in aus not FSANZ or SBS." * 

and you think saying "gmo" rather than "gm foods" gives you victory points on this?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 28, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> That's called the new school hippy, hippy.


So you think that making conscious decisions about my food makes me a hippy? Do new school hippies carry hollow points rather than full metal jackets? You dont know me  just because i use my recycleing bin and try to stay away from GMOs HF corn syrup, tomatos, and soy, doesnt make me a hippy. According to the poll it makes me part of the 76% majority. The educated majority 
say no &#8203;to gmo !!!


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 28, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Im retired foot soldier so i dont need to work but your welcome to keep on keepin on. I can assure you im not a hippy, im wearing golf shorts and a collared shirt at the moment. I dont like monsanto, i dont like seeing the name monsanto when i turn my ipad on, i dont like anything thats not natural bud. Genetic engineering is not right. Nobody should tamper with mother natures plan, things work themselves out. All genetic engineering does IMPO is stretch out failures assosiated with poor farm management and increasing population. Food in supermarkets already tastes like shit, pro GMO companies just exsacerbate the problem by using lesser quality products everyday. Theres a picture a couple of posts up that proves the quality so you cant argue that and if the trend continues in that direction your children and theirs will all suffer the concequences of our inability to stand up for what we believe in. I believe in no GMO and thats what im standing up for
> SAY NO TO GMO !!!


You're overlooking a huge point...I never said I liked Monsanto either.

[email protected] turning your iPad on and not seeing something natural. That's fucking classic.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Jan 28, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> You're overlooking a huge point...I never said I liked Monsanto either.
> 
> [email protected] turning your iPad on and not seeing something natural. That's fucking classic.


What he doesn't get:


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> and the question of what is the GMO style of farming might seem weird to you but to me the idea that gmo by necessity is farmed differently to a level where to any observer it should be obvious is plain ridicules


that's why i gave you the location where i buy my peas, on the corner of river road and farmington, just southwest of the cruise in diner, outside or portland or. pretty sure you can even do google street view. it's just a few lines of peas alongside a field of strawberries and across the street from a field of raspberries.

we even use the same seeds, improved edible pod super sugar snap pole peas.*


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> need some sprinkles for that pile of sanctimony? you pious wanker


i knew it couldn't be me alone who thought desertdouche was a self exalting, holier than thou, smug douchebag. so i borrowed one of his lines and whaddya know? i get pious, sanctimonious wanker. mission accomplished!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> ahh doubling down on dumb i see
> 
> you just showed that you could not tell that those tomatoes were gmo or not
> 
> and i would love to hear the mechanism the body possess that allows it to tell the different between 2 nutritionally identical items


so they modify the organism to make it exactly the same? don't think so.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> that's why i gave you the location where i buy my peas, on the corner of river road and farmington, just southwest of the cruise in diner, outside or portland or. pretty sure you can even do google street view. it's just a few lines of peas alongside a field of strawberries and across the street from a field of raspberries.
> 
> we even use the same seeds, improved edible pod super sugar snap pole peas.*


yes but however they farm it still does not answer the question of "what is obviously GMO farming"?

large scale farming does not automatically = GMO which is why i thought it such a strange statement


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i knew it couldn't be me alone who thought desertdouche was a self exalting, holier than thou, smug douchebag. so i borrowed one of his lines and whaddya know? i get pious, sanctimonious wanker. mission accomplished!


so all you accomplished is *a* verification for a past argument with desertdude? 

and in what way shape or form does that have to do with this thread?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> so all you accomplished is *a* verification for a past argument with desertdude? and in what way shape or form does that have to do with this thread?


desertdouche is hanging around this thread, being all self aggrandizing, sanctimonious, holier than thou, smug, and senile.he's also the little piggy who's squealing the loudest, along with you, kynes, and the massive advertising campaign on my television box telling me not to worry, GMO is all good and all safe. nothing to worry about here!just thought it was funny.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

what's in an american egg mcmuffin?http://www.livestrong.com/article/559235-diet-detective-whats-really-inside-your-egg-mcmuffin/


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 28, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> You're overlooking a huge point...I never said I liked Monsanto either.
> 
> [email protected] turning your iPad on and not seeing something natural. That's fucking classic.


I take back the footsoldier name and apologise. Thank you for disliking monsanto. Im glad you arent affiliated with that monsanto hitler d bag employee.
I said i hate turning on my ipad and seeing the name monsanto come up. Everyone has some type of computer, its a fact of life these days. 
&#8203;No to GMO!!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> so they modify the organism to make it exactly the same? don't think so.


so no answer then as to what the mechanism would be?

these are nutritionally identical products

none of the modifcations effect human bodies 


as you have ignored in my previous post you have the chance of winning yourself a million dollars if your body is capable of telling the difference between the 2 when delivered in equal terms


I.E not farm fresh home cooked pea's verses factory packed and flavouring added peas(hfcs) as thats not a real comparison

farm fresh home cooked gmo's verses farm fresh home cooked non gmo's if you could do that you'll be a millionare


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> desertdouche is hanging around this thread, being all self aggrandizing, sanctimonious, holier than thou, smug, and senile.he's also the little piggy who's squealing the loudest, along with you, kynes, and the massive advertising campaign on my television box telling me not to worry, GMO is all good and all safe. nothing to worry about here!just thought it was funny.


if all you have against someone argument is a smear campaign from previous argument then you dont have very much


alot of the time i do not side with the few people that are siding with me in this thread but that ok because i am not so hyper partisan that i disagree with them just because of who they are


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> these are nutritionally identical products
> 
> none of the modifcations effect human bodies


did you even bother to look at what's in our american egg mcmuffins? they are banned elsewhere.




ginjawarrior said:


> I.E not farm fresh home cooked pea's verses factory packed and flavouring added peas(hfcs) as thats not a real comparison


that's the dilemma i face when i eat! unless you care to tell me where i can get these farm fresh, GMO peas.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> if all you have against someone argument is a smear campaign from previous argument then you dont have very much


i have plenty more than that, i just like to point out when desertdouche is being a douche. it's part of the appeal of the politics section.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> desertdouche is hanging around this thread, being all self aggrandizing, sanctimonious, holier than thou, smug, and senile.he's also the little piggy who's squealing the loudest, along with you, kynes, and the massive advertising campaign on my television box telling me not to worry, GMO is all good and all safe. nothing to worry about here!just thought it was funny.


so your order on the table is an ad hominem 

and thats supposed to fly?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> what's in an american egg mcmuffin?http://www.livestrong.com/article/559235-diet-detective-whats-really-inside-your-egg-mcmuffin/


a"For the past 40 years, farmers have been manipulating the gene to grow a crop of two-feet-tall dwarfed wheat that contains gliaden protein"

40 years really? i had no idea gmo was about that long

b Azodicarbonamide not gmo

c.High-fructose corn syrup yeah not gmo

im not gonna bother going further untill you tell me what relevance this has to do with gmo food


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> did you even bother to look at what's in our american egg mcmuffins? they are banned elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you've claimed to do the comparison thought you already knew.....


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> so your order on the table is an ad hominem
> 
> and thats supposed to fly?


dude, ad homs are fun.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> c.High-fructose corn syrup yeah not gmo


that would be correct about 1% of the time. maybe.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> you've claimed to do the comparison thought you already knew.....


the comparison between my peas or local, non GMO peas and the ones you buy in the store? yeah, i've done that comparison.

i don't have access to farm fresh GMO peas. seems like an oxymoron to me.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> that would be correct about 1% of the time. maybe.


and from that we can conclude that hfcs does =/= GMO

and what does that article mentioning them add anything??


look do you want to just troll this thread or are you looking to add something?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> and from that we can conclude that hfcs does =/= GMO
> 
> and what does that article mentioning them add anything??
> 
> ...


you've already conceded everything i would like to see conceded: that we don't know what the effects of GMOs can be and that some sort of labeling to help consumers decide on their own is a good idea.

HFCS is almost invariably made from GMO corn, and HFCS is added to basically 90% of everything in the store. the meat in the store is raised on GMO corn and grain. it's pretty tough to avoid, and costly.

only other thing i'd like to see conceded is that we should probably subsidize the local, organic farmers rather than the ubiquitous GMO producers.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> the comparison between my peas or local, non GMO peas and the ones you buy in the store? yeah, i've done that comparison.
> 
> i don't have access to farm fresh GMO peas. seems like an oxymoron to me.


you compared processed food to farm/garden fresh

and used that to claim gmo is bad without knowing the main component is gmo

can spot the troubles with that conclusion?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> fuck me your dumb we were talkign about the regulation of "GM foods" in austrailia


i think pointing out the irony would be lost on you... Were you also whinging about ad hominem?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> you compared processed food to farm/garden fresh
> 
> and used that to claim gmo is bad without knowing the main component is gmo
> 
> can spot the troubles with that conclusion?


the problem with GMO is that it's not really sold farm fresh. hard to make the comparison IRL.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> you've already conceded everything i would like to see conceded: that we don't know what the effects of GMOs can be and that some sort of labeling to help consumers decide on their own is a good idea.
> 
> HFCS is almost invariably made from GMO corn, and HFCS is added to basically 90% of everything in the store. the meat in the store is raised on GMO corn and grain. it's pretty tough to avoid, and costly.
> 
> only other thing i'd like to see conceded is that we should probably subsidize the local, organic farmers rather than the ubiquitous GMO producers.


i've conceded that its perfectly reasonable for that producers if they wanted to should have a "gmo free" sticker (ill even add a new caveat that it should be government recognised/regulated)

but as i said before i see no reason putting "scare" labelling on food when there is no reason to do so


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> i think pointing out the irony would be lost on you... Were you also whinging about ad hominem?


the difference is my argument doesnt ride on that

and i am commenting on your comments in this thread as being fucking dumb


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> i've conceded that its perfectly reasonable for that producers if they wanted to should have a "gmo free" sticker (ill even add a new caveat that it should be government recognised/regulated)
> 
> but as i said before i see no reason putting "scare" labelling on food when there is no reason to do so


i thought GMOs were perfectly fine. why would you think of it as "scare" labeling?

i don't think of it as scare labeling, i think of it as letting the consumer know what they're purchasing, nothing more and nothing less.

why do you want to punish the small, organic farmer over the large scale, subsidized, GMO farmer? i think we should get more bang for our buck out of those millions of dollars worth of subsidies we send to these mega corps pumping out their GMO cocktails, a sticker telling us that it's GMO doesn't seem like we're asking for much.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> the problem with GMO is that it's not really sold farm fresh. hard to make the comparison IRL.


so why are you travelling to that farm rather than buying fresh produce from supermarket then?

if your only compaint amounts to "i dont like processed food" then whats your beef with GMO?

heres a little secret you might not have known processed food can suck even if no GMO is put in it


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> the difference is my argument doesnt ride on that
> 
> and i am commenting on your comments in this thread as being fucking dumb


my argument doesn't depend on desertdouche's hypocrisy and squealing, either.*

like i said, it's just an ad hom because ad hom is fun, especially when you're using someone's own words against them!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i thought GMOs were perfectly fine. why would you think of it as "scare" labeling?
> 
> i don't think of it as scare labeling, i think of it as letting the consumer know what they're purchasing, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> why do you want to punish the small, organic farmer over the large scale, subsidized, GMO farmer? i think we should get more bang for our buck out of those millions of dollars worth of subsidies we send to these mega corps pumping out their GMO cocktails, a sticker telling us that it's GMO doesn't seem like we're asking for much.


why is the small farmer being punished by labeling his food as better than the rest?

seriously if the market is dying out for "gmo free" food then surely anyone selling it will make a killing? if not please explain why


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> my argument doesn't depend on desertdouche's hypocrisy and squealing, either.*
> 
> like i said, it's just an ad hom because ad hom is fun, especially when you're using someone's own words against them!


it was verification for an argument made outside of this thread months ago was it not?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> so why are you travelling to that farm rather than buying fresh produce from supermarket then?
> 
> if your only compaint amounts to "i dont like processed food" then whats your beef with GMO?
> 
> heres a little secret you might not have known processed food can suck even if no GMO is put in it


my beef with GMO is that we don't know its effects yet, number one.

we subsidize them out the ass and their practices are abominable.*

the change to our food supply over the last 50 years has been alarming.

i simply feel better when i avoid those kinds of foods.

the bottom line is that i am voting with my dollars for local, sustainable, humane agriculture and food. i do not want to send one penny more than i must to these bastards that are treating animals inhumanely and the GMO producers they are in bed with.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> why is the small farmer being punished by labeling his food as better than the rest?
> 
> seriously if the market is dying out for "gmo free" food then surely anyone selling it will make a killing?* if not please explain why*


margins. the margins are extremely thin when farming, and it is really hard to compete on level ground, much less when we subsidize one over the other and set price floors etc.

for those hundreds of millions in subsidies we send, it's not asking a whole lot for them to tell us the basic fact of GMO or not.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> it was verification for an argument made outside of this thread months ago was it not?


it was me using his own words against him. i was high, leave me alone.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> margins. the margins are extremely thin when farming, and it is really hard to compete on level ground, much less when we subsidize one over the other and set price floors etc.
> 
> for those hundreds of millions in subsidies we send, it's not asking a whole lot for them to tell us the basic fact of GMO or not.


the margins are that low that they cannot say it's GMO free?

as i said before theres a hate campaign against GMO that is not based on evidence but ideology 

all tests performed on this food shows it to be comparable to its counterparts (non gmo) 

as food goes it is no different

there is no reason to label it differently and to label it differntly is to suggest a difference that doesnt exist/ harmfull



im sure theres a proportion of the population that would love to know if the food they are eating is grown/ produced by blacks, mexican or even jews

now whats wrong with learning the basic facts of who's producing this food? people out there want to make the choice



ok that to an extent is stretching it but it makes the point


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> it was me using his own words against him. i was high, leave me alone.


wanna be left alone? go run away to your comfy corner with your bong


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> the margins are that low that they cannot say it's GMO free?
> 
> as i said before theres a hate campaign against GMO that is not based on evidence but ideology
> 
> ...


yeah dude, that was really stretching!

but it is not the case that they are the same, that's the whole point of modifying the organism. it's modified.

i love better living through chemicals. i mean, i always make sure to put the right chemicals on my windshield before a road trip so that the water beads up and rolls off much easier.

in my food though? i'm gonna be very careful about modifications and chemicals.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> wanna be left alone? go run away to your comfy corner with your bong


already there! even got my dog sitting beside me. poor thing had to go to the vet this morning because he's been pooping up a storm for 24+ hours now.*

the lucky son of a bitch (literally) gets to eat boiled ground beef and rice tonight.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> yeah dude, that was really stretching!
> 
> but it is not the case that they are the same, that's the whole point of modifying the organism. it's modified.
> 
> ...


they are modified in a way that does not effect humans

unless you have evidence to show otherwise? (apart for your superhuman digestive system that is)

GMO is a matter of prejudice 

people want labeling due to that prejudice



now what have you got against all food produced by jews having a label telling the consumer?

theres definitely a market for jew free food


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> they are modified in a way that does not effect humans
> 
> unless you have evidence to show otherwise? (apart for your superhuman digestive system that is)
> 
> ...


argument from ignorance again.

i haven't even bothered to look at the studies, but i'm sure there's plenty of doubts being raised. i mean, if the GMO feed we fatten up our cows with would kill them if we didn't first, that's something that should raise eyebrows.

oh, i hear the retort. "but the cow is being taken off it's natural diet that it has had for thousands of years!". and i will retort, "and the rapid switch we have made to GMO is much different?".

just because the evidence isn't there yet doesn't mean there is no evidence to be found. to believe so is logical fallacy which i know you are better than.

there's a reason why people love delis and bagels, take your jew boner and move it over to a rawn pawl thread.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> argument from ignorance again.
> 
> i haven't even bothered to look at the studies, but i'm sure there's plenty of doubts being raised. i mean, i*f the GMO feed we fatten up our cows with would kill them if we didn't first*, that's something that should raise eyebrows.


cite?



> oh, i hear the retort. "but the cow is being taken off it's natural diet that it has had for thousands of years!". and i will retort, "and the rapid switch we have made to GMO is much different?".
> 
> just because the evidence isn't there yet doesn't mean there is no evidence to be found. to believe so is logical fallacy which i know you are better than.
> 
> there's a reason why people love delis and bagels, take your jew boner and move it over to a rawn pawl thread.


i have no jew boner i am throwing it up as a compariosn

there is nothing to show jewish food is worse than any other food source

yet if we mandated that every foodsource that was jewish (and only jewish food) be labeled how exactly would that reflect on that food?

and i love me a bagel and deli meat


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> cite?


came across a few articles about cows dying from GMO grass that would release cyanide, but i am withholding those since that was not my claim. but that's yet another strike against GMO.

i hope "sciencedaily" is neutral enough of a source. it talks about how cows suffer when removed from their traditional diet that they have enjoyed for thousands of years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010511074623.htm

the funny thing is, we create a solution to a problem we created (pump the cows full of antibiotics, hormones, etc) that creates more problems which we then reward people for finding solutions to. it's an ass backwards way to go about things.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

hey bob, what if we fattened our cows up quicker by doing X?

cool sounds good.*

oops, solution X creates problem Y.

fixed it! made solution Z for problem Y.

oops, solution Z creates problem A.

fixed it! solution B fixes problem A.

oops, solution B creates problem C.

fixed it! solution D fixes problem C.

genius! let's subsidize it all!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> came across a few articles about cows dying from GMO grass that would release cyanide, but i am withholding those since that was not my claim. but that's yet another strike against GMO.
> 
> i hope "sciencedaily" is neutral enough of a source. it talks about how cows suffer when removed from their traditional diet that they have enjoyed for thousands of years.
> 
> ...


thats a high grain diet

it is not about GMO

i can even throw my example a bit further on

even tho there is no evidence that jewish food is any different from any other food source

and even tho people have been eating jewish food with no adverse effects

we cannot know everything and absence of evidence is an argument of ignorance

so why should it not be labeled incase of a problem down the line?


prejudice is the reason why we're having this discussion despite the evidence pointing to the food being safe 

i think a look at the prejudice is reasonable


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

A Review on Impacts of Genetically Modified Food on Human Health

A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing

Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean

Here are some of the better studies conducted on the effects of GM foods on other mammals. It's way to early to tell the long term effects of said foods, but Monsanto and the other BioTech companies could put all the speculation and "conspiracy theories" to rest by giving independent organisations & individuals access to the raw data from their safety studies or even just GM seeds to undertake comprehensive long term studies...

I dont understand why all the secrecy surrounding GM crops is required, why the biotech' are so adverse to any testing and how the government will just take Monsantos word when submitting data and results to the FDA.

Let's be honest, Monsanto & DuPont brought us DDT, PCBs, CFCs, Agent Orange, Glyphosphates, RBGH and it worked out quite well ... So why would it be any different with GMO/GM Crops...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> A Review on Impacts of Genetically Modified Food on Human Health
> 
> A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing
> 
> ...


have you read these studies you just posted? because just looking at the first one it does not support your case

secrecy? not letting people near the seeds? havent you just posted studies of people using the seeds?

your all over the place perhaps you need to go back to hating your NON GMO tomatoes for being GMO


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> thats a high grain diet
> 
> it is not about GMO


the high grain diet is courtesy of and synonymous with GMO.

or do you want me to post what happens to the cows eating GMO grass and dying?

by the way, jewish food has been around for thousands of years, GMOs have not. jewish food is just the same food made by different people, GMO food is modified in very fundamental ways, that's the point of GMO.

your analogy is poor and argument from ignorance may not apply to jewish food, whereas it is apt for GMO food.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> the high grain diet is courtesy of and synonymous with GMO.
> 
> or do you want me to post what happens to the cows eating GMO grass and dying?
> 
> ...


dont conflate feeding high grain diets to GMO they are 2 completely different arguements

gmo has again and again been tested to be the same as other food

gmo has had more rigorous testing in the lab than any jewish food

and lets not over look the fact that allergenic reactions is high amongst the Jewish population they've been eating the food for thousands of years its proof the food is bad for you....


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> dont conflate feeding high grain diets to GMO they are 2 completely different arguements


not in practice, really. the same outfits relying on GMOs are the same ones relying on (GMO) grain fed cattle and hogs.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> not in practice, really. the same outfits relying on GMOs are the same ones relying on (GMO) grain fed cattle and hogs.


the article you posted was talking only about high grain diets no gmo mentioned

its a lovely strawman for you to point at and say GMO is bad tho


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> the article you posted was talking only about high grain diets no gmo mentioned
> 
> its a lovely strawman for you to point at and say GMO is bad tho


so how do you account for the newfound prevalence of high grain diets? what factors do you think contribute to the uptick?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> so how do you account for the newfound prevalence of high grain diets? what factors do you think contribute to the uptick?


how do you account for the jewish allergies? is it to do with their food?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> how do you account for the jewish allergies? is it to do with their food?


more to do with our human genetics.

you know that jews are inferior beings, right?

but really, now that i've humored your distraction, let's see if we can't answer the question.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> more to do with our human genetics.
> 
> you know that jews are inferior beings, right?
> 
> but really, now that i've humored your distraction, let's see if we can't answer the question.


what the question about why you think its reasonable to squeeze GMO into into everything bad even tho its unrelated?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> what the question about why you think its reasonable to squeeze GMO into into everything bad even tho its unrelated?


why are you dodging the question if there is nothing wrong or bad about GMOs and associated practices?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> why are you dodging the question if there is nothing wrong or bad about GMOs and associated practices?


factory style farming started in the usa in the 1930's fattening up animals was practiced well before GMO ever existed

why do you think its reasonable to blame that practice on GMO?

if you want a discussion on other aspects of farming start a thread on it 

stop conflating separate issues to try and bolster your weak stance


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> factory style farming started in the usa in the 1930's fattening up animals was practiced well before GMO ever existed
> 
> why do you think its reasonable to blame that practice on GMO?
> 
> ...


so grain fed cattle are not more common since the rise of GMOs? is that what you're saying? all innocent, no relation?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> so grain fed cattle are not more common since the rise of GMOs? is that what you're saying? all innocent, no relation?


correlation =/= causation 

come on now buck this is playground level your at right now


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> correlation =/= causation
> 
> come on now buck this is playground level your at right now


i'll take correlation.

i just love the new model of farming they're working on. as i said before...

hey bob, what if we fattened our cows up quicker by doing X?

cool sounds good.

oops, solution X creates problem Y.

fixed it! made solution Z for problem Y.

oops, solution Z creates problem A.

fixed it! solution B fixes problem A.

oops, solution B creates problem C.

fixed it! solution D fixes problem C.

genius! let's subsidize it all!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i'll take correlation.
> 
> i just love the new model of farming they're working on. as i said before...
> 
> ...


so we're still in recess then?

may as well play


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> have you read these studies you just posted? because just looking at the first one it does not support your case
> 
> secrecy? not letting people near the seeds? havent you just posted studies of people using the seeds?
> 
> your all over the place perhaps you need to go back to hating your NON GMO tomatoes for being GMO


Surprise Surprise the fuckin retard can't read... The studies show the effects of GM food on mice - soy & corn in particular.

GM crops themselves were not the focus of the study as BioTech companies have explicit clauses in their contracts/agreements with farmers that prohibit the use of GM seeds or crops in scientific testing. This is why any long term, independent studies are rare.

Do you eat GM food yourself or you just happy to believe whatever the "sound & piture box" tells you?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> so we're still in recess then?


i agree, the new method of farming seems to have been conceived by retarded 7 year olds playing an endless game of tag.

create a problem and pat yourself on the back for fixing what doesn't even need to exist in the first place.

besides, my body does better with monsanto's GMO rBGH and the ensuing problems it creates within me are another person's job security!

i like this new method of farming!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i agree, the new method of farming seems to have been conceived by retarded 7 year olds playing an endless game of tag.
> 
> create a problem and pat yourself on the back for fixing what doesn't even need to exist in the first place.
> 
> ...


gmo aside this new style of farming (green revolution) has meant we can now support 7 billion+ people personally i think thats a good thing 

yes it has caused some problems like fertilizer run off and over use of pesticide/ herbicide which is harmful to the environment 

gmo is starting to solve those problems meaning feeding 7 billion + people isnt such a drain on the environment 


i wait with great anticipation what wonders 7 billion + minds bring to humanity the small base of europe and america has brought us a small way but we havent seen nothing yet....


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Surprise Surprise the fuckin retard can't read... The studies show the effects of GM food on mice - soy & corn in particular.
> 
> GM crops themselves were not the focus of the study as BioTech companies have explicit clauses in their contracts/agreements with farmers that prohibit the use of GM seeds or crops in scientific testing. This is why any long term, independent studies are rare.
> 
> Do you eat GM food yourself or you just happy to believe whatever the "sound & piture box" tells you?


if you'd read this thread at all you would have seen those studies to be exposed as the bunk they are time and time again


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> gmo aside this new style of farming (green revolution) has meant we can now support 7 billion+ people personally i think thats a good thing


 That's probably one of the most stupid statements i've ever read...

WTF???? What's your definition of support? Because this planet may be home to nearly 7 billion, but this planet does not support 7 billion. Unless you consider poverty & famine an acceptable standard of living...

In addition to your english second language course - stop skipping history...


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> if you'd read this thread at all you would have seen those studies to be exposed as the bunk they are time and time again


Seralinis study isn't there... Keep showing off your ignorance...

Again Do you eat GM food yourself? Or you just happy playing dumb harpo?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> gmo aside this new style of farming (green revolution) has meant we can now support 7 billion+ people personally i think thats a good thing
> 
> yes it has caused some problems like fertilizer run off and over use of pesticide/ herbicide which is harmful to the environment
> 
> ...


not to get all preachy, but _*don't these talking monkeys know that eden has enough to go around*_?

we already have enough to feed 7 billion people, but we need our mcdonald's burgers.*

and GMO is good for the environment? could have fooled me!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> That's probably one of the most stupid statements i've ever read...
> 
> WTF???? What's your definition of support? Because this planet may be home to nearly 7 billion, but this planet does not support 7 billion. Unless you consider poverty & famine an acceptable standard of living...
> 
> In addition to your english second language course - stop skipping history...


oh there certainly is a problem with the distribution model we are currently operating under

and as you should have noted i made no comment as to poverty just "support" theres 7 billion + people and the number is growing day by day

if the planet wasn't supoorting that number it would be dropping day by day would it not?

what part of history have i missed?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> oh there certainly is a problem with the distribution model we are currently operating under
> 
> and as you should have noted i made no comment as to poverty just "support" theres 7 billion + people and the number is growing day by day
> 
> ...


if your goal is to sustain as many people as possible, give up beef.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> not to get all preachy, but _*don't these talking monkeys know that eden has enough to go around*_?
> 
> we already have enough to feed 7 billion people, but we need our mcdonald's burgers.*
> 
> and GMO is good for the environment? could have fooled me!


unless those are GMO cows why are you conflating again?

its late here what are you trying to say about those monkeys?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> if your goal is to sustain as many people as possible, give up beef.


........?

yes meat production uses more resources in its production

but telling me to give up meat does what exactly?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> unless those are GMO cows why are you conflating again?


lol, yeah.

they jam pack their cows in those areas and then don't pump them full of growth hormones, antibiotics, and GMO grains. didn't you see the lovely pasture area they get to feed on?



ginjawarrior said:


> its late here what are you trying to say about those monkeys?


it's a maynard line.

the fact is that we, right now, can feed all 7 billion people on this planet if we chose to. we choose to eat beef instead. do you know how many people you could feed and for how long with the amount of food we use to fatten one cow?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> oh there certainly is a problem with the distribution model we are currently operating under
> 
> and as you should have noted i made no comment as to poverty just "support" theres 7 billion + people and the number is growing day by day
> 
> ...


The farming revolution at the time, was heralded as the answer to global famine. 

History has proven this, just a tad, short sighted.

Now GM Crops are being heralded as the answer to global famine. 

There's an old saying in Tennessee &#8212; I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee &#8212; that says, fool me once, shame on &#8212; [pauses] &#8212; shame on you. Fool me &#8212; [pauses] &#8212; You can't get fooled again.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> ........?
> 
> yes meat production uses more resources in its production
> 
> but telling me to give up meat does what exactly?


you seem to have gone off on a rant about how GMOs will feed the world.

well, GMOs are just fattening cows instead. fattening cows does not feed the world, it feeds americans who love their mcdonald's GMO burgers.

just sayin'


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> The farming revolution at the time, was heralded as the answer to global famine.
> 
> History has proven this, just a tad, short sighted.
> 
> ...


short sighted? have you not seen the rise in population that countries like brazil, india and china have enjoyed because of it?

these countries are becoming the worlds new power houses because of those populations

i fail to see the down side could you please explain?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> you seem to have gone off on a rant about how GMOs will feed the world.
> 
> well, GMOs are just fattening cows instead. fattening cows does not feed the world, it feeds americans who love their mcdonald's GMO burgers.
> 
> just sayin'


they're "just fattening cows"? funny i thought they were also making your peas taste bad


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> they're "just fattening cows"? funny i thought they were also making your peas taste bad


that too.

...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> that too.
> 
> ...


well thats at least 1 good thing now isnt it?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> well thats at least 1 good thing now isnt it?


a less nutritious meal with possible unintended consequences is a good thing?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> a *less nutritious* meal with possible unintended consequences is a good thing?


did your superhuman body tell you as much?

i've already told you theres a million dollars just sitting there waiting for someone with powers like yours to collect it


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> did your superhuman body tell you as much?
> 
> i've already told you theres a million dollars just sitting there waiting for someone with powers like yours to collect it


you telling me that a cow packed in like a sardine, past its hooves in muck, pumped full of GM hormones and antibiotics, and fed a diet of GMO grains is more nutritious or as nutritious as a free range cow that eats its natural grass diet?

i mean, i know you can't argue that the former is safer, it's not. those GM growth hormones that monsanto makes have LOTS of bad consequences (aka job security for other retards at monsanto to fix the problems they themselves created).

so is that cow in the mud full of GMO food and GM growth hormones more nutritious?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> you telling me that a cow packed in like a sardine, past its hooves in muck, pumped full of GM hormones and antibiotics, and fed a diet of GMO grains is more nutritious or as nutritious as a free range cow that eats its natural grass diet?
> 
> i mean, i know you can't argue that the former is safer, it's not. those GM growth hormones that monsanto makes have LOTS of bad consequences (aka job security for other retards at monsanto to fix the problems they themselves created).
> 
> so is that cow in the mud full of GMO food and GM growth hormones more nutritious?


protein is protein nutrition cares not in that fashion


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> protein is protein nutrition cares not in that fashion


there's a big advertising campaign on TV trying to convince me of the same.

"sugar is sugar!" "protein is protein!"

"pay no attention to the weird things we're noticing, that's irrelevant!"

"just trust us! why would we lie?"

"we care about you so much, we're spending millions upon millions to convince you of it!"

seems legit.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> there's a big advertising campaign on TV trying to convince me of the same.
> 
> "sugar is sugar!" "protein is protein!"
> 
> ...


as i said take your magic nutrition analysing digestive system and go get that 1000000$ prize 

both those advertising statements are correct btw


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

trust us guys, we got this one!

[youtube]QWVFVNpEJFw[/youtube]


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> trust us guys, we got this one!
> 
> [youtube]QWVFVNpEJFw[/youtube]


and the point is?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> and the point is?


trust them, they're spending millions of dollars so that you'll trust them. so just trust them. take their word for it.


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

Forbes makes reference to a paper written on Monsantos' GM corn here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/09/20/scientists-savage-study-purportedly-showing-health-dangers-of-monsantos-genetically-modified-corn/ and I find it interesting as to what's said, with the abstract being:



> The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated
> with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In
> females, all treated groups died 23 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible
> in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles
> ...


Sound delicious? I'd heavily lean toward no.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> trust them, they're spending millions of dollars so that you'll trust them. so just trust them. take their word for it.









just incase they come for your food


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

Figong said:


> Forbes makes reference to a paper written on Monsantos' GM corn here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/09/20/scientists-savage-study-purportedly-showing-health-dangers-of-monsantos-genetically-modified-corn/ and I find it interesting as to what's said, with the abstract being:
> 
> 
> 
> Sound delicious? I'd heavily lean toward no.


trust them. just trust them. they're spending millions of dollars so that you'll trust them, so why don't you trust them?

you should probably just trust them.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

Figong said:


> Forbes makes reference to a paper written on Monsantos' GM corn here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/09/20/scientists-savage-study-purportedly-showing-health-dangers-of-monsantos-genetically-modified-corn/ and I find it interesting as to what's said, with the abstract being:
> 
> 
> 
> Sound delicious? I'd heavily lean toward no.


that same study has been posted many many times in this thread and its junk science


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> trust them. just trust them. they're spending millions of dollars so that you'll trust them, so why don't you trust them?
> 
> you should probably just trust them.


hahahaha, that's the very problem, sir.


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> that same study has been posted many many times in this thread and its junk science


Why is it junk science? Are you saying that the lab that did the testing is not credible in any fashion? If so, why would a name like Forbes dare post such information, and potentially kill their name in the process?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> just incase they come for your food


yep, a complete overhaul of our ages old food production system accompanied with a heavy advertising campaign designed to convince you that it's all OK should probably just be accepted blindly before all the science is in.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

Figong said:


> Why is it junk science? Are you saying that the lab that did the testing is not credible in any fashion? If so, why would a name like Forbes dare post such information, and potentially kill their name in the process?


forbes is clearly part of the tin foil hat wearing, barefoot hippy crowd.

don't trust those people, trust monsanto. they even made some commercials so that you'll trust them, so why don't you trust them? just trust them.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> forbes is clearly part of the tin foil hat wearing, barefoot hippy crowd.
> 
> don't trust those people, trust monsanto. they even made some commercials so that you'll trust them, so why don't you trust them? just trust them.


It's like BP and their "Sorry" ads... It's all good we fucked your coastline but "we're sorry"... 

We're Sorry so you can trust us again...


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> forbes is clearly part of the tin foil hat wearing, barefoot hippy crowd.
> 
> don't trust those people, trust monsanto. they even made some commercials so that you'll trust them, so why don't you trust them? just trust them.


hahaha.. independent lab with nothing to gain by saying 'good' or 'bad' has more credibility than anyone out to make a profit.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

Figong said:


> Why is it junk science? Are you saying that the lab that did the testing is not credible in any fashion? If so, why would a name like Forbes dare post such information, and potentially kill their name in the process?


you posted the article i would assume you had taken the time to read it???


> The published does not present all the data. &#8220;All data cannot be shown in one report and the most relevant are described here&#8217;&#8221;&#8212;this is a quote from the paper, which means that no reader can evaluate the findings, which mean the data may have been cherry picked
> Small sample size. The control group is inadequate to make any deduction. Only 10 rodents some of these develop tumors. Until you know the degree of variation in 90 or 180 (divided into groups of ten) control rodents these results are of no value.
> Maize was minimum 11% of the diet&#8212;that&#8217;s nor a normal diet for rats and invariably distorted the data
> In Fig. 2, the bars with a zero appears to be for the non-maize control, yet those bars don&#8217;t look significantly different from the bars indicating 11, 22, and 33% of GM maize in the diet. The authors do not appear to have done analysis of their data.
> ...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> It's like BP and their "Sorry" ads... It's all good we fucked your coastline but "we're sorry"...
> 
> We're Sorry so you can trust us again...


their new ads are just as LOL as the HFCS ads.

"we will only mine for oil when its safe. and if its safe, we WON'T drill"

oh, thank you so much, BP. will you also tuck me into bed and clean my garage? will you babysit my kid?

i love you, BP. making me all warm and fuzzy and shit.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> forbes is clearly part of the tin foil hat wearing, barefoot hippy crowd.
> 
> don't trust those people, trust monsanto. they even made some commercials so that you'll trust them, so why don't you trust them? just trust them.


forbes clearly reported the study with integrity


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> you posted the article i would assume you had taken the time to read it???
> [/LIST]


Yes I read all of it, and am just thinking that you're not seeing the bigger picture - which would be insects that could potentially be resistant (or at some point immune) to pest control methods.. and due to RIU, I will use the spider mite as an example. Let's say that the spider mite manages to pick up a recessive allele that makes it resistant to more than a few pesticides. You get a big infestation in your plants somehow (inside or outside) and 100% of your crops get wiped out due to the inability to kill them by what at one time was 'normal means'. Still think this is really a good idea? Sure, the allele would be recessive, but it's still quite a possibility.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

Figong said:


> Yes I read all of it, and am just thinking that you're not seeing the bigger picture - which would be insects that could potentially be resistant (or at some point immune) to pest control methods.. and due to RIU, I will use the spider mite as an example. Let's say that the spider mite manages to pick up a recessive allele that makes it resistant to more than a few pesticides. You get a big infestation in your plants somehow (inside or outside) and 100% of your crops get wiped out due to the inability to kill them by what at one time was 'normal means'. Still think this is really a good idea? Sure, the allele would be recessive, but it's still quite a possibility.


beautiful and it was that reasoning that lead you to this post?

*"Why is it junk science? Are you saying that the lab that did the testing is not credible in any fashion? If so, why would a name like Forbes dare post such information, and potentially kill their name in the process? "*

but yeah you were talking about spider mites......


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

this whole scaremonger theme of posting a "scary story" then when proven wrong quickly double down on stupid by changing the subject to "what if" seems to be the bread and butter to you nut jobs

oh lets not forget the communial circle jerk you pass round everytime you pass out one of these scaremongering articles


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

One of many reasons why I'm posting in this thread, I noticed you didn't answer as to whether or not you thought it was still a good idea after the example I posted though.


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> this whole scaremonger theme of posting a "scary story" then when proven wrong quickly double down on stupid by changing the subject to "what if" seems to be the bread and butter to you nut jobs
> 
> oh lets not forget the communial circle jerk you pass round everytime you pass out one of these scaremongering articles


Not enough data = proven wrong? 

No... Not enough data = more is required for a solid answer - let's not confuse the issue.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> yep, a complete overhaul of our ages old food production system accompanied with a heavy advertising campaign designed to convince you that it's all OK should probably just be accepted blindly before all the science is in.


your living in a country where you can get sued for not warning your coffee is too hot

if this campaign is nothing but lies then liability is slap them silly

but lets guess they own the courts too?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

Figong said:


> One of many reasons why I'm posting in this thread, I noticed you didn't answer as to whether or not you thought it was still a good idea after the example I posted though.


i dont give a flying fuck about your made up hypothetical 

next?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

Figong said:


> Not enough data = proven wrong?
> 
> No... Not enough data = more is required for a solid answer - let's not confuse the issue.


no junk data.


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> i dont give a flying fuck about your made up hypothetical
> 
> next?


Of course it's easier to dismiss it than discuss it.. sound familiar?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> your living in a country where you can get sued for not warning your coffee is too hot
> 
> if this campaign is nothing but lies then liability is slap them silly
> 
> but lets guess they own the courts too?


you must not be familiar with how american politics works.

you can buy all the justice you want here.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

Figong said:


> Of course it's easier to dismiss it than discuss it.. sound familiar?


no but its easy to cherry pick the scary part of an article and post it online

and then pretend you dont know anything about the rest of the article 

while leading into an oh so scary hypothetical




your tactic is fucking transparent and highly worthy of dissmissal

but yet i did discuss it i said i dont give a flying fuck


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> you must not be familiar with how american politics works.
> 
> you can buy all the justice you want here.









they're out to get your food


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> they're out to get your food


too bad we vote with our dollars and there are still plenty of us out there who enjoy actual food.


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

Figong said:


> Forbes makes reference to a paper written on Monsantos' GM corn here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/09/20/scientists-savage-study-purportedly-showing-health-dangers-of-monsantos-genetically-modified-corn/ and I find it interesting as to what's said, with the *abstract *being:
> 
> 
> 
> Sound delicious? I'd heavily lean toward no.


Perhaps it's just me, but I did say *abstract *in that post. Here's something else, so you have no misunderstanding as to where I am going with this post:

_An *abstract* is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject or discipline, and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose. _

So in short, no.. I did not copy/paste everything.. hence the 'abstract' idea - shocker, I know.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 28, 2013)

Figong said:


> Why is it junk science? Are you saying that the lab that did the testing is not credible in any fashion? If so, why would a name like Forbes dare post such information, and potentially kill their name in the process?


this "experiment" was not done by a lab. 

it was done by a french homeopathic "scientist" with no controls 
no sourcing for his claims that the feed provided to the various groups of Onco-mice was even GMO or Non-GMO
no explanation or plausible method of action for the claimed results
the results "proved" that Roundup spiked water made the rats live longer and get fewer tumours
the sample was deliberately small, deliberately uncontrolled and deliberately made up of mice who were GMO's themselves, engineered to get cancer and die. for cancer research. 

this shabby little publicity stunt has been shredded by the scientific community (even those not working for Monsanto) and has not been replicated. it CANNOT be replicated. because it was FAKED by a "scientist" dedicated to non-science to advance his agenda. 

the only actual study that in any way raises any concerns over "GMO's" in general is one which showed a small toxicity in mice (non-cancermice) fed large ammounts of grain that expresses the BT budworm toxin. and this study examines the effects of eating foods which PRODUCE BT toxin, (which has been proved safe as a pesticide spray for decades) since plants that make BT will have higher levels of BT that plants sprayed with BT by traditional methods and with traditional safeguards. 

and even that study showed minor toxicology results, which were asymptomatic, merely troubling. the BEST science available to date says BT toxin may not be a good idea, but we need more study. 

this does not mean all GMO's are dangerous, and the claims that BT toxin in cotton somehow effects people who wear cotton clothing is just insane.


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> this "experiment" was not done by a lab.
> 
> it was done by a french homeopathic "scientist" with no controls
> no sourcing for his claims that the feed provided to the various groups of Onco-mice was even GMO or Non-GMO
> ...


Thanks for that, and I follow - Forbes said it was a French research group, so figured that they wouldn't put a noose around themselves if it was some bang-up operation.. that clarifies it =)


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> no but its easy to cherry pick the scary part of an article and post it online
> 
> and then pretend you dont know anything about the rest of the article
> 
> ...





Figong said:


> Perhaps it's just me, but I did say *abstract *in that post. Here's something else, so you have no misunderstanding as to where I am going with this post:
> 
> _An *abstract* is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject or discipline, and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose. _
> 
> So in short, no.. I did not copy/paste everything.. hence the 'abstract' idea - shocker, I know.


no one said you copied and pasted everything?

nice attempt at pretending tho


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> you posted the article i would assume you had taken the time to read it???


I took the time to read the one I posted. The male mice fed GM soy experienced changes in Sertoli cells. A new study, looking at the long term effects of the changes is needed, but I'd rather err on the side of caution as these short term studies have indicated abnormalities in sertoli cells, which are found in your balls, yep - testicles. Sertoli cells are responsible for aiding in the development of sperm. 

So if anyone chooses to eat foods derived from GM crops they should be made well aware of any potential side effects and serious discussion is requried within the government and regulators as to the long term effects. BioTech companies should also be required to release in full, unredacted copies of their safety studies along with any relevant data, methods and sources...


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> no one said you copied and pasted everything?
> 
> nice attempt at pretending tho


*and then pretend you dont know anything about the rest of the article 


*At what point did I do that? or was it due to the abstract I posted, and not commenting on the whole article? Looks like I pretended to pretend - awesome.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

Figong said:


> *and then pretend you dont know anything about the rest of the article
> 
> 
> *At what point did I do that? or was it due to the abstract I posted, and not commenting on the whole article? Looks like I pretended to pretend - awesome.


*"Why is it junk science? Are you saying that the lab that did the testing is not credible in any fashion? If so, why would a name like Forbes dare post such information, and potentially kill their name in the process? *"

"*Yes I read all of it, and am just thinking that you're not seeing the bigger picture"

*like butter wouldnt melt in your fucking mouth


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> *"Why is it junk science? Are you saying that the lab that did the testing is not credible in any fashion? If so, why would a name like Forbes dare post such information, and potentially kill their name in the process? *"
> 
> "*Yes I read all of it, and am just thinking that you're not seeing the bigger picture"
> 
> *like butter wouldnt melt in your fucking mouth


Yes, I did read all of it.. and is why I asked if Forbes was credible (assuming that they were) why they would put their head on the proverbial chopping block by posting something like they did, even with proviso.. the abstract paints a picture that doesn't look so good. I do not expect you and I to think the same, that'll never happen.. it just seems as if when I asked the question, you took offense to it. If you'd explained that whoever did the testing was mostly useless (other notes in the abstract /article aside) I could have easily entertained that. (Which is what Dr. Kynes did) I wasn't trying to argue with the "Are you saying that the lab did the testing is not credible in any fashion?" .. that was a legitimate question. I will make sure that I use <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags for any sarcasm in the future so you know as to whether or not it's a serious question. Same with the Forbes question, that was also a serious one. I do not know everything, nor do I claim to.. not once have I said that either. Thank you for your input on this subject matter =)


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 28, 2013)

Figong said:


> Yes, I did read all of it.. and is why I asked if Forbes was credible (assuming that they were) why they would put their head on the proverbial chopping block by posting something like they did, even with proviso.. the abstract paints a picture that doesn't look so good. I do not expect you and I to think the same, that'll never happen.. it just seems as if when I asked the question, you took offense to it. If you'd explained that whoever did the testing was mostly useless (other notes in the abstract /article aside) I could have easily entertained that. (Which is what Dr. Kynes did) I wasn't trying to argue with the "Are you saying that the lab did the testing is not credible in any fashion?" .. that was a legitimate question. I will make sure that I use <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags for any sarcasm in the future so you know as to whether or not it's a serious question. Same with the Forbes question, that was also a serious one. I do not know everything, nor do I claim to.. not once have I said that either. Thank you for your input on this subject matter =)





ginjawarrior said:


> that same study has been posted many many times in this thread and its junk science


was my very first reply to you.

not only did it say it was junk science but it also noted that its been posted many many times in this thread

you expected me to write in my own words what you had just read for yourself in the fucking article? is that your style of fact checking?

every single person who comes here with that same study again and again should have their hand held while it is explained in kiddie words to them?

and the immediate switch from oh i know that but aren't you worried about this?

straight out of the playbook


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> was my very first reply to you.
> 
> not only did it say it was junk science but it also noted that its been posted many many times in this thread
> 
> ...


Never knew that there was a requirement of reading 140~ pages before making a comment - in the last few I'd skimmed pre-post, there was no such article. My style of fact-checking is generally working out the source of the information. If you had known the French in question were not good in general (not specific to the citing) you could have just said so and I would have went and looked before saying anything further. 



ginjawarrior said:


> every single person who comes here with that same study again and again should have their hand held while it is explained in kiddie words to them?


If you feel you must, then by all means keep up the good work  - as for immediate switch, it wasn't a switch.. but I wouldn't have expected you to figure that out. My hypothetical was selected on your words of 'junk data', which is supposedly (at least in part) the data that I managed to leave out or not acknowledge. If there is not 100% info, per what Forbes said.. can you, being the brilliant geneticist of the group please tell us the probability of any insect at all (pick one, any one) becoming resistant to any 1 specific BT corn strain is? No, you can't... not enough data - with inconclusive data, there is no certainty in that aspect. That said, how is it any more 'safe' than it is 'unsafe'? By all means, please enlighten me... not enough information is effectively genetic Russian roulette in this discussion, isn't it? 

As for playbook:


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 28, 2013)

If it's not bad enough the current GM crop technologies are largely unregulated, lacking rigourous oversight and at best a technology in it's infancy... Monsanto are working on an expanded type of GM tech.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408994/crops-that-shut-down-pests-genes/

Here's a report (pdf) by Dr Judy Carman of Flinders University on GMO wheat;

Expert Scientific Opinion on CSIRO GM Wheat Varieties



> It is therefore my conclusion that there has been a poor risk assessment process applied to these GM
> wheat varieties by both the _CSIRO and its regulatory overseer, the OGTR* [emphasis added]_. It appears that neither
> organisation has appreciated or properly safety assessed this wheat in the light of the fact that the
> dsRNA produced in these GM wheat varieties may survive digestion, enter the tissues of the body
> ...


And people here want to talk about junk science...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 28, 2013)

Figong said:


> Never knew that there was a requirement of reading 140~ pages before making a comment - in the last few I'd skimmed pre-post, there was no such article. My style of fact-checking is generally working out the source of the information. If you had known the French in question were not good in general (not specific to the citing) you could have just said so and I would have went and looked before saying anything further.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




that same silly french Flea Flicker play has been trotted out half a dozen times in this thread. 
it's a trick play, and never had much chance of success. 

Madden recommends you try a Running Play.


----------



## Figong (Jan 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> that same silly french Flea Flicker play has been trotted out half a dozen times in this thread.
> it's a trick play, and never had much chance of success.
> 
> Madden recommends you try a Running Play.


hahaha.. alrighty then, fullback trap..


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 28, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> If it's not bad enough the current GM crop technologies are largely unregulated, lacking rigourous oversight and at best a technology in it's infancy... Monsanto are working on an expanded type of GM tech.
> 
> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408994/crops-that-shut-down-pests-genes/
> 
> ...



"Mathey-Prevot counsels patience. At this point, he says, it&#8217;s too early to make claims about the safety of the technique. But, he says, that also means it&#8217;s too early to conclude that the ability to cause RNA interference is any more dangerous than current genetic modifications of food crops." ~http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408994/crops-that-shut-down-pests-genes/page/2/


this is currently INVESTIGATIONAL, not a wide scale experiment, and definitely not approved for use. should research into new types of nuclear reactors be abandoned as well? after all, these new designs havent been fully tested and thus COULD be even more dangerous than the old models. should we abandon research into hydrogen as a fuel source? after all, The Hindenburg was pretty conclusive... 

your second citation also refers to a small scale experiment, and the expert who drafted this opinion starts off by saying what amounts to: "I don't know enough about the experiment to say anything definite, but I'm gonna Opine anyhow..." 

these examples are examples of RESEARCH not products on the market, and as such they are precluded from sale. 

theres also ongoing research into new, highly advanced pesticides which promise to target specific pests and remain harmless non-target critters. should this research also be abandoned "Just In Case"? 

thats not how science works.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 29, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> "Mathey-Prevot counsels patience. At this point, he says, its too early to make claims about the safety of the technique. But, he says, that also means _its too early to conclude that the ability to cause RNA interference is any more dangerous_ than current genetic modifications of food crops." ~http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408994/crops-that-shut-down-pests-genes/page/2/


Im well aware of that  it was the point - current GM tech cannot be proven safe and no long term independent studies are available to show either way what the ingestion of GM Food will do to us humans...



Dr Kynes said:


> this is currently INVESTIGATIONAL, not a wide scale experiment, and definitely not approved for use. should research into new types of nuclear reactors be abandoned as well? after all, these new designs havent been fully tested and thus COULD be even more dangerous than the old models. should we abandon research into hydrogen as a fuel source? after all, The Hindenburg was pretty conclusive...


You cant even construct a decent "strawman"... As I've said, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that current GM crops are safe for humans and animals, then development of new tech can occur. Monsantos "safety studies" are just examples of "junk science" all the pro-gmo pundants never address. The fact they will not make their data, methods, sources & observations publicly available is enough to raise suspicions. The strict user licencing agreements prohibiting scientific testing, aggressively enforced by monsanto, is telling of an organisation that has something to hide. Last time I checked they were not in anyway, shape or form involved with the national security establishment, so the level of secrecy involved is questionable. IPR and the such aside, I'd like transparency in corporations that are pivitol in the production of what we eat. I want to know exactly what they do about their products.

Many years ago, big tobacco denied the negative health effects of smoking, knowing all along their products posed a serious risk to an individuals health. We now know they were lying mofos...



Dr Kynes said:


> your second citation also refers to a small scale experiment, and the expert who drafted this opinion starts off by saying what amounts to: "I don't know enough about the experiment to say anything definite, but I'm gonna Opine anyhow..."


The expert in the second link states; 

_Unfortunately, the finer details of these wheat varieties are not available to me because (1) theseGM wheat varieties are currently still under development and hence some information is not available for that reason, and (2) the CSIRO has retained crucial information from public view on the argument that it is Commercial Confidential Information. This information includes the names of genes expected to alter grain starch composition, the specific phenotypic changes occurring, when they are down-regulated and its application. This information is not known, and may never be known, to independent scientists such as myself or the general public. However, because they are GM varieties of wheat, they are subject to some regulation, so there is some information available publicly about them on the Office of Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) website._

More research is needed and I cited that paper to support my argument.



Dr Kynes said:


> these examples are examples of RESEARCH not products on the market, and as such they are precluded from sale.theres also ongoing research into new, highly advanced pesticides which promise to target specific pests and remain harmless non-target critters. should this research also be abandoned "Just In Case"? thats not how science works.


As with the big tobacco saga, Monsanto have claimed for years Round-Ups safe, environmentally friendly and biodegradable. This has been proven wrong too. Now theyre modifying enzymes to tolerate poison and you see no problem with it. Selective breeding and gene manipulation are chalk and cheese. 

Glyphosphates are being found everywhere even in human urine and youd allow them to come up with something better? 

Its so environmentally friendly and biodegradable that monsanto have applied to raise the maximum permitted residue levels of glyphosphates in lentils because it just isnt breaking down as previously claimed. 
I wonder if the same chemical compond would have the same effect on a different vegetable under the same conditions?

As Ive previously stated the Green revolution was heralded as the answer to global famine. That didnt quite work out so GMOs are now being heralded as the answer to hunger. I call bullshit...

GM Food an Agricultural Revolution


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Figong said:


> Never knew that there was a requirement of reading 140~ pages before making a comment - in the last few I'd skimmed pre-post, there was no such article. My style of fact-checking is generally working out the source of the information. If you had known the French in question were not good in general (not specific to the citing) you could have just said so and I would have went and looked before saying anything further.
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel you must, then by all means keep up the good work  - as for immediate switch, it wasn't a switch.. but I wouldn't have expected you to figure that out. My hypothetical was selected on your words of 'junk data', which is supposedly (at least in part) the data that I managed to leave out or not acknowledge. *If there is not 100% info, per what Forbes said.. can you, being the brilliant geneticist of the group please tell us the probability of any insect at all (pick one, any one) becoming resistant to any 1 specific BT corn strain is? *


no dance there ...
while i have never claimed to be a geneticist i certainly can give you the probability its for the corn rootworm and p=1 (it has already happened)

see Bacillus thuringiensis (the bit that puts BT in your corn) is a naturally occurring bacteria and as such there is some resistance naturally occurring in the insect population

up untill now the insects were not in close enough quarters with the BT bacteria for nature to breed resistance to all of them (the ones without resistance out bred the ones with resistance)

by changing the forcing by exposing the worms to a higher level/ bt enriched environment it changes the natural forcing a little bit meaning the BT resistant worms are closer to competing with their resistant less cousins

they still arent super worms and they still have less advantage in a "bt" normal environment

once the farmer harvests the corn you take away their advantage


do this mean theres an epidemic of these root worms?

no their proportion of the population is minute 

does this mean BT's unsafe?

no it does not mean bt is unsafe as you can remove the bt corn and remove the forcing


you can read about the rootworms in question here

http://farmindustrynews.com/corn-rootworm-traits/field-resistance-bt-corn-rootworm-trait-documented


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> "Mathey-Prevot counsels patience. At this point, he says, it&#8217;s too early to make claims about the safety of the technique. But, he says, that also means it&#8217;s too early to conclude that the ability to cause RNA interference is any more dangerous than current genetic modifications of food crops." ~http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408994/crops-that-shut-down-pests-genes/page/2/
> 
> 
> this is currently INVESTIGATIONAL, not a wide scale experiment, and definitely not approved for use. should research into new types of nuclear reactors be abandoned as well? after all, these new designs havent been fully tested and thus COULD be even more dangerous than the old models. should we abandon research into hydrogen as a fuel source? after all, The Hindenburg was pretty conclusive...
> ...


The GMO link to strange disease

As early as 2008, NaturalNews.com reported about a condition called Morgellon's disease. The article went on to report the symptoms of the disease as follows: crawling, stinging, biting and crawling sensations; threads or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; granules, lesions. Some patients report fatigue, short term memory loss, mental confusion, joint pain and changes in vision. Furthermore, there have been reports of substantial morbidity and social dysfunction leading to a dip in work productivity, job loss, total disability, divorce, loss of child custody and home abandonment.


Prior to its reporting, the condition was dismissed as a hoax, but upon further investigation, the evidence pointed out that the disease was real and may be related to genetically modified food.


Despite this link being established, the CDC declared Morgellon's disease of unknown origin. Worse, the medical community could not offer any information to the public regarding a cause for the symptoms.


When a research study was conducted on fiber samples taken from Morgellons patients, it was discovered that the fiber samples of all the patients looked remarkable similar. And yet, it did not seem to match any common environmental fiber. When the fiber was broken down, and it's DNA extracted, it was discovered to belong to a fungus. Even more surprising was the finding that the fibers contained Agrobacterium, a genus gram-negative bacteria with the capacity of transforming plant, animal and even human cells.


Morgellon's disease is not the only condition associated with genetically modified foods. A growing body of evidence has shown that it may cause allergies, immune reactions, liver problems, sterility and even death. Moreover, based on the only human feeding experiment conducted on genetically modified food, it was established that genetic material in genetically modified food product can transfer into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and still continue to thrive.


This makes me hungry, hey monsanto hitler, spin this one off............"wheres the study published?", i can hear it now lmao

these arent all lies that are being published. GMOs are bad for everyone genius.  
SAY NO TO GMO!!!!!!!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> The GMO link to strange disease
> 
> As early as 2008, NaturalNews.com reported about a condition called Morgellon's disease. The article went on to report the symptoms of the disease as follows: crawling, stinging, biting and crawling sensations; threads or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; granules, lesions. Some patients report fatigue, short term memory loss, mental confusion, joint pain and changes in vision. Furthermore, there have been reports of substantial morbidity and social dysfunction leading to a dip in work productivity, job loss, total disability, divorce, loss of child custody and home abandonment.
> 
> ...


morgellons exists nowhere but in the minds of crazy people


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> morgellons exists nowhere but in the minds of crazy people


"morgellon's" is just shorthand for a set of symptoms. same as "autism" is just shorthand for a set of symptoms.

weak attempt at dismissal.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> "morgellon's" is just shorthand for a set of symptoms. same as "autism" is just shorthand for a set of symptoms.
> 
> weak attempt at dismissal.


autism is a short hand for a set of medically recognised and medically related symptoms

morgellions is a bunch of people that 
A cannot keep thier wounds clean
b cannot stop picking at them
c to fucking crazy to connect that the fluff stuck in their wound is the same color as the clothing they're wearing 

you want to stick your oar in on the side of morgellons please proceed


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> no offense, but you're asking some pretty stupid questions, and only a little bit is my fault.
> 
> i buy my peas from the same place i buy strawberries and stop in often for humanely raised, grass fed beef (with gluten free and lactose free options for the wife) at the diner on the same corner (they hook it up!).
> 
> ...


You realize that this is not a test for food containing GM ingredients, but merely a test for its being processed. You are setting up an invalid identity between "contains GM" and "highly processed". I don't deny a great deal of overlap, but the correspondence is not absolute or durable. Gmo. cn

<edit> Ginja already made the point.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> came across a few articles about cows dying from GMO grass that would release cyanide, but i am withholding those since that was not my claim. but that's yet another strike against GMO.
> 
> i hope "sciencedaily" is neutral enough of a source. it talks about how cows suffer when removed from their traditional diet that they have enjoyed for thousands of years.
> 
> ...


It wasn't GM grass. it was bred the old-fashioned way. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> The GMO link to strange disease
> 
> As early as 2008, NaturalNews.com reported about a condition called Morgellon's disease. The article went on to report the symptoms of the disease as follows: crawling, stinging, biting and crawling sensations; threads or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; granules, lesions. Some patients report fatigue, short term memory loss, mental confusion, joint pain and changes in vision. Furthermore, there have been reports of substantial morbidity and social dysfunction leading to a dip in work productivity, job loss, total disability, divorce, loss of child custody and home abandonment.
> 
> ...



Moregellons is a "syndrome" not a disease. 

mogellons is also "closely associated" with "chem-trails" alien abductions, CIA mind control rays and the FDA putting dangerous chemicals into our vitamin pills.
morfgellons hasnt been recognized, no cause has been found (but most researchers involved in this suspect mental illness) and your gabble gabble nonsense is the first time i've heard this strawman associated with GMO's 

the morgellons story predated GMO's as well so i suppose GMO's caused this "disease" which mainly afflicts crazy loons BEFORE they were developed... 

give up already. 

youre no good at this. thats why you think smileys are evidence.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> Moregellons is a "syndrome" not a disease.
> 
> mogellons is also "closely associated" with "chem-trails" alien abductions, CIA mind control rays and the FDA putting dangerous chemicals into our vitamin pills.
> morfgellons hasnt been recognized, no cause has been found (but most researchers involved in this suspect mental illness) and your gabble gabble nonsense is the first time i've heard this strawman associated with GMO's
> ...


Your a quack! Monegellons is a digusting disease! Somthing that GMOs were linked to in the article i posted for you. You write it off and link it with aliens and mind control. You are so blind to the truth arent you? And then when you get evidence in your face you spin it off and make futile attemps to discredit it. Were on to you monsanto hitler  
SAY NO TO GMO, MONSANTO SUCKS!!!


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Your a quack! Monegellons is a digusting disease! Somthing that GMOs were linked to in the article i posted for you. You write it off and link it with aliens and mind control. You are so blind to the truth arent you? And then when you get evidence in your face you spin it off and make futile attemps to discredit it. Were on to you monsanto hitler
> SAY NO TO GMO, MONSANTO SUCKS!!!


Listen, as much as we appreciate the personal service, if we have any comments or suggestions about our Big Macs then we'll leave them in the suggestion box in store. 

Get back to flipping those burgers, the grown ups are talking.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Your a quack! Monegellons is a digusting disease! Somthing that GMOs were linked to in the article i posted for you. You write it off and link it with aliens and mind control. You are so blind to the truth arent you? And then when you get evidence in your face you spin it off and make futile attemps to discredit it. Were on to you monsanto hitler
> SAY NO TO GMO, MONSANTO SUCKS!!!


do you know what is fucking disgusting? ANTI GMO pinning their campaign on the back of mentally ill people to try and give it legitimacy

you know how fucking wrong that is?

i might be perfectly happy saying as it is and that they're crazy but i'd never actively try to add another thing for them to be paranoid about to win points


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> do you know what is fucking disgusting? ANTI GMO pinning their campaign on the back of mentally ill people to try and give it legitimacy
> 
> you know how fucking wrong that is?
> 
> i might be perfectly happy saying as it is and that they're crazy but i'd never actively try to add another thing for them to be paranoid about to win points


ok so are all these mice mentally ill or linked to CIA mind control? How about the farmers? Mentally ill too? And the inulin grow factor 1, (IGF-1), more lies to make people hate GMOs? Why are countries all over the world banning monsanto gmos? Those countries mentally ill too?

1. Corn - Corn has been modified to create its own insecticide. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that tons of genetically modified corn has been introduced for human consumption. Monsanto has revealed that half of the US's sweet corn farms are planted with genetically modified seed. Mice fed with GM corn were discovered to have smaller offspring and fertility problems.


2. Soy - Soy has also been genetically modified to resist herbicides. Soy products include soy flour, tofu, soy beverages, soybean oil and other products that may include pastries, baked products and edible oil. Hamsters fed with GM soy were unable to have offspring and suffered a high mortality rate.


3. Cotton - Like corn and soy, cotton has been designed to resist pesticides. It is considered food because its oil can be consumed. Its introduction in Chinese agriculture has produced a chemical that kills cotton bollworm, reducing the incidences of pests not only in cotton crops but also in neighboring fields of soybeans and corn. Incidentally, thousands of Indian farmers suffered severe rashes upon exposure to BT cotton.


4. Papaya - The virus-resistant variety of papaya was commercially introduced in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas comprised three-fourths of the total Hawaiian papaya crop. Monsanto bestowed upon Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Coimbatore technology for developing papaya resistant to the ringspot virus in India.


5. Rice - This staple food from South East Asia has now been genetically modified to contain a high amount of vitamin A. Allegedly, there are reports of rice varieties containing human genes to be grown in the US. The rice will create human proteins useful for dealing with infant diarrhea in the 3rd world. China Daily, an online journal, reported potential serious public health and environment problems with genetically modified rice considering its tendency to cause allergic reactions with the concurrent possibility of gene transfers.


6. Tomatoes - Tomatoes have now been genetically engineered for longer shelf life, preventing them from easily rotting and degrading. In a test conducted to determine the safety of GM tomatoes, some animal subjects died within a few weeks after consuming GM tomatoes.


7. Rapeseed - In Canada, this crop was renamed canola to differentiate it from non-edible rapeseed. Food stuff produced from rapeseed includes rapeseed oi (canola oil) l used to process cooking oil and margarine. Honey can also be produced from GM rapeseed. German food surveillance authorities discovered as much as a third of the total pollen present in Canadian honey may be from GM pollen. In fact, some honey products from Canada were also discovered to have pollen from GM rapeseed.


8. Dairy products - It has been discovered that 22 percent of cows in the U.S. were injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH). This Monsanto created hormone artificially forces cows to increase their milk production by 15 percent. Milk from cows treated with this milk inducing hormone contains increased levels of IGF-1 (insulin growth factors-1). Humans also have IGF-1 in their system. Scientists have expressed concerns that increased levels of IGF-1 in humans have been associated with colon and breast cancer.


9. Potatoes - Mice fed with potatoes engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki Cry 1 were found to have toxins in their system. Despite claims to the contrary, this shows that Cry1 toxin was stable in the mouse gut. When the health risks were revealed, it sparked a debate.


10. Peas - Peas that have been genetically modified have been found to cause immune responses in mice and possibly even in humans. A gene from kidney beans was inserted into the peas creating a protein that functions as a pesticide.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035734_GMOs_foods_dangers.html#ixzz2JOsep7rK


say no to GMO !!! Natures doing just fine without genetic butchers !!!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> You realize that this is not a test for food containing GM ingredients, but merely a test for its being processed. You are setting up an invalid identity between "contains GM" and "highly processed". I don't deny a great deal of overlap, but the correspondence is not absolute or durable. Gmo. cn
> 
> <edit> Ginja already made the point.


HFCS is generally from GMO corn, i'd say at least about 85% of the time, easily ranging to 95% or more. haven't looked at stats on it though, just generalizing based on what i know of our modern day food supply practices.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> ok so are all these mice mentally ill or linked to CIA mind control? How about the farmers? Mentally ill too? And the inulin grow factor 1, (IGF-1), more lies to make people hate GMOs? Why are countries all over the world banning monsanto gmos? Those countries mentally ill too?
> 
> 1. Corn - Corn has been modified to create its own insecticide. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that tons of genetically modified corn has been introduced for human consumption. Monsanto has revealed that half of the US's sweet corn farms are planted with genetically modified seed. Mice fed with GM corn were discovered to have smaller offspring and fertility problems.
> 
> ...


that is a wall of text with no proof of anything? little more than spam

no links to the studies to back up what the article is saying 

it doesnt even say what study it is 

is a piece of shit blog article that as an adult you should see isnt proving anything


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> HFCS is generally from GMO corn, i'd say at least about 85% of the time, easily ranging to 95% or more. haven't looked at stats on it though, just generalizing based on what i know of our modern day food supply practices.


cannabineer wasnt asking the likely hood of getting gmo HFCS now was he?

you werent talking about buying pure HFCS, you were talking about it being an additional ingredient in processed food and comparing that to home cooked farm fresh

are you deliberately being obtuse?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> cannabineer wasnt asking the likely hood of getting gmo HFCS now was he?
> 
> you werent talking about buying pure HFCS, you were talking about it being an additional ingredient in processed food and comparing that to home cooked farm fresh
> 
> are you deliberately being obtuse?


who buys pure HFCS?

HFCS (or some other GMO additive) is on about 75% of everything in the store. so the IRL dilemma we all face is basically farm fresh or GMO.

just found an awesome hookup for truly free range, organic chicken down in tillamook at trask farms. gonna have to hit them up some day for a shitload of chicken.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

Arpad Pusztai, Ph.D., received his degree in Chemistry in Budapest, Hungary and his B.Sc. in Physiology and Ph.D. in Biochemistry at the University of London in England. Over his nearly 50-year career, he worked at universities and research institutes in Budapest; London; Chicago, U.S.; and Aberdeen, Scotland (Rowett Research Institute). He has published close to 300 primary peer-reviewed papers and wrote or edited 12 scientific books. In the last 30 years he pioneered research into the effects of dietary lectins (carbohydrate-reactive proteins), including those transgenically expressed in GM crop plants, on the gastrointestinal tract. Since his contract was not renewed with Rowett as a result of disagreements, Dr. Pusztai has been lecturing on his GM potato research all over the world and acting as a consultant to groups starting up research into the health effects of GM food. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai



here you go

Sources for the article
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11361.cfm
http://www.naturalnews.com/027226_food_GMO_foods.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/023004.html
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/rbgh/
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-02/04/content_9430645.htm
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/food/238.honey.html


Heres the links to the studies


There you go monsanto hitler and leader of the SS.

now theres nothing left for me to do but wait untill you come back with......lies, lies, lies, conspiricy against monsanto, lies,lies,no proof,no proof, GMOs are the best!, no proof, lies, lies!!!!!

&#8203;SAY NO TO GMO !!!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

i like my my food like i like my three-eyed space monkeys with lasers in their tails: genetically modified.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> who buys pure HFCS?
> 
> HFCS (or some other GMO additive) is on about 75% of everything in the store. so the IRL dilemma we all face is basically farm fresh or GMO.
> 
> just found an awesome hookup for truly free range, organic chicken down in tillamook at trask farms. gonna have to hit them up some day for a shitload of chicken.


so 85% of hfcs is GMO (your number)

75% of you food has HFCS (your number)

= 63.75% of the processed food has GMO in 

and as you say nobody buys pure HFCS it is always a minor ingredient in the food 

so your taking the bad taste of processed food to be the fault of a minor ingrediant? 

thats only there 63.75% of the time

yet because processed food isnt up to your "foodie" standards then GMO is not nutritious and makes your body feel bad?

yeah nothing dishonest about you conflating the issues there?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> so 85% of hfcs is GMO (your number)
> 
> 75% of you food has HFCS (your number)
> 
> ...


shitty math there.

if there isn't GMO HFCS, there is probably GMO soy lecithin or some other GMO additive. not taking that into account, are we?

do you even read a label before deciding to shove some shit into your body?

i mean, big corporations like monsanto would never do something potentially harmful in the name of profit, now would they?

it's probably just better to blindly trust the massive overhaul in our food supply, not ask questions, and not proceed with caution in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

_*MONSANTO: JUST TRUST US!*_


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Arpad Pusztai, Ph.D., received his degree in Chemistry in Budapest, Hungary and his B.Sc. in Physiology and Ph.D. in Biochemistry at the University of London in England. Over his nearly 50-year career, he worked at universities and research institutes in Budapest; London; Chicago, U.S.; and Aberdeen, Scotland (Rowett Research Institute). He has published close to 300 primary peer-reviewed papers and wrote or edited 12 scientific books. In the last 30 years he pioneered research into the effects of dietary lectins (carbohydrate-reactive proteins), including those transgenically expressed in GM crop plants, on the gastrointestinal tract. Since his contract was not renewed with Rowett as a result of disagreements, Dr. Pusztai has been lecturing on his GM potato research all over the world and acting as a consultant to groups starting up research into the health effects of GM food.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai


from your wiki


> This resulted in a media frenzy, and Rowett Institute's director Philip James, after initially supporting Pusztai, suspended him and banned both Pusztai and Susan Bardocz from speaking publicly. He also used misconduct procedures to seize the raw data.[SUP][4][/SUP] *The Rowett Institute published an audit criticizing Pusztai's results[SUP][5][/SUP] and sent the raw data to six anonymous reviewers who also criticized Pusztai's work.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] Pusztai responded that the raw data was "never intended for publication under intense scrutiny"*.[SUP][4][/SUP] Pusztai sent the audit report and his rebuttal to scientists who requested it, and in February 1999, twenty-one European and American scientists released a memo supporting Pusztai.[SUP][8][/SUP]
> 
> Pusztai's experiment was eventually published as a letter in _The Lancet_ in 1999.[SUP][9][/SUP] B*ecause of the controversial nature of his research the letter was reviewed by six reviewers - three times the usual number. One publicly opposed the letter, another thought it was flawed, but wanted it published "to avoid suspicions of a conspiracy against Pusztai and to give colleagues a chance to see the data for themselves," while the other four raised questions that were addressed by the authors*


if your going to dump a wall of links at #least you could take the time and trouble to bother fucking reading them

you want me to address the rest show you put some fucking effort in



> here you go
> 
> Sources for the article
> http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11361.cfm
> ...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> shitty math there.
> 
> if there isn't GMO HFCS, there is probably GMO soy lecithin or some other GMO additive. not taking that into account, are we?
> 
> ...


none of that changes your fallacious argument that processed food = bad therefore GMO is bad


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> who buys pure HFCS?
> 
> HFCS (or some other GMO additive) is on about 75% of everything in the store. so the IRL dilemma we all face is basically farm fresh or GMO.
> 
> just found an awesome hookup for truly free range, organic chicken down in tillamook at trask farms. gonna have to hit them up some day for a shitload of chicken.


I love having a freezer full of farm fresh food. Salsa, tomato sauce, apple sauce, peas, pumpkin, blanched chard. Theres a huge movement tward community gardens and coop food suppliers lately. I love it! When i was in Austin i was getting veggies from a coop and they were cheaper than in the store and they obviously has so much more flavour. These guy crack me up how they actually support somthing that is sub par. I like the best, not the worst, who cheers for the worst, thats just supid lol


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> none of that changes your fallacious argument that processed food = bad therefore GMO is bad


lol.

ok, so we're gonna be silly then, are we? we're going to imagine a world in which farm fresh GMO corn (not really edible unless processed) is one of our options?

OK, let's be silly then.

_*A PIG WITH A GLOWING NOSE IS NOT NORMAL. BUT ON GMO IT IS.*_







_*GMO: NOT EVEN ONCE*_


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> I love having a freezer full of farm fresh food. Salsa, tomato sauce, apple sauce, peas, pumpkin, blanched chard. Theres a huge movement tward community gardens and coop food suppliers lately. I love it! When i was in Austin i was getting veggies from a coop and they were cheaper than in the store and they obviously has so much more flavour. These guy crack me up how they actually support somthing that is sub par. I like the best, not the worst, who cheers for the worst, thats just supid lol


my wife just pulled some of our peas and carrots out of the freezer a couple night ago and made a delicious pea and carrot soup.

so much better than the GMO ridden, processed crap they sell at the store.

not sure why there are so many people so willing to fight so hard for something so unproven.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> lol.
> 
> ok, so we're gonna be silly then, are we? we're going to imagine a world in which farm fresh GMO corn (not really edible unless processed) is one of our options?
> 
> ...


dont hcange this round on me you have been the one making the claim from the start


you could quite easily have said "i don't like processed food it tastes shitty and it gives me indigestion"

and along side that you could have said "i do not agree with GMO im worried about the future effects (not enough is known yet)"


but no instead you said "i dont like GMO food it tastes shitty and it gives me indigestion"

that is a conflation that is fallacious and dishonest

and you should be fucking smart enough to know that


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> my wife just pulled some of our peas and carrots out of the freezer a couple night ago and made a delicious pea and carrot soup.
> 
> so much better than the GMO ridden, processed crap they sell at the store.
> 
> not sure why there are *so many people so willing to fight so hard for something so unproven.*


liars and idiots always need correcting


----------



## chewberto (Jan 29, 2013)

But GMO is gonna save the world! Like they said about the over produced corn back on the day! Nobody is starving anymore are they?...GMO is so good for you...they want to make sure you know that your eating their product, cause its a quality one... so they don't label it? ...reverse business model i guess..any simpleton with half a brain would add this up and realize its a lie...Fucking simpletons....part of me says go ahead and die motherfucker but the other part thinks that you are stupid because of the education system and the same people forcing this shit down your throat...so what is fair?:


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> HFCS is generally from GMO corn, i'd say at least about 85% of the time, easily ranging to 95% or more. haven't looked at stats on it though, just generalizing based on what i know of our modern day food supply practices.


It's still a narrow "test" for a broad claim. Can you tell a GM trout from its wild-type cousin by its culinary andor nutritive qualities? cn


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

chewberto said:


> But GMO is gonna save the world! Like they said about the over produced corn back on the day! Nobody is starving anymore are they?...GMO is so good for you...they want to make sure you know that your eating their product, cause its a quality one... so they don't label it? ...reverse business model i guess..any simpleton with half a brain would add this up and realize its a lie...Fucking simpletons....part of me says go ahead and die motherfucker but the other part thinks that you are stupid because of the education system and the same people forcing this shit down your throat...so what is fair?:


there is nothing stopping producers from labelling their food "GMO FREE" is there?

if all the consumers are so very worried about it the moment that shit hit the shelves it would be bought would it not?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Arpad Pusztai, Ph.D., received his degree in Chemistry in Budapest, Hungary and his B.Sc. in Physiology and Ph.D. in Biochemistry at the University of London in England. Over his nearly 50-year career, he worked at universities and research institutes in Budapest; London; Chicago, U.S.; and Aberdeen, Scotland (Rowett Research Institute). He has published close to 300 primary peer-reviewed papers and wrote or edited 12 scientific books. In the last 30 years he pioneered research into the effects of dietary lectins (carbohydrate-reactive proteins), including those transgenically expressed in GM crop plants, on the gastrointestinal tract. Since his contract was not renewed with Rowett as a result of disagreements, Dr. Pusztai has been lecturing on his GM potato research all over the world and acting as a consultant to groups starting up research into the health effects of GM food.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai
> 
> 
> ...


and theres not a scientific study in any of those links. 

every last link leads to an opinion piece in a news website, an opinion piece in a eco-loony website or a dopey position paper that alleges bees carry corn pollen around. 

you dont even know what a real study, research paper, or experimental trial report looks like. 

you just keep declaring victory, who knows, you may eventually post something that supports one of the allegations you assume are true, but it will be pure chance.


----------



## chewberto (Jan 29, 2013)

I dont understand your point!


ginjawarrior said:


> there is nothing stopping producers from labelling their food "GMO FREE" is there?
> 
> if all the consumers are so very worried about it the moment that shit hit the shelves it would be bought would it not?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> from your wiki
> 
> 
> if your going to dump a wall of links at #least you could take the time and trouble to bother fucking reading them
> ...


It says right there that 21 reviewing scientists european and american SUPPORTED his work. 

Then only one out of six on the review board said no. One said it was flawed but should be published. Four had questions that were answered. 

And who do you think challenged his work? GMO companies, companies that have billions. If i was his boss i woulda shit my pants too. Keep reading. Its not all lies, lies, lies , lies!!! 

All good, write it off if you want, we know the truth and ill just keep posting more crap day after day and you guys can keep saying lies, lies, lies, lies. Thats what your good at, spinning the truth. 

No more GMOs!!!


----------



## chewberto (Jan 29, 2013)

Why do we need gmo fish?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> It says right there that 21 reviewing scientists european and american SUPPORTED his work.
> 
> Then only one out of six on the review board said no. One said it was flawed but should be published. Four had questions that were answered.
> 
> ...


what about the part where he claimed his data wasnt for publication? those 21 scientists get the full data set or just what he cherrypicked and sent to them?

and its not a study it was wiki page

and as DRkeynes none of your other links were studies


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> none of that changes your fallacious argument that processed food = bad therefore GMO is bad


Did you see the tomatos a couple pages ago? GMO food is bad. Theres markets out there where you can buy non gm tomatos and they are so much better tasting than those disgusting water balloons they call tomatos.
GMO Sucks, plain and simple, you dont need a study to prove that. Giant super vegtables that could withstand a nuke. Thats not normal. Sorry weirdos.


----------



## chewberto (Jan 29, 2013)

Just eat GMO... The culling needs to be expedited...you GMO supporting idiots are a stain in history... And you all like to call us luddites as if we are against progression...stay sick


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

chewberto said:


> I dont understand your point!


untill it is shown that GMO is any different as a food than any other food then i do not support labelling it differently

if you want NON GMO i suggest you get onto the NON GMO producers to add a "GUARANTEED GMO FREE" label to facilitate your making the choice


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Did you see the tomatos a couple pages ago? GMO food is bad. Theres markets out there where you can buy non gm tomatos and they are so much better tasting than those disgusting water balloons they call tomatos.
> GMO Sucks, plain and simple, you dont need a study to prove that. Giant super vegtables that could withstand a nuke. Thats not normal. Sorry weirdos.


there are no FUCKING GMO TOMATOES BEING SOLD ANYWHERE


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> do you know what is fucking disgusting? ANTI GMO pinning their campaign on the back of mentally ill people to try and give it legitimacy
> 
> you know how fucking wrong that is?


Do you know what's fucking disgusting, mentally ill pro-gmo pundits pinning their arguments to the legitimacy of companies like Monsanto and actually believing anything the dirty fuckers have to say... Can you not recognise junk science? Allow me to rephrase that for you - Can you not recognise when junk science is supporting your loosing argument? 

Do you eat GM crops or processed foods that are the product of GM?

You happy to take the 30 day challenge on GM food?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> dont hcange this round on me you have been the one making the claim from the start
> 
> 
> you could quite easily have said "i don't like processed food it tastes shitty and it gives me indigestion"
> ...


tell me more about farm fresh GMO corn. where can i buy some? can i eat farm fresh GMO sugar beets?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> It's still a narrow "test" for a broad claim. Can you tell a GM trout from its wild-type cousin by its culinary andor nutritive qualities? cn


do they glow like GM pigs do?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Do you know what's fucking disgusting, mentally ill pro-gmo pundits pinning their arguments to the legitimacy of companies like Monsanto and actually believing anything the dirty fuckers have to say... Can you not recognise junk science? Allow me to rephrase that for you - Can you not recognise when junk science is supporting your loosing argument?
> 
> Do you eat GM crops or processed foods that are the product of GM?
> 
> You happy to take the 30 day challenge on GM food?


i'm perfectly happy eating GMO food

i even eat processed food on occasion i do prefer to use more fresh ingredients but would not shy away from any fresh ingredient that was GMO


----------



## chewberto (Jan 29, 2013)

I am glad your willing to sacrifice your health for tests of lab food... am sure they expected some simpletons to believe the lies and consume i5......good work using your brain


ginjawarrior said:


> untill it is shown that GMO is any different as a food ...than any other food then i do not support labelling it differently
> 
> if you want NON GMO i suggest you get onto the NON GMO producers to add a "GUARANTEED GMO FREE" label to facilitate your making the choice


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> untill it is shown that GMO is any different as a food than any other food then i do not support labelling it differently


they must modify it so that it's not different then, eh?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> what about the part where he claimed his data wasnt for publication? those 21 scientists get the full data set or just what he cherrypicked and sent to them?
> 
> and its not a study it was wiki page
> 
> and as DRkeynes none of your other links were studies


You do know that nobody would dare try and publish a study that would be scrutinized by monsanto right? Nobody has billions to spend on media control, public image, PR, disproving science, destroying the lives of anyone who stands in their way. Nobody.....except for monsanto and their Nazi genetic purification system. One race, one line, 100% profit.

Ban GMOs !!! Choose nature over disaster !!!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> tell me more about farm fresh GMO corn. where can i buy some? can i eat farm fresh GMO sugar beets?


i do not need to tell you about any of that

"i do not like procssed food its tastes shitty and gives me indigestion"
"i do not agree with GMO for ethical reasons a worries of the future"
^^
two perfectly good honest statements buck that would make you not a liar

"i do not like GMO it taste shitty and gives me indigestion"
*^^for that to be honest you should be telling me about the farm fresh GMO*

lets see if you got the integrity for this


----------



## chewberto (Jan 29, 2013)

I wish you would eat all GMO...sooner these people are dead from cancer.the sooner the rest of us can build back the organic industry that was stifled from profit whores....go ahead be a statistic...too many of ya morons..


----------



## chewberto (Jan 29, 2013)

I gots to be able ta see ya in the dark cletus, eat se more a that Geemo pig..


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> do they glow like GM pigs do?


I had a GM pig once. 'Twas a Cadillac. It most assuredly did not glow unless parked under a streetlight. 
I think the connection I missed was how a pig that fluoresces is a bad thing. What is bad about it? cn


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> i'm perfectly happy eating GMO food
> 
> i even eat processed food on occasion i do prefer to use more fresh ingredients but would not shy away from any fresh ingredient that was GMO


Thankyou - that brought a smile to my face... 

Maybe the elitest' plans will work... As long as we don't mention the rothchilds as it will awaken our resident, rabid, zionist defender...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> i do not need to tell you about any of that
> 
> "i do not like procssed food its tastes shitty and gives me indigestion"
> "i do not agree with GMO for ethical reasons a worries of the future"
> ...


i'm confused about this notion of farm fresh GMO. you can't eat the farm fresh GMO corn, it is refined down and used that way. ditto the GMO sugar beets and many other GMO crops.

so i really don't know what you're trying to get at with this farm fresh GMO fallacy.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> they must modify it so that it's not different then, eh?


as a food source for that no its the same


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I had a GM pig once. 'Twas a Cadillac. It most assuredly did not glow unless parked under a streetlight.
> I think the connection I missed was how a pig that fluoresces is a bad thing. What is bad about it? cn


i think it starts to glow when it needs water.

nope, the potatoes glow wen they need water. the pigs glow for the fuck of it.

fucking pigs. worse jokers than ducks.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 29, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I think the connection I missed was how a pig that fluoresces is a bad thing. What is bad about it? cn


I also had a pig once, but she wouldn't cook me bacon & eggs of a morning so she didn't work out...

How many pigs have you seen with a glowing nose?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> there are no FUCKING GMO TOMATOES BEING SOLD ANYWHERE


How do you like that?? The internet just called you a LIAR!

Top Ten Genetically Engineered Food Crops
Corn: Our number-one agricultural commodity. In 2000, 79.5 million acres of harvested cropland in the U.S. were corn, 25% of which was genetically engineered. This includes Bt and Roundup Ready corn varieties.
Soy: The number-two U.S. agricultural commodity. Sixty percent of processed foods contain soy ingredients, and 82% of edible fats and oils consumed in the U.S. are soy-based. In 2000, 54% of the 74.5 million acres of soybeans grown in the U.S. was Roundup Ready soy.
Potato: Currently, the only GE potato is a Burbank Russet variety, marketed under the name NewLeaf. This Bt-producing plant is lethal to the Colorado potato beetle &#8211; and possibly to beneficial insects.
Tomato: The first GE tomato, the Flavr Savr, was introduced commercially in 1994, but flopped because it proved tasteless. Since then, other varieties, including a cherry tomato, have been genetically engineered to delay ripening and extend shelf life.
Canola: Of the 15 million acres of canola grown in the U.S. and Canada annually, 35% is GE, mostly for herbicide-resistance.
Cottonseed Oil: In 2000, 61% of the 15.5 million acres of cotton grown in the U.S. was genetically engineered. Every year, half a million tons of cottonseed oil makes its way into salad dressings, baked goods and snack foods. About 1.4 million tons of cottonseed meal is fed to livestock annually.
Papaya: More than one third of Hawaiian papayas have been genetically engineered to withstand the papaya ringspot virus. Organic papaya growers in Hawaii worry that the pollen from GE papaya trees will contaminate their crops.
Radicchio: Currently one variety of radicchio, called Seed Link, has been genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glufosinate.
Squash: Several varieties of summer squash have been genetically engineered to resist mosaic viruses. Some scientists are concerned that resistance to the virus may spread to weedy relatives, such as gourds, found in the U.S., creating invasive superweeds.
Salmon: A company called Aqua Bounty has engineered a salmon with genes from two different fish species so that it grows much more quickly than non-GE salmon. The company now seeks FDA approval to market this fish for human consumption. Escaped into the environment, (which is inevitable on fish farms), the GE fish may be larger and more aggressive, eat more food, and mate more often, though their offspring are less fit to survive in the wild, raising the possibility of wild species extinction. Human health effects are also relatively unknown. Currently, research on transgenic strains of 35 fish species world-wide is underway.




Read more: http://www.healthychild.org/live-healthy/checklist/top_ten_genetically_engineered_food_crops/#ixzz2JPIXuzCL


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> as a food source for that no its the same


it's the same, only modified and (almost always) processed.

how is that the same?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i'm confused about this notion of farm fresh GMO. you can't eat the farm fresh GMO corn, it is refined down and used that way. ditto the GMO sugar beets and many other GMO crops.
> 
> so i really don't know what you're trying to get at with this farm fresh GMO fallacy.


no one likes a liar buckits interesting that your position is so weak that you feel the need to do so


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> How do you like that?? The internet just called you a LIAR!
> 
> Top Ten Genetically Engineered Food Crops
> Corn: Our number-one agricultural commodity. In 2000, 79.5 million acres of harvested cropland in the U.S. were corn, 25% of which was genetically engineered. This includes Bt and Roundup Ready corn varieties.
> ...


do a little bit more research on flavrsaver tomatos and you' find that no one grows or sells them any more


----------



## chewberto (Jan 29, 2013)

They are going to kill those poor rats man!


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> do a little bit more research on flavrsaver tomatos and you' find that no one grows or sells them any more


Really, thats what the top ten gmo foods article that i posted says too. Wow, ground breaking facts there. Theyre all in the article,"top ten Geneticlly engineered food crops" hmmmm.....food crops......hmm...food crops?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> no one likes a liar buckits interesting that your position is so weak that you feel the need to do so


so they sell farm fresh GMO corn? i'd love to pick some up. where is it available?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Really, thats what the top ten gmo foods article that i posted says too. Wow, ground breaking facts there. Theyre all in the article,"top ten Geneticlly engineered food crops" hmmmm.....food crops......hmm...food crops?


that speaks more to the quality of the article on "healthychild" and the poorness of your fact checking than the fact flavrsaver tomatoes are no longer sold



> Although they were approved in the US and several other countries, tomatoes with delayed ripening have disappeared from the market after peaking in 1998. *At this point, no genetically modified tomatoes are being grown commercially in North America or in Europe.*


http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/fruit_vegetables/15.genetically_modified_tomatoes.html


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> so they sell farm fresh GMO corn? i'd love to pick some up. where is it available?


changing the subject does not change your dishonesty

get a backbone before you come back to me


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> that speaks more to the quality of the article on "healthychild" and the poorness of your fact checking than the fact flavrsaver tomatoes are no longer sold
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/fruit_vegetables/15.genetically_modified_tomatoes.html


It says that right in the article i posted bright bulb. Monsanto put fish genes into tomatos. Yup those are the guys i want growing my food!!!
GMO sucks!!


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> changing the subject does not change your dishonesty
> 
> get a backbone before you come back to me


Hypocrisy..........


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> It says that right in the article i posted bright bulb. Monsanto put fish genes into tomatos. Yup those are the guys i want growing my food!!!
> GMO sucks!!


fish gene tomatoes where never ever commercialised

and it wasnt fucking monsanto that did it either


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> changing the subject does not change your dishonesty
> 
> get a backbone before you come back to me


dude, you were the one who told me to try these farm fresh GMO crops. so tell me about how i can get some farm fresh GMO corn. tell me about how edible it is.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Hypocrisy..........


neve rassign to malice that which can be explained by stupidity (hanlon's razor).

i just don't think ginja is aware that farm fresh GMO corn is not edible. it is processed or refined into other products.

there is no such thing as farm fresh GMO corn.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> dude, you were the one who told me to try these farm fresh GMO crops. so tell me about how i can get some farm fresh GMO corn. tell me about how edible it is.


nonsense you made the original claim about being able to taste the difference between non gmo and gmo

i tried to find out how you came about the claim

it then transpired that you are actually talking about processed food tasting worse than home cooked food

at every point where you had a chance walk you claim back you doubled down


get a spine


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> neve rassign to malice that which can be explained by stupidity (hanlon's razor).
> 
> i just don't think ginja is aware that farm fresh GMO corn is not edible. it is processed or refined into other products.
> 
> there is no such thing as farm fresh GMO corn.


oh so now its strawman


doubling down on your lies shows how very strong your position is doesnt it


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> ***words***


..........


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> nonsense you made the original claim about being able to taste the difference between non gmo and gmo
> 
> i tried to find out how you came about the claim
> 
> ...


so you're trying to make a distinction between "came from a GMO seed" and "came from a regular seed and was processed with GMO HFCS (or other such additive)"?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> oh so now its strawman
> 
> 
> doubling down on your lies shows how very strong your position is doesnt it


googled it but can't find anyone selling farm fresh GMO corn.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

Hybrid vs. genetically modified plants


Print Email
March 15, 2012 12:00 am &#8226; Joel Marshall/The Forward View(0) Comments
Is planting hybrid tomatoes like Better Boys, Big Boys, or Early Girls safe, and how can someone ensure that they&#8217;re not purchasing GMO (genetically modified organism) seeds? These two variations of seeds are often tied together because of misconceptions and lack of information. 


The short answer is easy: Better Boy tomatoes are easy to grow in our sandy Central Coast soil, and for ordering seeds, I rely on either of my favorite seed companies: Bountiful Gardens or Seeds of Change, but if it&#8217;s the deciding factor on whether you&#8217;ll have a garden in the first place, you can purchase seeds from a big-box store and feel safe you won&#8217;t be planting GMOs. 


The long (and more preferred) answer is a little more involved: 


GMO seeds are genetically modified plants created by scientists in order to circumvent the laws of nature by way of gene splicing with multimillion dollar pieces of equipment. GMOs are able to exhibit specific traits from any number of geneses and species. GMO seeds are most commonly used in industrial agriculture, most notably in corn, cotton, soy, and canola.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginja's sig reminds me of why i enjoy having this argument versus listening to the anti-climate science crowd.

at least we aren't trading links from "OMGIHATEGMOS.com" and "shutthefuckupandeatthisgmo.com".


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> so you're trying to make a distinction between "came from a GMO seed" and "came from a regular seed and was processed with GMO HFCS (or other such additive)"?


not all processed food is gmo plain and simple

one is the manner in which the food is bred

the other is the industrial process that happens after the food is harvested

how hard a concept should that be to handle?


*
"i do not like procssed food its tastes shitty and gives me indigestion"
"i do not agree with GMO for ethical reasons a worries of the future"
^^
two perfectly good honest statements buck that would make you not a liar

"i do not like GMO it taste shitty and gives me indigestion"
^^for that to be honest you should be telling me about the farm fresh GMO

lets see if you got the integrity for this *


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> googled it but can't find anyone selling farm fresh GMO corn.


if you hadnt of made the claim that you have tasted the difference between the 2 (a claim that needs a like for like comparison)

then you wouldnt have to be desperately erecting straw men like this


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> if you hadnt of made the claim that you have tasted the difference between the 2 (a claim that needs a like for like comparison)
> 
> then you wouldnt have to be desperately erecting straw men like this


how do you have a "like for like" comparison between my corn and GMO corn when you can't very well eat GMO corn?

see what i'm getting at?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> not all processed food is gmo plain and simple


that's about 10-15% true.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> how do you have a "like for like" comparison between my corn and GMO corn when you can't very well eat GMO corn?
> 
> see what i'm getting at?


exactly does that mean you withdraw your statement that your body can taste and feel the difference as being faulty from the start? seeing as you have never done like for like

see what im getting at?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> fish gene tomatoes where never ever commercialised
> 
> and it wasnt fucking monsanto that did it either


Oh no?? The internet is calling you a liar again 

Throwing Biotech Lies at Tomatoes &#8211; Part 1: Killer Tomatoes
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_61930.shtml
Remember the pictures of the fish tomatoes? For years they were an unofficial emblem of the anti-GMO movement. They depicted how anti- freeze genes from an Arctic fish were forced into tomato DNA, allowing the plants to survive frost. Scientists really did create those Frankentomatoes, but they were never put on the market. (Breyers low- fat ice cream, however, does contain anti-freeze proteins from Arctic fish genes, but that&#8217;s another story.)
The tomato that did make it to market was called the Flavr Savr, engineered for longer shelf life. Fortunately, it was removed from the shelves soon after it was introduced.
Although there are no longer any genetically modified (GM) tomatoes being sold today, the FDA&#8217;s shady approval process of the Flavr Savr provides a lesson in food safety&#8212;or rather, the lack of it&#8212;as far as gene-spliced foods are concerned. We know what reallywent on during the FDA&#8217;s voluntary review process of the Flavr Savr in 1993, because a lawsuit forced the release of 44,000 agency memos.
(Those same memos, by the way, also showed that FDA scientists had repeatedly warned their superiors about the serious health risks of genetically modified organisms [GMOs]. They were ignored by the political appointees in charge, who allow GMOs onto the market without any required safety studies.)
Bleeding stomachs
Calgene, the tomatoes&#8217; creator-in-chief (now a part of Monsanto), voluntarily conducted three 28-day rat feeding studies. Before I share the gory details, I must commend the Calgene scientists who were committed to transparency and full disclosure with the FDA. Unlike all other subsequent voluntary submissions from biotech firms to the agency, Calgene provided detailed feeding study data and full reports. Dr. Belinda Martineau, one of Calgene&#8217;s tomato makers, writes in First Fruit about their commitment to an open process while they attempted to introduce the world&#8217;s first GM food crop.
Calgene tested two separate Flavr Savr tomato lines. Both had the same gene inserted into the same type of tomato. The process of insertion and the subsequent cloning of the cells into GM plants can cause lots of unique and unpredicted consequences. The two lines, therefore, were notconsidered identical.
The rats that ate one of these Flavr Savr varieties probably wished they were in a different test group. Out of 20 female rats, 7 developed stomach lesions&#8212;bleeding stomachs. The rats eating the other Flavr Savr, or the natural tomatoes, or no tomatoes at all, had no lesions.
If we humans had such effects in our stomachs, according to Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a top GMO safety and animal feeding expert, it &#8220;could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent thrombosis.&#8221;
The lab that performed the study for Calgene acknowledged that the results &#8220;did suggest a possible treatment related&#8221; problem. FDA scientists repeatedly asked Calgene to provide additional data in order to resolve what they regarded as outstanding safety questions. The director of FDA&#8217;s Office of Special Research Skills wrote that thetomatoes did not demonstrate a &#8220;reasonable certainty of no harm,&#8221; which is the normal standard of safety. The Additives Evaluation Branch agreed that &#8220;unresolved questions still remain,&#8221; and the staff pathologist stated, &#8220;In the absence of adequate explanations by Calgene, the issues raised by the Pathology Branch &#8230; remain and leave doubts as to the validity of any scientific conclusion(s) which may be drawn from the studies&#8217; findings.&#8221;
Oh yeah, some rats died
The team that had obtained the formerly secret FDA documents sent the full Flavr Savr studies to Dr. Pusztai for review and comment. While reading them, he happened across an endnote that apparently the FDA scientists either did not see or chose to ignore. The text nonchalantly indicated that 7 of the 40 rats fed the Flavr Savr tomato died within two weeks. The dead rats had eaten the same tomato line as those that developed lesions. In the other groups, fed the other Flavr Savr line, a natural tomato control, or a water control, only one rat had died.
But the endnote summarily dismissed the cause of death as husbandry error, and no additional data or explanation was provided. The dead rats were simply replaced with new ones.
When I discussed this finding with Dr. Pusztai over the phone, he was beside himself. He told me emphatically that in proper studies, younever just dismiss the cause of death with an unsupported footnote. He said that the details of the post mortem analysis must be included in order to rule out possible causes or to raise questions for additional research. Furthermore, you simply never replace test animals once the research begins.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> that's about 10-15% true.


completely irrelevant

GMO = how its bred (you know before its even sown)
processed food = what happens to it after its harvested

the are not the same and should not be conflated


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> exactly does that mean you withdraw your statement that your body can taste and feel the difference as being faulty from the start? seeing as you have never done like for like
> 
> see what im getting at?


peas with HFCS are still a GMO food. and my body know the difference without any doubt.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> completely irrelevant
> 
> GMO = how its bred (you know before its even sown)
> processed food = what happens to it after its harvested
> ...


non GMO food with GMO additive = GMO food product.

they should be conflated about 85% of the time or more, depending on where you shop.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Oh no?? The internet is calling you a liar again
> 
> Throwing Biotech Lies at Tomatoes &#8211; Part 1: Killer Tomatoes
> http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_61930.shtml
> ...


no your article is showing the creators of the flavorsaver tomato Calgene

fish tomatos were bred by DNA Plant Technology


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> peas with HFCS are still a GMO food. and my body know the difference without any doubt.


you back to comparing processed food for non processed food 

havent we just worked out that you cannot do that and be honest about it?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> non GMO food with GMO additive = GMO food product.
> 
> they should be conflated about 85% of the time or more, depending on where you shop.


you can say this is processed food it has GMO in it 

but you cannot say processed food = gmo

or gmo= processed food

as you wouldnt be right 100% of the time


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> no your article is showing the creators of the flavorsaver tomato Calgene
> 
> fish tomatos were bred by DNA Plant Technology


So now monsanto owns the people that made the fish tomato. And this is supposed to mke me put more faith in monsanto how exactly?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> non GMO food with GMO additive = GMO food product.
> 
> they should be conflated about 85% of the time or more, depending on where you shop.


I don't think he understands the difference... Glyphosphates bro - might as well shot 30ml of mercury...

Ginja - GMO wheat milled into flour, used to make bread equals a GM Food Product...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> I don't think he understands the difference... Glyphosphates bro - might as well shot 30ml of mercury...
> 
> Ginja - GMO wheat milled into flour, used to make bread equals a *GM Food Product.*..


i know that i have not argued against it ok?

it is also processed food

comparing a processed loaf of bread to a hand baked loaf of bread is closer to the arguement


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> I don't think he understands the difference... Glyphosphates bro - might as well shot 30ml of mercury...
> 
> Ginja - GMO wheat milled into flour, used to make bread equals a GM Food Product...


at least ginja and i disagree in a reasonable way. he concedes basically all that i would think is reasonable to concede.

it's a little different than arguing with people who tell me al gore spearheaded a decades in the making hoax involving thousands of scientists in dozens of nations and was only foiled by rush limbaugh and low flush toilets.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> So now monsanto owns the people that made the fish tomato. And this is supposed to mke me put more faith in monsanto how exactly?


no monsanto does not own the fish tomato company


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 29, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> I don't think he understands the difference... Glyphosphates bro - might as well shot 30ml of mercury...
> 
> Ginja - GMO wheat milled into flour, used to make bread equals a GM Food Product...


glyphosate is less toxic than caffeine in humans. 

if you chug a bottle of glyphosate youll get sick from the surfactants (basically dishsoap) long before youll be able to get a dangerous dose of the herbicide. 

you know not whereof you speak. 

http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mp7RD001.pdf

LD50 for glyphosate is 5000mg/kg. 

the most dangerous part of glyphosate is the possibility that if spilled on a hard surface someone may slip and fall on their butt.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> no monsanto does not own the fish tomato company


So they just own the creator? The person who created it? Are you trying to say you cant make nike shoes in any factory you want?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> So they just own the creator? The person who created it? Are you trying to say you cant make nike shoes in any factory you want?


monsanto doesnt not own every GMO company

monsanto do not own fish tomato and they do not own the creator of fishtomato

calgene the one that you posted grew the flavrsavor and is now owned by monsanto


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> at least ginja and i disagree in a reasonable way. he concedes basically all that i would think is reasonable to concede.
> 
> it's a little different than arguing with people who tell me al gore spearheaded a decades in the making hoax involving thousands of scientists in dozens of nations and was only foiled by rush limbaugh and low flush toilets.



well reasonable to an extent

your still being dishoenst with "your body knows the difference between gmo peas and non gmo peas"

concession can be a 2 way street you know


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> monsanto doesnt not own every GMO company
> 
> monsanto do not own fish tomato and they do not own the creator of fishtomato
> 
> calgene the one that you posted grew the flavrsavor and is now owned by monsanto


So they own the fish tomato company. You just said they didnt own the company, now your saying they do wtf man? Your floppin like a flounder on this one.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> well reasonable to an extent
> 
> your still being dishoenst with "your body knows the difference between gmo peas and non gmo peas"
> 
> concession can be a 2 way street you know


that's a part where we've already agreed to disagree with concessions.

we both agree that there is not enough info yet. you seem to think they are one in the same nutritionally, i disagree and will await the science. if the science never comes in, i'll be happy to concede. too early for me yet.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 29, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> glyphosate is less toxic than caffeine in humans.
> 
> if you chug a bottle of glyphosate youll get sick from the surfactants (basically dishsoap) long before youll be able to get a dangerous dose of the herbicide.
> 
> ...


Everytime I read one of your posts I laugh at your ignorance... Honestly there are children out there that can research and present better arguments than you.

You're proof positive the Glyphosphates can fuck your neurons... Did you prove it's safety by ingesting it? Are you that stupid to think the danger it poses is limited to a trip hazzard?

Only a full retard would think an MSDS suffices in defence of your position. Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning in France

Here are some references you can educate yourself with....

Attorney General of the State of New York, Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau, Environmental Protection Bureau. 1996. In the matter of Monsanto Company, respondent. Assurance of discontinuance pursuant to executive law § 63(15). New York, NY, Nov. False advertising by Monsanto regarding the safety of Roundup herbicide (glyphosate). http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-v-AGNYnov96.htm 

Bellé, R., Le Bouffant, R., Morales, J., Cosson, B., Cormier, P., Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2007. Sea urchin embryo, DNA-damaged cell cycle checkpoint and the mechanisms initiating cancer development. J. Soc. Biol. 201, 317327.

Belmonte, R.V. 2006. Victims of glyphosate. IPS News, March 16. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32528 

Benachour, N., Séralini, G-E. 2009. Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 22, 97105.

Benachour, N., Séralini, G-E. 2009. Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 22, 97105.

Benachour, N., Sipahutar, H., Moslemi, S., Gasnier, C., Travert, C., Séralini, G-E. 2007. Time- and dose-dependent effects of roundup on human embryonic and placental cells. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 53, 12633.

Benbrook, C.M. 2009. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the United States: The first thirteen years. The Organic Center, November. http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf

Benitez-Leite, S., Macchi, M.A., Acosta, M. 2009. Malformaciones congénitas asociadas a agrotóxicos. Arch. Pediatr. Drug 80, 237247.

Branford, S. 2004. Argentinas Bitter Harvest. New Scientist, April 17, 40-43.

Brasil, F.B., Soares, L.L., Faria, T.S., Boaventura, G.T., Sampaio, F.J., Ramos, C.F. 2009. The impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive system of female adult rat. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 292, 58794.

Carrasco, A. 2010. Interview with journalist Dario Aranda, August.

Cessna, A.J., Cain, N.P. 1992. Residues of glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA in strawberry fruit following spot and wiper applications. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72, 1359-1365.

Colombian court suspends aerial spraying of Roundup on drug crops. Reuters, July 27, 2001. http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Roundup-Drug-Spray-Colombia.htm 

Dallegrave, E., Mantese, F.D., Coelho, R.S., Pereira, J.D., Dalsenter, P.R., Langeloh, A. 1993. The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate- Roundup in Wistar rats. Toxicol. Lett. 142, 45-52.

De Roos, A.J., Blair, A., Rusiecki, J.A., Hoppin, J.A., Svec, M., Dosemeci, M., Sandler, D.P., Alavanja, M.C. 2005. Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 113, 4954.

Eriksson, M., Hardell, L., Carlberg, M., Akerman, M. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. International Journal of Cancer 123,16571663.

FAO. 2005. Pesticide residues in food - 2005. Evaluations, Part I: Residues (S. 477). http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0209e/a0209e0d.htm 

FAO. 2005. Pesticide residues in food  2005. Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues, Geneva, Switzerland, 2029 September. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 183, 7.

FAO. 2005. Pesticide residues in food  2005. Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues, Geneva, Switzerland, 2029 September. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 183, 7.

FAO. Pesticide residues in food  1997: Report. Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues. Lyons, France, 22 September  1 October 1997. http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8141e/w8141e0u.Htm 

FAO. Pesticide residues in food  1997: Report. Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues. Lyons, France, 22 September  1 October 1997. http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8141e/w8141e0u.htm

Fog, L. 2007. Aerial spraying of herbicide damages DNA. SciDev.net, May 17, 2007. http://www.scidev.net/en/news/aerial-spraying-of-herbicide-damages-dna.html

Gasnier, C., Dumont, C., Benachour, N., Clair, E., Chagnon, M.C., Séralini, G-E. 2009. Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology 262, 184191.

George, J., Prasad, S., Mahmood, Z., Shukla, Y. 2010. Studies on glyphosateinduced carcinogenicity in mouse skin. A proteomic approach. J. of Proteomics 73, 951964.

Haefs, R., Schmitz-Eiberger, M., Mainx, H.G., Mittelstaedt, W., Noga, G. 2002. Studies on a new group of biodegradable surfactants for glyphosate. Pest Manag. Sci. 58, 825833.

Hardell, L., Eriksson, M. A. 1999. Case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure to pesticides. Cancer 85, 135360.

Hardell, L., Eriksson, M., Nordstrom, M. 2002. Exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkins lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: Pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control studies. Leuk Lymphoma 43, 1043-9.

Hietanen, E., Linnainmaa, K., Vainio, H. 1983. Effects of phenoxy herbicides and glyphosate on the hepatic and intestinal biotransformation activities in the rat. Acta Pharma et Toxicol 53, 103112.

Kelly, D.W., Poulin, P., Tompkins, D.M., Townsend, C.R. 2010. Synergistic effects of glyphosate formulation and parasite infection on fish malformations and survival. J. Appl. Ecology 47, 498504.

Malatesta, M., Biggiogera, M., Manuali, E., Rocchi. M.B., Baldelli, B., Gazzanelli, G. 2003. Fine structural analysis of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean. Eur J Histochem. 47, 3858.

Malatesta, M., Boraldi, F., Annovi, G., Baldelli, B., Battistelli, S., Biggiogera, M., Quaglino, D. 2008. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 130, 96777.

Malatesta, M., Caporaloni, C., Gavaudan, S., Rocchi, M.B., Serafini, S., Tiberi, C., Gazzanelli, G. 2002. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. 27, 173180.

Malatesta, M., Perdoni, F., Santin, G., Battistelli, S., Muller, S., Biggiogerra, M. 2008. Hepatoma tissue culture (HTC) cells as a model for investigating the effects of low concentrations of herbicide on cell structure and function. Toxicol. in Vitro 22, 18531860.

Mañas, F., Peralta, L., Raviolo, J., Garci, O.H., Weyers, A., Ugnia, L., Gonzalez, C.M., Larripa, I., Gorla, N. 2009. Genotoxicity of AMPA, the environmental metabolite of glyphosate, assessed by the Comet assay and cytogenetic tests. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 72, 834837.

Mañas, F., Peralta, L., Raviolo, J., Garcia Ovando, H., Weyers, A., Ugnia, L., Gonzalez Cid, M., Larripa, I., Gorla, N. 2009. Genotoxicity of AMPA, the environmental metabolite of glyphosate, assessed by the Comet assay and cytogenetic tests. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 72, 834837.

Mañas, F., Peralta, L., Raviolo, J., Garcia Ovando, H., Weyers, A., Ugnia, L., Gonzalez Cid, M., Larripa, I., Gorla, N. 2009. Genotoxicity of AMPA, the environmental metabolite of glyphosate, assessed by the Comet assay and cytogenetic tests. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 72, 834837.

Mañas, F., Peralta, L., Raviolo, J., Garcia, O.H., Weyers, A., Ugnia, L., Gonzalez, C.M., Larripa, I., Gorla, N. 2009. Genotoxicity of glyphosate assessed by the Comet assay and cytogenic tests. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 28, 3741.

Marc, J., Bellé, R., Morales, J., Cormier, P., Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2004. Formulated glyphosate activates the DNA-response checkpoint of the cell cycle leading to the prevention of G2/M transition. Toxicological Sciences 82, 436442.

Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Bellé, R. 2004. Glyphosate-based pesticides affect cell cycle regulation. Biology of the Cell 96, 245249.

Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., Bellé, R. 2002. Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/ cyclin B activation. Chem Res Toxicol. 15, 32631.

Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., Bellé, R. 2002. Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/ cyclin B activation. Chem. Res Toxicol. 15, 326331.

Meadows, R. 2005. Common herbicide lethal to wetland species. Conservation Magazine 6, July-September. http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2008/07/common-herbicide-lethal-to-wetland-species/ 

Monsanto fined in France for false herbicide ads. Agence France Presse, Jan 26, 2007. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4114.cfm

Newmaster, S.G., Bell, F.W., Vitt, D.H. 1999. The effects of glyphosate and triclopyr on common bryophytes and lichens in northwestern Ontario. Can. Jour. Forest Research 29, 11011111.

Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., López, S.L., Carrasco, A.E. 2010. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signalling. Chem. Res. Toxicol., August 9. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749 

Paraguays Painful Harvest. Unreported World. 2008. Episode 14. First broadcast on Channel 4 TV, UK, November 7. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/episode-guide/series-2008/episode-14/ 

Paz-y-Miño, C., Sánchez, M.E., Arévalo, M., Muñoz, M.J., Witte, T., De-la- Carrera, G.O., Leone, P. E. 2007. Evaluation of DNA damage in an Ecuadorian population exposed to glyphosate. Genetics and Molecular Biology 30, 456-460.

Pesticide safety limit raised by 200 times to suit GM industry. Daily Mail, September 21, 1999. http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/dm210999.txt

Pryme, I.F., Lembcke, R. 2003. In vivo studies of possible health consequences of genetically modified food and feed  with particular regard to ingredients consisting of genetically modified plant materials. Nutrition and Health 17, 18.

Pusztai, A. 2001. Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to human/ animal health? ActionBioscience.org. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html 

Relyea, R. 2005. Roundup is highly lethal. Dr Relyea responds to Monsantos concerns regarding recent published study. April 1. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Relyea-Monsanto-Roundup1apr05.htm 

Relyea, R.A. 2005. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecol. Appl. 15, 618627.

Relyea, R.A., Schoeppner, N. M., Hoverman, J.T. 2005. Pesticides and amphibians: the importance of community context. Ecological Applications 15, 11251134.

Richard, S., Moslemi, S., Sipahutar, H., Benachour, N., Séralini, G-E. 2005. Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase. Environmental Health Perspectives 113, 71620.

Romig, S. 2010. Argentina court blocks agrochemical spraying near rural town. Dow Jones Newswires, March 17. http://bit.ly/cg2AgG

Russia says genetically modified foods are harmful. Voice of Russia, April 16, 2010 (Unpublished as at August 2010). http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html 

Santillo, D.J., Brown, P.W., Leslie, D.M. 1989. Response of songbirds to glyphosate-induced habitat changes on clearcuts. J. Wildlife Management 53, 6471.

Savitz, D.A., Arbuckle, T., Kaczor, D., Curtis, K.M. 1997. Male pesticide exposure and pregnancy outcome. Am. J. Epidemiol. 146, 10251036.

Schuette, J. 1998. Environmental fate of glyphosate. Environmental Monitoring & Pest Management, Dept of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA. 

Séralini, G.-E., Cellier, D., de Vendomois, J.S. 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch. Environ Contam Toxicol. 52, 596602.

Servizi, J.A., Gordon, R.W., Martens, D.W., 1987. Acute toxicity of Garlon 4 and Roundup herbicides to salmon, Daphnia and trout. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39, 1522.

Soso, A.B., Barcellos, L.J.G., Ranzani-Paiva, M.J., Kreutz, L.K., Quevedo, R.M., Anziliero, D., Lima, M., Silva, L.B., Ritter, F., Bedin, A.C., Finco, J.A. 2007. Chronic exposure to sub-lethal concentration of a glyphosate-based herbicide alters hormone profiles and affects reproduction of female Jundiá (Rhamdia quelen). Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 23, 308313.

Springett, J.A., Gray, R.A.J. 1992. Effect of repeated low doses of biocides on the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa in laboratory culture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 24, 17391744.

Tate, T.M., Spurlock, J.O., Christian, F.A., 1997. Effect of glyphosate on the development of Pseudosuccinea columella snails. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 33, 286289.

Tudisco, R., Lombardi, P., Bovera, F., dAngelo, D., Cutrignelli, M. I., Mastellone, V., Terzi, V., Avallone, L., Infascelli, F. 2006. Genetically modified soya bean in rabbit feeding: detection of DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis. Animal Science 82, 193199.

Tudisco, R., Mastellone, V., Cutrignelli, M.I, Lombardi, P, Bovera, F., Mirabella, N., Piccolo, G., Calabro, S., Avallone, L., Infascelli, F. 2010. Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings. Animal.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Glyphosate. R.E.D. Facts, EPA-738-F-93-011, EPA, Washington.

Vecchio, L., Cisterna, B., Malatesta, M., Martin, T.E., Biggiogera, M. 2004. Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. 48, 448454.

Velimirov, A., Binter, C., Zentek, J. 2008. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band 3/2008, Austria.

Viehweger, G., Danneberg, H. 2005. Glyphosat und Amphibiensterben? Darstellung und Bewertung des Sachstandes. Sächsische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft.

Webber, J., Weitzman, H. 2009. Argentina pressed to ban crop chemical after health concerns. Financial Times, May 29. http://www.gene.ch/genet/2009/Jun/msg00006.html 

World Health Organisation (WHO). 1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria 159. The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). WHO, Geneva.

Yum, H.Y., Lee, S.Y., Lee, K.E., Sohn, M.H., Kim, K.E. 2005. Genetically modified and wild soybeans: an immunologic comparison. Allergy and Asthma Proc 26, 2106.


----------



## potpimp (Jan 29, 2013)

Obviously GMO foods makes you completely retarded, as proven by ginsuwarrior. Enough scientific proof of that here for any prudent person but instead of checking out the claims for himself he sanctimoniously rejects any notion that conflicts his own Monsanto paid-for agenda. You have to ask yourself why anyone would so staunchly vilify research that results in condemning GMO and Monsanto; the only logical reason is that the person is on the payroll of Monsanto. Seriously, it makes no sense to fight so long and hard to promote GMO and defend one of the most evil companies on earth - unless you're on the clock. Mutations are never for the better; they can appear better at first but then the law of unintended consequences kicks in and you eventually see the down side, as is always the case in GMO phoods. 

If they were legitimate, why have they bought their way into the FDA? Because if they were not in a position of authority they could never have passed this garbage off as safe. Nearly every one of the FDA hierarchy is a former Monsanto executive. This is a classic case of the fox "guarding" the hen house.


----------



## potpimp (Jan 29, 2013)

*"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to echelon1k1 again."*


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> that's a part where we've already agreed to disagree with concessions.
> 
> we both agree that there is not enough info yet. you seem to think they are one in the same nutritionally, i disagree and will await the science. if the science never comes in, i'll be happy to concede. too early for me yet.


your ignoring where i said you were being dishonest about automatically calling processed food GMO and comparing that processed food to home cooked "farm fresh meal" 


not so reasonable after all


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> So they own the fish tomato company. You just said they didnt own the company, now your saying they do wtf man? Your floppin like a flounder on this one.


you seem to have gotten yourself stuck with your reading

please go back an review the information thats been posted


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> your ignoring where i said you were being dishonest about automatically calling processed food GMO and comparing that processed food to home cooked "farm fresh meal"
> 
> 
> not so reasonable after all


processed and GMO are basically one in the same nowadays. aren't you paying attention?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

potpimp said:


> Obviously GMO foods makes you completely retarded, as proven by ginsuwarrior. Enough scientific proof of that here for any prudent person but instead of checking out the claims for himself he sanctimoniously rejects any notion that conflicts his own Monsanto paid-for agenda. You have to ask yourself why anyone would so staunchly vilify research that results in condemning GMO and Monsanto; the only logical reason is that the person is on the payroll of Monsanto. Seriously, it makes no sense to fight so long and hard to promote GMO and defend one of the most evil companies on earth - unless you're on the clock. Mutations are never for the better; they can appear better at first but then the law of unintended consequences kicks in and you eventually see the down side, as is always the case in GMO phoods.
> 
> If they were legitimate, why have they bought their way into the FDA? Because if they were not in a position of authority they could never have passed this garbage off as safe. Nearly every one of the FDA hierarchy is a former Monsanto executive. This is a classic case of the fox "guarding" the hen house.


*"Enough scientific proof" *you say those words but they do not mean what you thing they mean

incredibly little science has been posted in this thread and its always the same shitty studies that have been shown to be bunk

you have to ask yourself why would anybody but ideologues carry on using such poor studies?

i do not have to be on anybodies payroll to point out liars and idiots on the internet. 

im a huge believer in the truth and in intellectual honesty and will happily stand up for what i believe in


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> processed and GMO are basically one in the same nowadays. aren't you paying attention?


basically =/= is 

it is dishonest to say otherwise

what happens if 15% of the time when you eat processed your not getting any GMO and having the same results as when you think you are eating gmo processed?

it blows your GMO is making me feel bad out of the window

theres countries that do not allow gmo food to be grown on sold there and guess what? their processed food tastes like shit too


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 29, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> basically =/= is
> 
> it is dishonest to say otherwise
> 
> ...


Processed food taste like shit, because it is shit, the variable isn't location...

And Europe has some of the best food in the world. They're not gonna let a multinational with, at best, questionable intentions gain control over their food supply.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 29, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Processed food taste like shit, because it is shit, the variable isn't location...
> 
> And Europe has some of the best food in the world. They're not gonna let a multinational with, at best, questionable intentions gain control over their food supply.


you think europe hasn't got processed food that tastes like shit?

jumping the shark on that one bud


----------



## buckaroo bonzai (Jan 30, 2013)

http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html

there is GMO in virtually everything people consume for food products--

sugar beets where we get most processed sugar from is genetically modified...

soy is GMO too-

as is white processed flour and most synthetic fast food--

corn syrup is in almost everything....

not to mention 'natural flavoring'----chemical based flavoring that mimics real taste


we as a country are in huge huge trouble as is evident by this thread--

i am glad I have my yr supply of GMO free dehydrated food-

when you all turn into zombies and try and eat each other within the first month after collapse.....

I will be safely hidden away in an undisclosed remote location eating well and doing field maintenance on the ordinance we will be using to defeat the govt induced zombie hoardes


----the obvious govt provacatuers and saboteurs spreading more dis-information and confusing GMO eating dummies even more.....is evident here-

i can't believe a lot of these people making these statements are handling such a sacred plant as mmj...
my guess most of them are not--

its obvious who the Feds are in here---and the NWO goonz


15000+ hits on this thred?? who's blowing smoke up who's ass here????

show me another thread in this forum that has that many views...!!??....and for what?
until the provacatuers silence the agitators-and truth tellers with more rhetoric....


----------



## Figong (Jan 30, 2013)

If Monsanto can mod things, why can't others - right? 

Was reading something, and the prediction: "Prediction: Activist attacks on GM seeds and the criminals who promote them"

Which is very interesting... The first scientist that's anti-GM that has their hands on a lab should take a corn leaf aphid, GM it to make it immune to bt-based corn, then throw mRNA from the eastern mouse spider, effectively adding the Eastern Mouse spider deltatoxin mRNA sequence into it, and re-programming said leaf aphid for search/destroy, with a secondary method, also adding the atracotoxins possible from the funnel web... but only targeting bt strains of Monsanto. 

Thoughts? Call me evil, call me unethical, but when someone fucks with my food, what goes around comes around.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 30, 2013)

buckaroo bonzai said:


> http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html
> 
> there is GMO in virtually everything people consume for food products--
> 
> ...


a debunked study combined with conspiracy theories of COINTELPROS and NWO goons is not doing my side any favors, ya know.


----------



## buckaroo bonzai (Jan 30, 2013)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
unkl buk---
I've seen pictures of your erb on other forums and looks like you are good at that ....
but you are a fool to not understand the big picture here---

http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/

http://responsibletechnology.org/fraud/rigged-studies/Genetically-Modified-Corn-Study-Reveals-Health-Damage-and-Cover-up-June-2005

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/monsanto-genetically-modified-corn-study_n_1897361.html

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050420gmocoverup

http://www.wanttoknow.info/deception10pg

http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey7.htm

what is a biotechnology company doing trying to control the worlds food supply...?....read Wikipedia definition carefully 2-3 times if you have to ....to understand who this company really is--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/facts.shtml

monsanto partners with 'Dow chemical' and 'DuPont'.........!!? wtf? chemical companies and food companies in bed together...?

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-ngos-mexico-corn-gm-maize.html

and be sure to try the new genetically improved frankenfish too while you eat your roundup veggies

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/12/28/obamas-science-commitment-fda-face-ethics-scrutiny-in-wake-of-gmo-salmon-fiasco/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/they-are-turning-our-crops-animals-and-even-our-babies-into-freakish-genetic-monsters-what-could-go-wrong.html


----------



## Figong (Jan 30, 2013)

buckaroo bonzai said:


> -snip-
> its obvious who the Feds are in here---and the NWO goonz
> -snip-


Doubtful there's feds here(that have any vested interest in Monsanto, to be more clear) but if you want to give them a peek - just say a few words from the NSA Echelon keyword list and we'll see 75 new users overnight.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 30, 2013)

Here's another fraud, junk science study on the the need for long term independent, _in vivo, _testing performed on all GM crops.

Prescott VE, Campbell PM, Moore A, Mattes J, Rothenberg ME, Foster PS, Higgins TJV, Hogan SP. Transgenic expression of bean &#945;-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. J Agric Food Chem. 2005; 53:9023-9030



> _The development of modern gene technologies allows for the expression of recombinant proteins in
> non-native hosts. Diversity in translational and post-translational modification pathways between
> species could potentially lead to discrete changes in the molecular architecture of the expressed
> protein and subsequent cellular function and antigenicity. Here, we show that transgenic expression
> ...





> _
> The short of it is, GM crops may produce new allergens. Yet if allergy testing is done, it rarely involves any in vivo testing. When an in vivo allergy test was recently done on a GM pea produced by the CSIRO, the pea was found to unexpectedly cause a strong allergic reaction in mice. Mice also spontaneously became allergic to other substances such as eggs_


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

Heres a quote from me, 
alright, we all came from the same place 200 years ago, it worked for us just fine. Why do we need to rearange genetics in the food that we evolved on. I dont think theres any thing wrong with it as it stands.

please say no to gmo. Nature is its own best friend, let it be.


close this thread


----------



## buckaroo bonzai (Jan 30, 2013)

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/sept09/nanotechnology_parallels_gmos.php

keep eating this shit and when your kids have 6fingers/toes and can't count to 10 or understand what the lie is anymore...(like most GMO eating ---'America-cants')

or they have ADHD...OCD...paranoid schizophrenia....autism or any other nuurelogical disocrder so prevelant now in our society and just drool in front of the tv and believe everything that comes out of it--

go ahead I'll keep watching everyone else eating this shit--


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 30, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Everytime I read one of your posts I laugh at your ignorance... Honestly there are children out there that can research and present better arguments than you.
> 
> You're proof positive the Glyphosphates can fuck your neurons... Did you prove it's safety by ingesting it? Are you that stupid to think the danger it poses is limited to a trip hazzard?
> 
> Only a full retard would think an MSDS suffices in defence of your position. Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning in France


*NOT GLYPHOSATE! Lasso's active ingredient is a compound called Alachlor. it's a ChloroBenzene. it is highly toxic and has considerable long term side effects, unlike glyphosate.* http://www.kellysolutions.com/erenewals/documentsubmit/KellyData\VA\pesticide\MSDS\51036\524-314-51036\524-314-51036_ALACHLOR_4EC_9_13_2006_12_49_59_PM.pdf

*the ability to read would have prevented this stupid error from entering your wall of copy/paste bullshit, but you didnt read any of this shit. *

*YOUR ignorance is what you have put on trial. *



echelon1k1 said:


> Here are some references you can educate yourself with....
> 
> Attorney General of the State of New York, Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau, Environmental Protection Bureau. 1996. In the matter of Monsanto Company, respondent. Assurance of discontinuance pursuant to executive law § 63(15). New York, NY, Nov. False advertising by Monsanto regarding the safety of Roundup herbicide (glyphosate). http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-v-AGNYnov96.htm
> 
> ...


posting the attributions page from some evo-website does not prove shit. 

you havent read ANY of these sources, but i have. many of these sources refer not to glyphosate at all, most are COUNTER to your claims that it is particularly hazardous, and the rest are all newspaper fluff pieces and tear jerkers about the plight of dumbasses who walked through a feild which was closed for spraying (with an unidentiufied chemical, not glyphosate) , with an uncovered tray of "meat" which they then consumed without washing. 

theres a few in there i havent read, but the ones i have read do not say what you claim they are saying, and you are again stil an ignoramous. 

posting a huge wall of "sources" which you havent read is the classice lefty dipshit defense of the document dump, otherwise known as the Gish Gallop, where you make hundreds of specious claims, and then demand the opponent dismiss each claim in detail or concede you are right.

well youre WRONG. i used glyphosate (and much more dangerous chemicals) for YEARS. glyphosate is practically harmless to people and other mamals, slightly toxic to fish, and somewhat dangerous to amphibians. 

thats why they dont sell it to fish or frogs. they rarely use the safety equipment right and it would be irresponsible to let a fish or a frog get his appendages on this stuff. 

goddamned frogs dont care about safety.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 30, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> *NOT GLYPHOSATE! Lasso's active ingredient is a compound called Alachlor. it's a ChloroBenzene. it is highly toxic and has considerable long term side effects, unlike glyphosate.* http://www.kellysolutions.com/erenewals/documentsubmit/KellyData\VA\pesticide\MSDS\51036\524-314-51036\524-314-51036_ALACHLOR_4EC_9_13_2006_12_49_59_PM.pdf
> 
> *the ability to read would have prevented this stupid error from entering your wall of copy/paste bullshit, but you didnt read any of this shit. *
> 
> ...


Again, the anti-GMO people think RoundUp is a pesticide. 

In other words, they're dumb as fuck. 

Also, why do most farmers of wheat, soy, corn, etc CHOOSE to go with Monsanto/other evil Biotech company over the non GM strains?

I thought Monsanto were evil? Why are farmers flocking to them?

In essence, if you dont like GM, don't buy it, grow your own and leave the rest of us to it. 

And to the person who said the EU banned GM crops, that's TOTAL bullshit.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 30, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Again, the anti-GMO people think RoundUp is a pesticide.
> 
> In other words, they're dumb as fuck.
> 
> ...


the fact is, glyphosate is essential for several crops, like tree nuts, tree fruits, and grapes. 

and none of those are even GMO's or "Roundup Ready"

every single member of the anti-gmo crowd is ignorant as fuck of agriculture. every single one of them. including the "street preacher farm manager hometown hero".


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 30, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> the fact is, glyphosate is essential for several crops, like tree nuts, tree fruits, and grapes. and none of those are even GMO's or "Roundup Ready"every single member of the anti-gmo crowd is ignorant as fuck of agriculture. every single one of them. including the "street preacher farm manager hometown hero".


One thing thats becoming vastly more obvious is that all the bleeding heart lefties don't really give a shit about places like Africa either, I bet over there they'd literally sell their children for GM drought resistant crops, which will never happen if the "caring lefties" get their way.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jan 30, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> the fact is, glyphosate is essential for several crops, like tree nuts, tree fruits, and grapes.
> 
> and none of those are even GMO's or "Roundup Ready"
> 
> every single member of the anti-gmo crowd is ignorant as fuck of agriculture. every single one of them. including the "street preacher farm manager hometown hero".


Just flyin bye'...should keep this thread alive for updates that are soon to come.
My guess is that sometime before the end of 2014 the feds will bring legislation that will settle all the questions on this thread about genetically engineered cannabis, and that the wa,co laws will be the catalyst that ushers in Monsanto et al 'cannabis'.
http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/look-out-for-the-little-guy-liquor-control-board-is-told-at-first-hearing-on-marijuana-legalization/

doc, to anyone who understands even the most basics aspects of biotech and who understands that there are limits to what we now know about such and there are no known limits to what we don't know about such, you and the SHDT may as well be yapping like dingo's... 


[video=youtube;y0WtvGJGsEk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0WtvGJGsEk[/video]

Monsanto et al's continuing effort to et al...
[url]http://www.naturalnews.com/038779_farm_bill_Monsanto_public_outcry.html#ixzz2 JJaEjxJy[/URL]


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Here's another fraud, junk science study on the the need for long term independent, _in vivo, _testing performed on all GM crops.
> 
> Prescott VE, Campbell PM, Moore A, Mattes J, Rothenberg ME, Foster PS, Higgins TJV, Hogan SP. Transgenic expression of bean &#945;-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. J Agric Food Chem. 2005; 53:9023-9030


where did you get this part from?

"*The short of it is, GM crops may produce new allergens. Yet if allergy testing is done, it rarely involves any in vivo testing. When an in vivo allergy test was recently done on a GM pea produced by the CSIRO, the pea was found to unexpectedly cause a strong allergic reaction in mice. Mice also spontaneously became allergic to other substances such as eggs"
* 
tacking a conclusion onto a study while making it appear to be part that study would be considered fraudulent


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

buckaroo bonzai said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> unkl buk---
> I've seen pictures of your erb on other forums and looks like you are good at that ....
> but you are a fool to not understand the big picture here---
> ...


lol yay link dump

a sure sign you havent been bothered to research and understand the subject at hand

and you certainly havent read your list of links

your huffington post one is rather amusing

and prisonplanet priceless


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> no he's right you are fucking stupid
> 
> worked out who made the fish tomatoes yet?
> 
> or worked out that gmo tomatoes arent produced anymore?


You can't even rewrite something in a more simple fashion for him to understand. 

He also thinks you can grow normal crops in the desert without infrastructure, you can't grow crops in the US without infrastructure for fuck sake.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> You can't even rewrite something in a more simple fashion for him to understand.
> 
> He also thinks you can grow normal crops in the desert without infrastructure, you can't grow crops in the US without infrastructure for fuck sake.


yeah his africa rant was pretty erm informative...

i wonder what particularly green corner he lived in?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> no he's right you are fucking stupid
> 
> worked out who made the fish tomatoes yet?
> 
> or worked out that gmo tomatoes arent produced anymore?


I posted the answers to both of those questions, and it ends up being monsanto in the end cause theyre greedy dirty evil vampires that would suck anyone dry, kinda like you bud, gagwarrior


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 30, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> One thing thats becoming vastly more obvious is that all the bleeding heart lefties don't really give a shit about places like Africa either, I bet over there they'd literally sell their children for GM drought resistant crops, which will never happen if the "caring lefties" get their way.


you know you need pretty expensive, fancy machinery to mass cultivate crops, right? machinery that they generally do not have and can't afford, right?

we'd be better off teaching them sustainable, local agriculture techniques to be honest.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 30, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> t
> every single member of the anti-gmo crowd is ignorant as fuck of agriculture. every single one of them.


i'd assume you're lumping me into some "GMO fence sitter" or "proceed with caution on GMO" crowd then.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> I posted the answers to both of those questions, and it ends up being monsanto in the end cause theyre greedy dirty evil vampires that would suck anyone dry, kinda like you bud, gagwarrior


brilliant i love this part

*"or worked out that gmo tomatoes arent produced anymore?"

answer = **"monsanto in the end cause theyre greedy dirty evil vampires that would suck anyone dry,"

classic


flavr savr tomato



Economic difficulties forced Calgene to withdraw the Flavr Savr from grocery shelves in 1997

Click to expand...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dna/pop_genetic_gallery/index.html




The tomato was withdrawn from the market by 1997 out of safety concerns

Click to expand...

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/genetically-engineered-food/crops/other-resources/a-failed-technology/




As a result of Calgene's business woes, production of the Flavor Savr tomatoes ceased. Sometime later, Monsanto took over Calgene.

Click to expand...

http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/27236.aspx

fish tomato




Q: Were fish genes ever inserted into a tomato?

A: Yes. Here (.pdf) is the approval for field test from the USDA. This document contains quite a bit of information about the &#8220;Fish Tomato&#8221; (a.ka. tomato; antifreeze gene; staphylococcal Protein A) and how DNA Plant Technology Corporation produced it. (They sold the technology to J.R. Simplot Company in 1995 and the company ceased R&D operations in 2002).

Click to expand...

http://genomicgastronomy.com/blog/fish-tomato/




Fish Tomato

Another company, DNA Plant Technology, developed another GM tomato that was not economically successful. The company combined genes from an Arctic flounder with tomato DNA in an attempt to create cold-hardy tomato plants. The project was abandoned and the so-called fish tomatoes were never marketed. The controversial transgenic GM processes use genes from one species to be inserted into another species, such as fish genes into tomatoes, creating mutated, damaged DNA and interrupted, unnatural DNA sequences.

Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/542818-disadvantages-of-gm-tomatoes/#ixzz2JUpsb6qw



Fish Tomato

Another company, DNA Plant Technology, developed another GM tomato that was not economically successful. The company combined genes from an Arctic flounder with tomato DNA in an attempt to create cold-hardy tomato plants. The project was abandoned and the so-called fish tomatoes were never marketed. The controversial transgenic GM processes use genes from one species to be inserted into another species, such as fish genes into tomatoes, creating mutated, damaged DNA and interrupted, unnatural DNA sequences.

Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/542818-disadvantages-of-gm-tomatoes/#ixzz2JUpsb6qw

 DNA plant technology



DNA Plant Technology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
DNA Plant Technology Corporation Former type Public (NASDAQ: DNAP)
Industry Biotechnology
Defunct 2002

DNA Plant Technology was an early pioneer in applying transgenic biotechnology to problems in agriculture. The company was founded in Cinnamonson, New Jersey. In 1994, their headquarters moved to Oakland, California.[1] Some of the plants and products they developed included Vine sweet mini peppers, the Fish tomato and Y1 Tobacco.

In the mid 1980s, DNAP attempted to use somaclonal variation with corn to produce buttery-tasting popcorn without the need to add butter.[2] In 1993, DNAP purchased the Freshworld premium fruit and vegetable brand from Du Pont for a mixture of shares, cash and intellectual rights valued at over $30 million.[3]

In 2002, Bionova shut down DNA Plant Technology.[4]
Contents

1 Major works
1.1 Fish tomato
1.2 Discovery of gene silencing
2 Legal controversy
3 References

Major works
Fish tomato

In 1991, DNA Plant Technology applied for and were granted permission to conduct a field test permit for their transgenic fish tomato product (tomato; antifreeze gene; staphylococcal Protein A) from the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.[5] This product remains controversial[6] in the history of biotechnology, because an antifreeze gene isolated from an arctic flounder was transgenically inserted into a tomato in an attempt to create a frost-tolerant tomato. Although this product was tested in a greenhouse, and may have been tested in the field, it was never commercialized.

In 1995, DNA Plant Technology unveiled a second generation of a different transgenic tomato and served it at a meeting of its shareholders.[7] That same year, DNA Plant Technology sold its wholly owned subsidiary called to Frost Technology Corporation to Simplot.[8]

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_Plant_Technology


you've been told all of this yet you still managed to go out misread your own source and still get it all wrong

you must have had a lifetime of practice to beable to field this level of fucking stupidity*


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i'd assume you're lumping me into some "GMO fence sitter" or "proceed with caution on GMO" crowd then.


with your inability to distinguish between GMO ingredients and the processed food then yes you are lumped fair and square in that bunch


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 30, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i'd assume you're lumping me into some "GMO fence sitter" or "proceed with caution on GMO" crowd then.


yes. 

with a subcategory of Troll. 

i do agree, that fresh wholesome food from small farmers is the best choice anyone can make, but conversely, mandating that everyone must live in Portland is unrealistic. 

mass produced processed foods are generally crap, and gigafarm produce is invariably substandard, but without some method of producing the needed quantities for the urban Eloi, what will us Morlocks eat when the sun goes down?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> I lived there and if those tards would just plant some seeds theyd all have food so dont give me that shit. Anything will grow in africa. Most of the blacks out of the major cites have the space to plant but just dont do it. I could post some amazing pics of african gardens but you morons arent worth the time. Africa doesnt need GMO seeds, theyre bad enough off as it is, they need less coruption and better education and infrastructure. Whatever side of the political system your on has no relevance in africa you dumb shit.





Harrekin said:


> You can't even rewrite something in a more simple fashion for him to understand.
> 
> He also thinks you can grow normal crops in the desert without infrastructure, you can't grow crops in the US without infrastructure for fuck sake.





ginjawarrior said:


> brilliant i love this part
> 
> *"or worked out that gmo tomatoes arent produced anymore?"
> 
> ...


*
Here you go gag warrior, thanks for the old news. Monsanto owns that fish tomato dunce.

Calgene, the tomatoes&#8217; creator-in-chief (now a part of Monsanto), voluntarily conducted three 28-day rat feeding studies. Before I share the gory details, I must commend the Calgene scientists who were committed to transparency and full disclosure with the FDA. Unlike all other subsequent voluntary submissions from biotech firms to the agency, Calgene provided detailed feeding study data and full reports. Dr. Belinda Martineau, one of Calgene&#8217;s tomato makers, writes in First Fruit about their commitment to an open process while they attempted to introduce the world&#8217;s first GM food crop.Calgene tested two separate Flavr Savr tomato lines. Both had the same gene inserted into the same type of tomato. The process of insertion and the subsequent cloning of the cells into GM plants can cause lots of unique and unpredicted consequences. The two lines, therefore, were notconsidered identical.

monsanto is full of cocksucking vampires, thats why you like them *


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Here you go gag warrior, thanks for the old news. Monsanto owns that fish tomato dunce.
> 
> Calgene, the tomatoes&#8217; creator-in-chief (now a part of Monsanto), voluntarily conducted three 28-day rat feeding studies. Before I share the gory details, I must commend the Calgene scientists who were committed to transparency and full disclosure with the FDA. Unlike all other subsequent voluntary submissions from biotech firms to the agency, Calgene provided detailed feeding study data and full reports. Dr. Belinda Martineau, one of Calgene&#8217;s tomato makers, writes in First Fruit about their commitment to an open process while they attempted to introduce the world&#8217;s first GM food crop.Calgene tested two separate Flavr Savr tomato lines. Both had the same gene inserted into the same type of tomato. The process of insertion and the subsequent cloning of the cells into GM plants can cause lots of unique and unpredicted consequences. The two lines, therefore, were notconsidered identical.
> 
> monsanto is full of cocksucking vampires, thats why you like them


years a years of practice for you to be this dense

let me guess for the last 15 years you've been cursing at the supermarket tomatos for being "GMO's"?





could somebody throw ninjabowler a line here and explain to him exactly where he's wrong


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> where did you get this part from?
> 
> "*The short of it is, GM crops may produce new allergens. Yet if allergy testing is done, it rarely involves any in vivo testing. When an in vivo allergy test was recently done on a GM pea produced by the CSIRO, the pea was found to unexpectedly cause a strong allergic reaction in mice. Mice also spontaneously became allergic to other substances such as eggs"
> *
> tacking a conclusion onto a study while making it appear to be part that study would be considered fraudulent


Why don't you translate the abstract then...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Why don't you translate the abstract then...


you didnt answer the question where did you get that quote from?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

*&#8203;*


ginjawarrior said:


> you didnt answer the question where did you get that quote from?


He got it from the pile of proof that states GMO sucks...just like gmo worshipers....dunce


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> *&#8203;*
> He got it from the pile of proof that states GMO sucks...just like gmo worshipers....dunce


tell me again about the tomatoes ninajbowler


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 30, 2013)

I still havnt seen one real peer reviewed paper from a recognised scientific journal supporting the anti-GMO position. 

You guys are so full of fail, I hope I can catch "the stupid" off you idiots via the interwebz. 

Science has apparently been "changed" to be pretty fucking unscientific!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 30, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I still havnt seen one real peer reviewed paper from a recognised scientific journal supporting the anti-GMO position.


i recognize this, but GMO hasn't been around long nor studied very well and is constantly and rapidly evolving.*

i'm pretty sure GMO will go the way of asbestos. but i reserve the right to be wrong.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I still havnt seen one real peer reviewed paper from a recognised scientific journal supporting the anti-GMO position.
> 
> You guys are so full of fail, I hope I can catch "the stupid" off you idiots via the interwebz.
> 
> Science has apparently been "changed" to be pretty fucking unscientific!


lets see what scientifc america has to say about GMOs and monsanto then. How about that. You cant fuck with these guys dumb shits 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rat-study-sparks-furor-over-genetically-modified-foods


Rat Study Sparks Furor over Genetically Modified Foods
Cancer claims put herbicide-resistant transgenic maize in the spotlight


By Declan Butler





inShare
3 

ARS RESEARCHERS have introduced green fluorescent protein into corn lines as a marker for different tissues, which will make it easier to study nitrogen use and grain development and improve corn processing. Here the light kernels are expressing the fluorescent protein in the endosperm layer.
Image: Photo courtesy of Adrienne Moran Lauter, ARS.
By Declan Butler of Nature magazine


Europe has never been particularly fond of genetically modified (GM) foods, but a startling research paper published last week looks set to harden public and political opposition even further, despite a torrent of skepticism from scientists about the work.


The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, looked for adverse health effects in rats fed NK603 maize (corn), developed by biotech company Monsanto to resist the herbicide glyphosate and approved for animal and human consumption in the European Union, United States and other countries. It reported that the rats developed higher levels of cancers, had larger cancerous tumors and died earlier than controls. The researchers have not conclusively identified a mechanism for the effect.


The rats were monitored for two years (almost their whole life*span), making this the first long-term study of maize containing these specific genes. About a dozen long-term studies of different GM crops have failed to find such stark health effects. An earlier test of NK603 maize in rats in a 90-day feeding trial &#8212; the current regulatory norm &#8212; sponsored by Monsanto showed no adverse effects.


The explosion of media coverage about the findings has energized opponents of GM food, especially in Europe. French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said that, if the results are confirmed, the government will press for a Europe-wide ban on the maize. The European Commission has instructed the independent European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, to assess the study.


Many scientists, however, have already questioned the study&#8217;s methodology and findings. They assert that the data presented in the paper do not readily allow the claims to be independently assessed, and they question the study&#8217;s experimental design and its statistical analysis of any differences between the treated groups and controls. Other scientists point out that the Sprague-Dawley strain of rats used in the experiments has been shown to be susceptible to developing tumors spontaneously, particularly as they grow older, making it difficult to interpret the results. Monsanto itself said that the study &#8220;does not meet minimum acceptable standards for this type of scientific research&#8221;.


The &#8364;3.2-million (US$4.1-million) study was led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen, France, in collaboration with the Paris-based Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), whose scientific board he heads. CRIIGEN bills itself as an &#8220;independent non-profit organization of scientific counter-expertise to study GMOs, pesticides and impacts of pollutants on health and environment, and to develop non polluting alternatives&#8221;. The article&#8217;s publication coincides with the launch this week of a book by Séralini, Tous Cobayes? (All of Us Guinea-Pigs Now?), which tells the story of the research project and is accompanied by a film and a television documentary.


In a written response to Nature&#8217;s questions, Séralini and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, president of CRIIGEN and a co-author of the paper, say that they have been surprised by the &#8220;violence&#8221; and immediacy of scientists&#8217; criticisms. They argue that most of the critics are not toxicologists, and suggest that some may have competing interests, including working to develop transgenic crops. They also point out some errors by critics, such as claims that graphs in the paper showing rat survival over time do not include data for the controls.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

Can i have another helping of that corn please?

this is the monsanto future


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i recognize this, but GMO hasn't been around long nor studied very well and is constantly and rapidly evolving.*
> 
> i'm pretty sure GMO will go the way of asbestos. but i reserve the right to be wrong.


in the mean time we'll have people hating on "GMO" tomatoes that are naturally bred

people trying to redefine the english language and blaming GMO's for the poor quality of processed food

people blaming mosanto for the worlds eveils although being shown time and time again they were mistaken


but maybe just maybe sometime in the furture there might be somthing that proves you guys are not completely irrattional


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> ****mindlessly repeats the oft debunked study*****


edited it for you

tell me about the tomatoes again


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> tell me again about the tomatoes ninajbowler



With Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in bed with Monsanto and Dow&#8212;as evidenced in a number of political and economic maneuvers, not least of all the removal of 1 million signatures for a GMO labeling campaign&#8212;it&#8217;s uncertain how easily the United Stateswill end genetic modification practices. Researchers across the world have already provided ample evidence of GMO&#8217;s harmful effects, including weight gain, organ disruption, infertility, tumor development, and the development of resistant weeds and pests. The push for change to natural, organic food and GMO labeling must come from the public.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> edited it for you
> 
> tell me about the tomatoes again


Proof it was debunked please. Or are you full of shit again?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I still havnt seen one real peer reviewed paper from a recognised scientific journal supporting the anti-GMO position.
> 
> You guys are so full of fail, I hope I can catch "the stupid" off you idiots via the interwebz.
> 
> Science has apparently been "changed" to be pretty fucking unscientific!


Heres a real life expiriment for you dumbass, real rat, real gmo food, real gross. Those are your idols retard.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

Yum, gm salmon


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Proof it was debunked please. Or are you full of shit again?


tell me again about the tomatoes


*



Update:

Click to expand...

*


> _Six French scientific academies issued a statement on 19 October, saying the Séralini study could not reverse previous conclusions that this and other GM crops are safe, because of problems with the experimental design, statistical analysis and animals used, and inadequate data. Meanwhile *the European Food Safety Authority declared the study "of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment"*. As promised, the organisation invited Séralini "to share key additional information". That invitation was made on 4 October, and repeated on 19 October. Today, EFSA announced it had (again) made all the data it used to approve the GM maize available to Séralini._


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22287-study-linking-gm-crops-and-cancer-questioned.html

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/




> Does genetically modified corn cause cancer? A flawed study fails to convince.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/



> French GM Corn Study Not Scientifically Valid
> By Dan Flynn | October 8, 2012
> 
> Last month&#8217;s study out of France that said genetically modified corn and a related herbicide caused organ damage, tumors, and early death among rats broke too many rules and should be dismissed as &#8220;of insufficient scientific quality,&#8221; the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) says.


http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/10/french-gm-corn-study-not-scientifically-valid/#.UQmzH_IauM0




now tell me about those horrible GMO tomatoes on the market


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> With Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in bed with Monsanto and Dowas evidenced in a number of political and economic maneuvers, not least of all the removal of 1 million signatures for a GMO labeling campaignits uncertain how easily the United Stateswill end genetic modification practices. Researchers across the world have already provided ample evidence of GMOs harmful effects, including weight gain, organ disruption, infertility, tumor development, and the development of resistant weeds and pests. The push for change to natural, organic food and GMO labeling must come from the public.



tell me again about the horrible GMO tomaotes being sold in usa today


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

Why do you keep saying that, thats stupid you dumb shit. I already posted about the tomatos, why dont you tell us how this is not bad for the eco system? Is this study debunked because of crooked monsanto also.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

Why is europe so against GMOs?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

Is this why?


----------



## Krondizzel (Jan 30, 2013)

That's kinda weird.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Why do you keep saying that, thats stupid you dumb shit. I already posted about the tomatos, why dont you tell us how this is not bad for the eco system? Is this study debunked because of crooked monsanto also.


i keep posting it because i like to point out how dumb your being



> Originally Posted by *Ninjabowler*
> 
> I posted the answers to both of those questions, and it ends up being monsanto in the end cause theyre greedy dirty evil vampires that would suck anyone dry, kinda like you bud, gagwarrior
> 
> ...


*



the salmon are being raised at inland farm they are not being released into the enviroment*


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Is this why?


pictures from the debunked study?

classy


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

With Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in bed with Monsanto and Dowas evidenced in a number of political and economic maneuvers, not least of all the removal of 1 million signatures for a GMO labeling campaignits uncertain how easily the United Stateswill end genetic modification practices. Researchers across the world have already provided ample evidence of GMOs harmful effects, including weight gain, organ disruption, infertility, tumor development, and the development of resistant weeds and pests. The push for change to natural, organic food and GMO labeling must come from the public.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> ***meaningless words***



so what about those tomatoes eh?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> pictures from the debunked study?
> 
> classy


Theres lots to choose from bud, monsanto has tons of rats with tumors under their belt. Lots. Those tumors dont come from mother nature bud , theres somthing wrong with this picture. Its monsanto


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 30, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> processed and GMO are basically one in the same nowadays. aren't you paying attention?


They are not. They are distinct, and your conflating them can no longer be termed ignorance, but malice. You''re persisting in being incorrect, so I must ask what's in it for you? cn


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> so what about those tomatoes eh?


Why do you keep saying that?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

Natural News Blog Exposing the Evils of Food Science and Bio-technology


OCT
2
Natural News Radar: GMO cancer RATS &#8211; news gone viral on the internet, but NOWHERE TO BE FOUND ON TV!









GMO CORN KILLING RATS. YOU'RE NEXT IF YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT.


Find out why right now: http://buzz.naturalnews.com/000588-GMO_corn-GMO_corn_and_cancer_study-genetically_modified.html 


The recent release of the first ever long-term study to examine the consequences of prolonged consumption of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) has set the world ablaze calling for an immediate embargo ON ALL THINGS GMO.



I must repeat this part: This is the first LONG TERM STUDY EVER DONE on GMO! Turns out it does cause cancer, fast and via monstrous tumors! All these big chemo-tech companies breed the poison in food, deny its poison, and then sell it to doctors, hospitals and oncologists as the best way to heal this chemical &#8220;injury.&#8221; This disease that hits every third American &#8230; this slap in the face, &#8220;march for the cure&#8221; madness that begins and ends with corn and soy that&#8217;s contaminated with Roundup pesticide and others like it. 



This precedent setting trial showing this GM corn strain causes cancer has attracted a torrent of abuse, especially in the United States, but it cannot be swept under the carpet any longer. Monsanto and DuPont have spent 7 million dollars and almost 5 million dollars, respectively, to shut down any labeling efforts in California alone, and that vote is coming up in 30 days!! California will set the precedent on labeling GMO all over the United States, and the masses will wake up to the real cause (75%) of cancer across the country &#8211; which is chemical food. It can no longer be denied, and after November voting in California, the news will jump, from the internet to the televisions in every den of the United States. Victory for the organic movement couldn&#8217;t be bigger than this right now.


http://www.naturalnews.com/037380_mainstream_media_blackout_GMO.html#ixzz289HXWtEx


Link to the details of the study:



Professor Gilles-Eric Ralini, professor of molecular biology at Caen University in France, pissed off the entire GM industry by revealing seven years of his questioning of the safety standards applied to varieties of GM maize (corn).


This study has blown the lid off of 15 &#8211; 20 years of lies and deceipt of everyone consuming unlabeled cancer causing GM corn, soy, sugar beets, alfalfa, and yes, meat and milk tests that prove hormones and antibiotics given to animals fuels cancer &#8211; well, that&#8217;s all forthcoming!


http://buzz.naturalnews.com/000588-GMO_corn-GMO_corn_and_cancer_study-genetically_modified.html


We should know exactly what is in our food at all times. This is no novel idea. This is common sense. When you see labels like artificial flavoring, artificial coloring, and GMO, you know you are eating NON-FOOD. Your body will have to fight to NOT USE the chemicals, to FLUSH THEM OUT of your body, and your cells will have to fight to NOT MUTATE. This is cancer. The cure is in your wallet &#8211; don&#8217;t buy chemical food. Boycott it altogether from this point forward.


The proof is in the pudding: Let me tell you know exactly who is pushing to keep GM food from being labeled. These are the companies that make it, that make cancer for you and I to eat, that want cancer food to remain without a label. These are the companies PAYING TO SUPPRESS the vote in California right now. Paying millions:


BASF plant science


BAYER crop science


Dow Agro-sciences


PepsiCo


Nestle


Coca-Cola


ConAgra


Smithfield Foods


Sara Lee


Ocean Spray


Land O&#8217;Lakes


Kraft


Heinz


Godiva chocolates


General Mills


Dole


Del Monte


Campbell Soup


Bumble Bee


Morton Salt


Kellogg


Hormel


Hershey


Dean Foods


Sunny Delight (I was allergic to that crap when I was little, no wonder!)


McCormick


J.M. Smucker


Wrigley





And here comes the SHOCKER!


According to the New York Times, the following &#8220;organic&#8221; brands sold out and are owned by GMO pushing evil corporations:



Name and True Owner:


Kashi &#8211; Kellogg


Horizon &#8211; Dean Foods


Odwalla and Honest tea &#8211; Coca Cola


Muir Glen and Cascadian Farm &#8211; General Mills



They are all silent about the whole vote in California. None of them will talk to the New York Times.








Posted 2nd October 2012 by 14AndOut: Freedom 4U starts right now!
Labels: supergerms bacteria deformations Herbicide superbugs viruses GMO Monsanto Pesticide sick biotechnology Insecticide twisted DNA Fluoride food science cancer

0 Add a comment


Loading


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Why is europe so against GMOs?


Because just as here, the politics of emotion work. GM has been tarred with the brush of negative media review, and the voters in Europe have by and large uncritically accepted GM as being anti-eco, which is political death over there. Bottom line: they are so without sound reason. Jmo. cn


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

Ill give you one guess why this corn looks like this....ok..since your a little slow it starts with Mon and its not monster, close though


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> ****spamming debunked study****




*



Update:

Click to expand...

*


> _Six French scientific academies issued a statement on 19 October, saying the Séralini study could not reverse previous conclusions that this and other GM crops are safe, because of problems with the experimental design, statistical analysis and animals used, and inadequate data. Meanwhile *the European Food Safety Authority declared the study "of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment"*. As promised, the organisation invited Séralini "to share key additional information". That invitation was made on 4 October, and repeated on 19 October. Today, EFSA announced it had (again) made all the data it used to approve the GM maize available to Séralini._


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22287-study-linking-gm-crops-and-cancer-questioned.html

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/




> Does genetically modified corn cause cancer? A flawed study fails to convince.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/



> French GM Corn Study Not Scientifically Valid
> By Dan Flynn | October 8, 2012
> 
> Last month&#8217;s study out of France that said genetically modified corn and a related herbicide caused organ damage, tumors, and early death among rats broke too many rules and should be dismissed as &#8220;of insufficient scientific quality,&#8221; the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) says.


http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/10/french-gm-corn-study-not-scientifically-valid/#.UQmzH_IauM0




now tell me about those horrible GMO tomatoes on the market


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Ill give you one guess why this corn looks like this....ok..since your a little slow it starts with Mon and its not monster, close though View attachment 2503834


want to provide links for those pictures?

just want to check your not being taken for a ride again like you have been with the tomatoes or the shitty quality study your spamming


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> They are not. They are distinct, and your conflating them can no longer be termed ignorance, but malice. You''re persisting in being incorrect, so I must ask what's in it for you? cn


he doesnt want to lose his smug sense of superiority from being a "gastro foodie"

that and he doesnt seem to have the backbone to admit he's a liar


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> want to provide links for those pictures?
> 
> just want to check your not being taken for a ride again like you have been with the tomatoes or the shitty quality study your spamming


Just search gmo corn and youll find them. You cant miss those gross rats. Youll find all sorts of gross pics, i like this one, it made me laugh. It reminds me of the rats


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Just search gmo corn and youll find them. You cant miss those gross rats. Youll find all sorts of gross pics, i like this one, it made me laugh. It reminds me of the rats


the gross rats are from the bunk study you have been spamming


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> the gross rats are from the bunk study you have been spamming


Um i posted it once and it was from a credible journal. Sooo since the debunked study was said to not have enough evidence that it was the monsanto products that caused all those tumors, how do you figure they really got those tumors? Care to tell us your conspiricy theory on this one? I bet it was the monsanto products  what do you think??


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

Refer to cartoon above ^^^


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Um i posted it once and it was from a credible journal. Sooo since the debunked study was said to not have enough evidence that it was the monsanto products that caused all those tumors, how do you figure they really got those tumors? Care to tell us your conspiricy theory on this one? I bet it was the monsanto products  what do you think??


the rats are ones that are bred to form cancers 

the "study" you posted klept them alive for long enough that cancers formed


notice there isnt a side by side with the "control group" (i put quotes round it becuase their control group was not set up as controls should be)

now i have posted links as to why its a discredited study

but like with the tomatoes i feel you are unable to hold the idea in your head



EDIT "*Um i posted it once" so your counting is bad along with your reading? need me to go and quote you spamming it? *


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 30, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> They are not. They are distinct, and your conflating them can no longer be termed ignorance, but malice. You''re persisting in being incorrect, so I must ask what's in it for you? cn


you should really take a look at what's in your processed food next time you go shopping. HFCS, soy lecithin, and others will come up almost without fail.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

Heres a picture of the tumors removed from the rats on the debunked study incase any readers were wondering what the tumor looks like on the inside. You know theres a chance that the study may have been right. Its not like anyone lost their jobs for tampering, they just said it was inconclusive


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> you should really take a look at what's in your processed food next time you go shopping. HFCS, soy lecithin, and others will come up almost without fail.


Very true, reading lables is the best way to limit your GMO intake, thanks for looking out for public health Buck.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> you should really take a look at what's in your processed food next time you go shopping. HFCS, soy lecithin, and others will come up almost without fail.


you should really look at what is being said to you and not try worming your way out of it by redefining the english language


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Heres a picture of the tumors removed from the rats on the debunked study incase any readers were wondering what the tumor looks like on the inside. You know theres a chance that the study may have been right. Its not like anyone lost their jobs for tampering, they just said it was inconclusive


pathetic scare tactics


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> you should really look at what is being said to you and not try worming your way out of it by redefining the english language


i'm not responsible for the fact that pretty much any processed food is also GMO. sorry.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i'm not responsible for the fact that *pretty* much any processed food is also GMO. sorry.


your responsible for your use of the english language

thought you were educated to a reasonable level?

notice how you need to use weasel words to get it to fit?


"*you should really take a look at what's in your processed food next time you go shopping. HFCS, soy lecithin, and others will come up almost without fail.* "
"*processed and GMO are basically one in the same nowadays. aren't you paying attention?"*


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> pathetic scare tactics


I thought they were pretty good scare tactics and that study may have been right. We all know the multimillion dollar power of monsanto over science, media, and govenment. Just sayin


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> I thought they were pretty good scare tactics and that study may have been right. We all know the multimillion dollar power of monsanto over science, media, and govenment. Just sayin


if that study was right then why did they use such bad methods to get the results?

the science should stand on it own 2 feet with proper testing


----------



## Krondizzel (Jan 30, 2013)




----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> ****words****


your way out of your depth on this one

go back to posting your cartoons and bunk studies


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> if that study was right then why did they use such bad methods to get the results?
> 
> the science should stand on it own 2 feet with proper testing


Did the tumors grow on their own lol, do you think that they just found tumors lying around and surgicaly implanted them into the rats?? No, they fed the rats monsanto products and they got huge tumors or died. Debunked or not that was the study and thats what happened to the rats. Put your head in the sand again. Youll be safe there.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 30, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Because just as here, the politics of emotion work. GM has been tarred with the brush of negative media review, and the voters in Europe have by and large uncritically accepted GM as being anti-eco, which is political death over there. Bottom line: they are so without sound reason. Jmo. cn


Try again bear, that might be what the media tells you in the states, but it's doesn't hold water when talking to everyday folks in Europe, that rely on farming to sustain their families...


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> If you had gone to college you fucking retard you'd know how to correctly source/cite an article. That&#8217;s the way you do it via the international standard.
> 
> I don&#8217;t demand anything from you, since I&#8217;ve proven you&#8217;re totally full of shit and just love the sound of your own voice blissfully unaware of the notion your ignorant ramblings don&#8217;t amount to jack and shit.
> 
> ...


Bahahahahahaaaaaa!! He does have half a brain, it looks like this.....


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> you didnt answer the question where did you get that quote from?


Don't cherry pick... Why did you not include the abstract? Big words too much for you? 



> The development of modern gene technologies allows for the expression of recombinant proteins in
> non-native hosts. Diversity in translational and post-translational modification pathways between
> species could potentially lead to discrete changes in the molecular architecture of the expressed
> protein and subsequent cellular function and antigenicity. Here, we show that transgenic expression
> ...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Did the tumors grow on their own lol, do you think that they just found tumors lying around and surgicaly implanted them into the rats?? No, they fed the rats monsanto products and they got huge tumors or died. Debunked or not that was the study and thats what happened to the rats. Put your head in the sand again. Youll be safe there.


you've been provided with plenty of links from differeng sources explaining it to you yet your incapable of understanding

i would explain the intricacies of it to you but seeing as how you couldnt get your head round 2 different companies producing 2 different styles of tomato and neither of them being sold now i dont think you have the slightest chance of understanding what im talking about

for anybody else reading this heres some reading material reposted 

the top link is most in depth analysis 

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/

*



Update:

Click to expand...

*


> _Six French scientific academies issued a statement on 19 October, saying the Séralini study could not reverse previous conclusions that this and other GM crops are safe, because of problems with the experimental design, statistical analysis and animals used, and inadequate data. Meanwhile *the European Food Safety Authority declared the study "of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment"*. As promised, the organisation invited Séralini "to share key additional information". That invitation was made on 4 October, and repeated on 19 October. Today, EFSA announced it had (again) made all the data it used to approve the GM maize available to Séralini._


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22287-study-linking-gm-crops-and-cancer-questioned.html






> Does genetically modified corn cause cancer? A flawed study fails to convince.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/



> French GM Corn Study Not Scientifically Valid
> By Dan Flynn | October 8, 2012
> 
> Last months study out of France that said genetically modified corn and a related herbicide caused organ damage, tumors, and early death among rats broke too many rules and should be dismissed as of insufficient scientific quality, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) says.


http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/10/french-gm-corn-study-not-scientifically-valid/#.UQmzH_IauM0


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Don't cherry pick... Why did you not include the abstract? Big words too much for you?


*"If you had gone to college you fucking retard you'd know how to correctly source/cite an article. Thats the way you do it via the international standard."*

your own words are they not?

so you going to correctly source where you dug up that added fraudulent conclusion?


what exactly am i supposed to be answering about that study?

that mice predisposed to allergies get allergic reactions when given food known to contain the thing they are allergic too?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> *"If you had gone to college you fucking retard you'd know how to correctly source/cite an article. That&#8217;s the way you do it via the international standard."*
> 
> your own words are they not?
> 
> ...


I sourced the paper. If you don't understand the abstract, I can't help you. I shortend the abstract into a format you can understand.

What's so hard to understand about


> Employing models of inflammation, we demonstrated in
> mice that consumption of the modified RAI and not the native form predisposed to antigen-specific
> CD4+ Th2-type inflammation. Furthermore, consumption of the modified RAI concurrently with other
> heterogeneous proteins promoted immunological cross priming, which then elicited specific immunoreactivity
> ...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> I sourced the paper. If you don't understand the abstract, I can't help you. I shortend the abstract into a format you can understand.
> 
> What's so hard to understand about


they weren't your own word i know that much, whats so difficult for you to source the bit you tried to sneak in along side? it? 


without any accompanying text you havent given a question to answer?

you trying to suggest GMO foods are not tested before going to market?
*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15813800



Abstract

Click to expand...

*


> In recent years, significant attention has been paid to the use of biotechnology to improve the quality and quantity of the food supply due in part to the projected growth in the world population, plus limited options available for increasing the amount of land under cultivation. Alterations in the food supply induced by classical breeding and selection methods typically involve the movement of large portions of genomic DNA between different plant varieties to obtain the desired trait. This is in contrast to techniques of genetic engineering which allows the selection and transfers specific genes from one species to another. The primary allergy risk to consumers from genetically modified crops may be placed into one of three categories. The first represents the highest risk to the allergic consumer is the transfer of known allergen or cross-reacting allergen into a food crop. The second category, representing an intermediate risk to the consumer, is the potential for replacing the endogenous allergenicity of a genetically-modified crop. The last category involves expression of novel proteins that may become allergens in man and generally represents a relatively low risk to the consumer, although this possibility has received attention of late. In order to mitigate the three categories of potential allergy risk associated with biotech crops, all genes introduced into food crops undergo a series of tests designed to determine if the biotech protein exhibits properties of known food allergens. The result of this risk assessment process to date is that no biotech proteins in foods have been documented to cause allergic reactions. These results indicate that the current assessment process is robust, although as science of allergy and allergens evolves, new information and new technology should help further the assessment process for potential allergenicity.


edited to add full article :http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00704.x/full


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> they weren't your own word i know that much, whats so difficult for you to source the bit you tried to sneak in along side? it?
> 
> 
> without any accompanying text you havent given a question to answer?
> ...


You can't understand the abstract yet you claim to know they ain't my words? try again elmo.

And yes I'm STATING GM crops are not independently tested before entering the market. If you consider the FDA taking the word of the bioTech companies as testing well you've got other issues altogether and again, there's no cure for dumb. So I can't help you out.

Futhermore, Obama had promiced to cease the revolving door between corporate & government which he has cleary not done. How can you take the word of the FDA when half of the people on their payroll are former Monsanto or BioTech employees, most of whom, will go back to working for Monsanto when their contracts expire.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

So ginga warrior  care to enlighten us as to why you have such a hard on for discrediting anti monsanto media?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 30, 2013)

for the idea that people with allergies are goint to have reastions to GMO food has no one seen the world we live in atm?







not giving people an allergic reaction is taken to extreme lengths


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> GMO is well tested before it hits the markets and you have shown nothing to disprove that



Thanks for the study though, I will have a read...


The FDA Doesn&#8217;t Even TEST the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods

And here's monsantos views on FDA testing;



> Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.&#8217;s job


 &#8211; Phil Angell, Monsanto&#8217;s director of corporate communications

So Monanto say safety testing is the FDA responsibility and the FDA defer to monsantos studies... And you don't see anything wrong with this?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 30, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> If you had gone to college you fucking retard you'd know how to correctly source/cite an article. That&#8217;s the way you do it via the international standard.
> 
> I don&#8217;t demand anything from you, since I&#8217;ve proven you&#8217;re totally full of shit and just love the sound of your own voice blissfully unaware of the notion your ignorant ramblings don&#8217;t amount to jack and shit.
> 
> ...


but youre not trying to "source/cite" any articel. you went to some UNNAMED article written by somebody else, (what that article says is a mystery) and you popped to the back page, and copy/pasted THEIR attributions, which THEY may have read (but you obviously have not) since im familiar with several of those reports, and those i have read do NOT say what you allege, and many of them have nothing to do with glyphosate at all. many of those "attributions and citations" refer to opinion pages from news websites, government reports which are CONTRARY to your opinion that glyphosate is highly toxic, and many of those sources in fact say youre 100% wrong. 

example:

you copy/pasted this kink: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0209e/a0209e0d.htm

reading this link one finds that the report comes to the following conclusion:

*DIETARY RISK ASSESSMENT*
*Short-term intake*
The 2004 JMPR concluded that it was unnecessary to establish an ARfD for glyphosate. The Meeting therefore concluded that short-term dietary intake of glyphosate residues is unlikely to present a risk to consumers.
*Long-term intake*
The evaluation of glyphosate has resulted in recommendations for MRLs and STMRs for raw and processed commodities. Consumption data was available for 32 food commodities and were used in the dietary intake calculation. The results are shown in Annex 3.
The International Estimated Daily Intakes for the 5 GEMS/Food regional diets, based on estimated STMRs were in the range 0-1% of the maximum ADI of 1 mg/kg bw for the sum of glyphosate and AMPA (Annex 3). The Meeting concluded that the long-term intake of residues of glyphosate and AMPA from uses that have been considered by the JMPR is unlikely to present a public health concern.


in other words. this repoort you cited as "proof" says the opposite to what you claim. but then, YOU didnt read it, did you. 

you lazy uneducated intellectual snob. 

you posted this one too: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Relyea-Monsanto-Roundup1apr05.htm
but this reports deals with glyphosate and AMHIBIANS, and in fact this report is a rebuttal to a report that would have supported your claims, 
but you didnt post THAT report, you posted THIS ONE. and THIS ONE says YOURE WRONG, you mindless buffoon. 

your Gish Gallop may fool other dolts who like yourself wouldnt bother to read the links, but rather assume "Theres so many words! He must be really smart!" but i like to read. eventually i may finish reading the remaining citations you have dumped from somebody else's work, you plagiaristic catamite, but i wont be reading the ones from "Voice of Russia" "Organic-center dot org" or *"Carrasco, A. 2010. Interview with journalist Dario Aranda, August." * dude,, seriously, thats the whole "citation". an interview with a journalist in august, 2010. what did that journalist tell you? 

ohh yeah i forgot, you were just plagiarizing sombody else's shit. not even the report, you just wanted the citations page. to make yourself look knowledgeable. you pathetic feeble purple hued malt-worm.

Edit: 

and the EPA considers glyphosate safe for the environment and for people when used as directed. you didnt even read the report you specifically used to try and claim you know something. 

from the RED report YOU cited in sprecific despite having not read it (found Here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TPVkrJ2MkJ0J:www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/old_reds/glyphosate.pdf+epa+report+on+glyphosate+safety&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi8qCYH1C3xaOiw_2yFMSH9lKMuWXsJG5SkJ4u0d9wkW-fwAPs3yZ_B7f83NVrNC9yOuFsDj1g6ml4uoOX4a5JX0OyW5CS_KsPfcBHiHnJr963fLmf-IFjCnsqx7VyvmDm5OmZc&sig=AHIEtbT58pu8z58E0ilReOpgyoXWY1XOvA )

*"The use of currently registered pesticide products containing the isoproopylamine and sodium salts of glyphosate in accordance with the labeling specified in this RED will not pose an unreasonable risk or adverse effects to humans or the environment, therefore all uses of these products are eligible for re-registration. "*

so youre actually getting Stupider as you continue.


----------



## Figong (Jan 30, 2013)

FunkleButtz said:


> youre just jealous. bitch do you even riu??


Not at all, I have no idea as to what you speak of.. only Riu I know of is in Aruba, it's a hotel. As for being jealous, why would I be jealous of one that's probably a minor, who feels as if they have something to prove while they act retarded, and pretty much prove it without saying it? Not going to happen. The only bitch here is the one who is clearly acting like one.. and that's precisely why you're being treated like one - and getting dismissed like the joke you are. You're not even the beginnings of a troll, you should practice on a forum where you have a chance of survival, as well.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 30, 2013)

FunkleButtz said:


> youre just jealous. bitch do you even riu??


i'm better at RIU than you're.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jan 30, 2013)

i think trunclebuckles makes some good points.


----------



## potpimp (Jan 30, 2013)

I've enjoyed all of this I intend to. This is a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. Hasta banana ameatloafs.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 30, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> when i see stupid people like you rolling about in pigshit i cannot help but point and laugh at you and the shit you roll in


I call bullshit, sorry bud, nobody in their right mind sits on a computer all day arguing in favor of GMOs. Unless you have some motive behind this contant battle nobody would spend as much time as you and monsanto hitler do on this thread. You two wake up every morning and battle it out with people trying to make the point that GMOs are safe. Why? Either you two have absoulutely no lives to attend to and dont get out of the house evaaaar, or you have a reason. Are you two scientists that work in the field, employees of monsanto, stock holders, whats the deal? Nobody gets that much gratification from pointing and laughing to make it worth the amount of time you and monsanto hitler spend on this thread. Real story please, yours has been debunked


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> SEVEN posts to respond to ONE post and all you provided was a single link to a veterinary website with information on ACTUAL PREGNANCY IN COWS.
> 
> not a single thing to do with false pregnencies
> nothing to do with GMO's
> ...


I thought maybe if I fed you small bites it might digest. I see it didn't work. yet, it has been proven gmo's interfere with digestion. yes the proof has been posted here already! Unfortunately people only read what they want to in it all.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Weed is already genetically modified.
> 
> They call it selective breeding.


not quite the same thing sorry. unless it is being cross bread with other plant species or animals........


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

diversesanctuary said:


> is that the best you can come up with. No one was ever pulling my strings http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ip_gmo_09_2007_1_.pdf



a link it seems was ignored completely. Go figure!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> specious claims about "men cant tell if a cow is pregnant" has nothing to do with your even more specious claims of gmo's causing false pregnancies in cows.
> 
> Which proves that 100% of the time you are wrong!!!!!! Do* you *get that science?


once again dr. Asking questions isn't making claims. Your the one making all the claims here.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> a link it seems was ignored completely. Go figure!!!


These guys have their own adgenda, they dont want proof, they just want to go on saying everything is false, GMO food is totally normal in every way. But it cant be and it isnt. Theres no middle ground here, either its better or its worse.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> the best evidence in the world.
> 
> i have eaten GMO's and am not dead.
> 
> ...


THIS IS THE BIGGEST BUNCH OF BULLSHI# HERE IN THIS THREAD. FROM A MAN WHO HAS THE BULLS TO CALL HIMSELF DR. , DR. DEATH MAYBE..... MALNUTRITION AND DISEASE HAS INCREASED IN ABUNDANCE SINCE WE'VE BEEN EATING GMO'S. THEN THERE ARE PROBLEMS LIKE CROP FAILURES, {WHEAT IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE} THE BEES AND BIRDS DYING, POISONED SOIL AND INCREASED EROSION.... AND HEY DOC WHERE DID ALL OUR BEAN SPROUTS GO??? or OUR FAMILY FARMS??? a phucking monsanto paid troll is more like it


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> A decades worth of anecdotal evidence means the case is closed?
> 
> Could it not be possible that problems could still arise down the line?
> 
> There are plenty of examples of where we were assured of somethings safety only to later find out otherwise.


yes just look at all the recalls and law suits on everything from cars to big pharma

and men have been building cars for yrs and still can't get it right


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> monsanto attempted to sue india's smallholders and family farmers for the sin of "saving seed" but that was rejected by india's courts.
> 
> monsanto cant sue anyone in india over their "intellectual property", but that doesnt stop the wahackos from continuing to assert that monsanto can, has, does and will sue inidan smallholders till they commit suicide.
> 
> ...


of coarse they have been successful. Bench is latin for bank, the judge wears black because most are already declared dead at birth = stock for the market and the U.S. is a corporation and all corps are just an extension of the first corpse. THE CHURCH! the pyramid on your dollar bill that says in g-d we trust. That you obviously worship


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> the wind blown pollen cases were thrown out with prejudice.
> 
> The whackadoo econaut press machine ignores the fact that the courts have already rejected that bullshit.


amazing when the same corps basically own the media. That is quite an accusation. Do you have proof of this??? I would like to see all your evidence please


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

unclebuck said:


> you're asserting that something is true (that gmo foods have no dangerous or undesirable side effects) because of lack of evidence to the contrary. That is called argument from ignorance.
> 
> Who knows if it will take 35 years for us to slap our heads and say "oh, shit. These gmo carrots make us shoot lasers out of our eyes, and the potatoes make us crack addicts".
> 
> The point is that gmo technology is very young and not that well studied. My only political position on them so far is that i want all gmo food labeled so that consumers may make informed decisions. Otherwise, the jury is still out.


not sure what good it does to label a train wreck after it happens but i agree people should have a choice.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> tut tut tut.
> 
> The fact that real cases involving windblown pollen have been thrown out of court, and only those cases where the defendant was proved to be essentially copying gmo crops for resale were actiually prosecuted is irrelevant.
> 
> ...


it is a fact, it is those crazies that have changed the world the most! 

Is the world still flat where your at???


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

bde0001 said:


> what exactly is genetically engineered cannabis?


this is asked on page 109. This means there are approx 109 pages discussing the gmo cannabis issue here. This is why trolls are so powerful!!! And just one example of how easy it is to believe anything your told. Do the research and know the truth for yourself. Decide for yourself. Don't believe a damned thing i or anyone else says!!! Look at all the science and evidence in the issue. Please!!!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> once again dr. Asking questions isn't making claims. Your the one making all the claims here.


So when you vomited up this little nugget of brilliance:



DiverseSanctuary said:


> Funny you should bring this up. Why don't we discuss the false pregnancy in Cows who feed on the grains... And in women who are eating the cows or is that from all the hormones... Who really knows........



Which was in fact the VERY FIRST MENTION of "false pregnancies in cattle" you were "just asking questions"? 

Well then why dont we put a *"?"* behind every allegation, every false claim ever unsupported assertion and every Bald Faced Lie that you and your puppetmaster have thrown out in this thread? 
After all, it's not a lie if it's a question right? 

In fact why bother with little details like evidence at all when questions are the new proof? 

Maybe you could show your proof that cows get false pregnancies from eating GMO grains? 
Or maybe you pulled that piece of shit right out of your ass before you disguised it as a question? 
Perhaps your just a LIAR? 
Perhaps everything you have said in this thread has been deliberate and calculated LIES? 

When will you provide some evidence to support your claims? 

Was your cute little nervous breakdown several pages back caused by "hormones" in GMO's too? 

or are you just another mindless twat who regurgitates the talking points provided by the leftist eco-loons? 

I'm just asking questions right?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> but i think ill wait for proof before i start my day with a steaming mug of piss.


oh do come on now ode corporate chap, everyone knows our corporate military troops know just how to do that :d


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> well lets just put aside the appeal to emotion wrapped in argument from ignorance "maybe it will take 35 years for us to slap our heads and say "oh, shit. These gmo carrots make us shoot lasers out of our eyes, and the potatoes make us crack addicts" stance
> 
> and lets even put aside the gmo part because it does not matter how the food came into being it is the end result (the offspring/ grain) that is what we're really talking about
> 
> ...


history & greed are two real reasons


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> have you not read this thread yet? I can tell you its a thrilling dire warning from the anti gmo about the catastrophic consequences that might just might happen yet they cannot find evidence to show


this thread is full of the evidence, just because you choose to ignore it doesn't make it not real. 

Is the world still flat where your at?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

desert dude said:


> my compliments to kynes, and ginja, and the others who are fighting the valiant battle to push back the dark shroud of ignorance and superstition. I have insufficient patience to join you in the fight. Please carry on.


yes, congrads on being master shi# stackers!!! Pile enough on and you can bury anything. Like monsanto has oops! Did i say that???


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

unclebuck said:


> some people carry water for free, ya know.


yes they know it is full of fluoride, chemicals and their recycled shi#


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> rational to me seems to include the willingness to concede that we don't know yet everything there is to know.


sounds right to me


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> THIS IS THE BIGGEST BUNCH OF BULLSHI# HERE IN THIS THREAD. FROM A MAN WHO HAS THE BULLS TO CALL HIMSELF DR. , DR. DEATH MAYBE..... MALNUTRITION AND DISEASE HAS INCREASED IN ABUNDANCE SINCE WE'VE BEEN EATING GMO'S. THEN THERE ARE PROBLEMS LIKE CROP FAILURES, {WHEAT IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE} THE BEES AND BIRDS DYING, POISONED SOIL AND INCREASED EROSION.... AND HEY DOC WHERE DID ALL OUR BEAN SPROUTS GO??? or OUR FAMILY FARMS??? a phucking monsanto paid troll is more like it


this will be my final response to you, you are insignificant, irrational, uneducated, and most likely insane. 

there were droughts long before there were GMOs. 

malnutrition predates GMO's by about 3 BILLION years.

disease likewise, has a pre-GMO history of about 3 BILLION years. 

Crops have failed many many many times before GMO's were developed. (see the Olde Testament for details)

Birds and Bees have always died, will always die, and GMO's have nothing to do with it. the best evidence on bee colony collapse syndrome is overuse of neonicitinoid pesticides on bee pollinated crops. 

soils have been poisoned by many things in history, but NEVER GMO's GMO's are not poisonous to soil. 

Erosion doesnt just predated GMO's it predated LIFE. erosion has been going on since the earth was formed. and monsanto didnt have anything at all to do with that (see the Grand Canyon for details)

bean sprouts, as it turns out, are quite dangerous since they harbour massive ammounts of E Coli, and botulinus. nobody sells bean sprouts any more because its a liability issue, but you can grow your own if you want, it's fucking easy. 
step one) buy a packet of Mung Bean seeds
step two) plant those mung bean seeds in a bed of sphagnum moss
step three) keep it damp, cool (~60 degrees F) and dark. 
step four) when they sprout, eat them. 

Family farms have been disappearing since the 1930's. did GMO's do that too? 

These issues which are ALL UNRELATED to GMO's are not more common now than in the past, in fact FEWER people die of hunger and disease now than ever before in history. and it only gets better. 

you are a dimwitted hag screeching dire predictions and spitting venom at passers by. in a few more posts youll most likely start hurling cats at children.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> if its not labeled then what tells you your eating GMO over local?
> 
> yes i hear the small "organic" farmers crying alot about it
> 
> mainly in the form of demonising GMO food with made up stories and bunk "studies"


taste to start with


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> yes they were developed to resist frost under tests it showed that it didnt work the project was crapped and they never saw the shelves
> 
> so your hysterical propagander about them killing people is just plain nonsense
> 
> ...


YES BECAUSE THEY WERE A HUGE DISASTER THAT COULD BE SEEN ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, AFTER THEY WERE DECLARED SAFE TO BEGIN WITH. LIKE GMO WHEAT. PROOF GMO's AREN'T ALL YOU ARE TRYING TO CLAIM THEY ARE. SO IF THE DAMAGE ISN'T SO IMMEDIATELY SEEN IT IS OK WITH YOU.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ninjabowler said:


> by your lack of an intellegent answer and your resorting to comedy to win i would say that your conceding and you belive my entire post and cant argue any of it. Thread closed, thanks for comin out monsanto employees


that seems to be a discernment repeated through-out this thread by several people


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> ahh yeah an appeal to emotion "wont you think of the children"
> 
> to show something is the truth you must show evidence of it
> 
> something your side seems to find impossible to do


http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Pharm_Crops_Ignoring_the_Environment.php


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I'd like to see just one study that even vaguely indicates commercially available GM food poses ANY health risk whatsoever.
> 
> Have at it, Organic Boy.


 [h=1]Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.[/h] 
&#8213; Mark Twain


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

dnaprotection said:


> redesigning the world:
> Ethical questions about genetic engineering
> redesigning the world
> 
> ...


guess that means he lives. So i am out of this, found out what i was here to learn.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> *Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.*
> 
> &#8213; Mark Twain


Have you not jumped off a bridge yet?

Damn, I wish I'd trolled harder, there'd be one less idiot using up water, oxygen AND food. 

When someone is as stupid as you, they're basically just a small global warming machine.

(Please don't actually kill yourself)


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> I call bullshit, sorry bud, nobody in their right mind sits on a computer all day arguing in favor of GMOs. Unless you have some motive behind this contant battle nobody would spend as much time as you and monsanto hitler do on this thread. You two wake up every morning and battle it out with people trying to make the point that GMOs are safe. Why? Either you two have absoulutely no lives to attend to and dont get out of the house evaaaar, or you have a reason. Are you two scientists that work in the field, employees of monsanto, stock holders, whats the deal? Nobody gets that much gratification from pointing and laughing to make it worth the amount of time you and monsanto hitler spend on this thread. Real story please, yours has been debunked


i think you'll find im waging a personal war against stupidity and liars in what ever form they take

you think i do nothing but sit in front of a computer all day defending monsanto when i actually have a job anad a family to take care of 

(you might not consider that as "having a life evaaar" but i dont give a fuck what you think)

but when my day is done and little one's do be sleeping is when i burst into action trawling the web for blatant lies to be exposed and the overtly stupid to be educated

i care less about monsanto (or even GMO food) than the vile stench of dishonesty and knee high mess of dribbling idiots that fills this thread

its this infectious plight that i am here standing against as a voice of reason in a sea of blackness

we have people here that are hating naturally bred tomato's for being "GMO"
and people confusing a manufacturing process of cooking for the combination of genes in a plant 

these idiots are even going so far as to try to legislate our lives from their unsupported irrational bullshit


i will fight tooth and nail against these lunatics bid at taking over the asylum 


now that you've read all of that and understand my crusade 

i know what your thinking and...


*your welcome *


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Thanks for the study though, I will have a read...
> 
> 
> The FDA Doesnt Even TEST the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods
> ...


if you link me blogs that include that failed french "study" im just going to ignore them 

no one said the fda tests anything

the quote from phill angel is from 1998

have you got anything more contemporary?

producers of GMO food knows its very unwise for their sales if customers drop dead from allergies


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> a link it seems was ignored completely. Go figure!!!


you mean a 53 page link?

one that was left with no explanation, reason, question or point?

nothing to show you had even bothered to read it yourself yet because you dump it here we have to do work for you??



yeah it doesnt work like that


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Pharm_Crops_Ignoring_the_Environment.php


so now your against medicine?

let me guess we should rely on crystals, pyramids and wishfull thinking to cleanse our chakra's of the pervading poison modern society places on our systems wich ngive the illusion of dying ana shit...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> taste to start with


and when have you done a like for like taste test? what food was that?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> i think you'll find im waging a personal war against stupidity and liars in what ever form they take
> 
> you think i do nothing but sit in front of a computer all day defending monsanto when i actually have a job anad a family to take care of
> 
> ...


 thanks for your response, i dont know if i believe it but im sure you dont give a fuck about that. So how do you feel about the fact that mass produced GM foods are sold cheaply to processed food companies allowing them to offer lower price food products to the consumer? What are the benifits and downfalls of this fact in your personal opinion?


----------



## Figong (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> and when have you done a like for like taste test? what food was that?


Pizza, actually... ironically, it was with modified GM dough, which after eating. caused massive hallucinations, where I was running on a treadmill while being chased by my sport surgeon.. he was running on the treadmill as well, trying to slash me with scalpels. None of the statement before this sentence is true, I just figured I'd make up some stupid shit to say.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 31, 2013)

Figong said:


> Pizza, actually... ironically, it was with modified GM dough, which after eating. caused massive hallucinations, where I was running on a treadmill while being chased by my sport surgeon.. he was running on the treadmill as well, trying to slash me with scalpels. None of the statement before this sentence is true, I just figured I'd make up some stupid shit to say.


That is TOTAL bullshit, the "pizza" you speak of was CLEARLY a bag of acid tabs.

EDIT: If this was really a pizza, is it legal and will they ship internationally? 

I reckon I could out-run a fish...


----------



## Figong (Jan 31, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> That is TOTAL bullshit, the "pizza" you speak of was CLEARLY a bag of acid tabs.
> 
> EDIT: If this was really a pizza, is it legal and will they ship internationally?
> 
> I reckon I could out-run a fish...


It's not genetically modified, but it could prove interesting.. scope this: http://www.cannabissearch.com/edibles/pizza/ Link has the recipe instructions 

Ingredients list: 

Dough:

3 &#65533; cups flour

1 oz. yeast

1 tsp yeast
8 fl. oz. water

1 tbsp granulated sugar
2 tbsp melted CannaButter (potency depends on dosage of your butter)

Toppings:
2 cups grated cheese of your choice

1 large can of chopped tomatoes
2 tsp freshly ground oregano

Any other desired toppings

5 tbsp melted CannaButter


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> thanks for your response, i dont know if i believe it but im sure you dont give a fuck about that. So how do you feel about the fact that mass produced GM foods are sold cheaply to processed food companies allowing them to offer lower price food products to the consumer? What are the benifits and downfalls of this fact in your personal opinion?


i think food getting cheaper is nothing but a good thing 

processed food might not be the best food but that would be the same whether GMO or NON GMO goes into making it

there are some problems with "mass produced" monoculture farming but that isnt the fault of "GMO" nor is it synonymous with GMO 

INFACT GMO does go a way to addressing/ lowering those problems


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

I've heard it called by different names 
All over the world, but it's all the same 
There's so many ways to make love 
A million ways, I've been thinking of
Oh yea 
Chorus: 
But there's only one way 
There's only one way to rock 
So many things can get you high
I'm gonna try em all just once before I die 
And you can analyze this situation 
To me it's all just mental masturbation
[Chorus] 
Now quickly, check the hands on the clock 
It's 8:05, it's time to rock 
And this world can disagree 
They don't understand how it can be 
And it's not my point of view 
It's a fact, and you know that it's true
[Chorus] 
Crank up the drums, crank out the bass 
Crank up my Les Paul in your face


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> so when you vomited up this little nugget of brilliance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


two can play the same ignorant game dr death. Perhaps your just a masturbator instead of a masturdebater and that is why you have to result to twisting shi#, ignoring what is right before you and name calling = reflecting again are we puppet boy


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

how are these before and after shots for ya

before exposure to round up




after exposure to round up


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> you mean a 53 page link?
> 
> one that was left with no explanation, reason, question or point?
> 
> ...



I read it, "The risks for the introduction of a GMO into each new ecosystem need to be examined on a case-by-case basis, alongside appropriate risk management measures, such as through the precautionary approach in the Cartagena Protocol and the IPPCs Pest Risk Assessment (PRA)."

Which means there is a risk..........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

risk you know, like when you play Russian roulette


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> how are these before and after shots for ya
> 
> before exposure to round up
> 
> ...


lol what nonsense

thats before and after makeup you just got the pictures round the wrong way


not a looker in either of them


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Russian Roulette you know something all you who want to keep playing with guns, death, and instruments of destruction might understand..........


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> lol what nonsense
> 
> thats before and after makeup you just got the pictures round the wrong way
> 
> ...


Click on the pics idiot so they will be bigger for you. I know this individual personally it's no bullshi#
guess what??? she's a farmer too and a real Doctor.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> I read it, "The risks for the introduction of a GMO into each new ecosystem need to be examined on a case-by-case basis, alongside appropriate risk management measures, such as through the precautionary approach in the Cartagena Protocol and the IPPC&#8217;s Pest Risk Assessment (PRA)."
> 
> Which means there is a risk..........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> risk you know, like when you play Russian roulette


*nothing in life is non zero risk*

bolded for emphasis


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Click on the pics idiot so they will be bigger for you. I know this individual personally it's no bullshi#
> guess what??? she's a farmer too and a real Doctor.


yeah braids ribbons let me guess she's an organic farmer?

no back story just unsupported pic's?

obvious nonsense is obvious


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> lol what nonsense
> 
> thats before and after makeup you just got the pictures round the wrong way
> 
> ...


and i just love the way you guys get off on degrading patients with birth defects and issues... throwing their pics out with degrading comments... it shows how much HEART you all really have and only helps increase the vote for no!!!!!!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

I can't figure out which you enjoy more. degrading people or masturbating, when you aren't planning to mutate something or buy something


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> and i just love the way you guys get off on degrading patients with birth defects and issues... throwing their pics out with degrading comments... it shows how much HEART you all really have and only helps increase the vote for no!!!!!!!!


birth defects? nah she's just old and burnt the candle bothends at too many drum parties

im throwing out the pic's becuase they are random unsupported and proof of nothing


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> yeah braids ribbons let me guess she's an organic farmer?
> 
> no back story just unsupported pic's?
> 
> obvious nonsense is obvious


the note she is holding in the one pic says it all


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> the note she is holding in the one pic says it all


without any storyline or corroborating evidence the pic says nothing of the sort


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Have you not jumped off a bridge yet?
> 
> Damn, I wish I'd trolled harder, there'd be one less idiot using up water, oxygen AND food.
> 
> ...


THANKS FOR PROVING MY POINT! TOO BAD NONE OF YOU ARE IN CONTROL OF ANYTHING AND YOU WANT US TO LET YOU PLAY WITH GMO's AND FOOD. REALLY??? ROLMAFO!!!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> without any storyline or corroborating evidence the pic says nothing of the sort


it says 4 days after exposure to round-up weed killer. Are you blinder than i am???


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Because i have open angle glaucoma and am nearly legally blind in both eyes dude


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

A photograph is one of the best pieces of evidence in court

what planet are you from???

Is the world still flat there too???


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> it says 4 days after exposure to round-up weed killer. Are you blinder than i am???





DiverseSanctuary said:


> Because i have open angle glaucoma and am *nearly legally blind in both eyes* dude





DiverseSanctuary said:


> A photograph is one of the best pieces of evidence in court
> 
> what planet are you from???
> 
> Is the world still flat there too???


so she told you what those photo's looked like?

"exposed to round up" what did she beat herself round the head with it

why doesnt she take those pieces of "evidence" court to sue the big bad monsanto?

obvious nonsense is obvious


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> *nothing in life is non zero risk*
> 
> bolded for emphasis


ty! This is true. Yet, we don't have to deliberately add to that do we???


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> ty! This is true. Yet, we don't have to deliberately add to that do we???


exactly thats why you posting that 52 page link was superfluous 

saying they're accessing risk =/= added risk


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> so she told you what those photo's looked like?
> 
> "exposed to round up" what did she beat herself round the head with it
> 
> ...


i guess you missed the part where i said this woman is a real doctor

why would she lye??? Is monsanto paying her as much as they are you???


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Maybe she is in the process, ever think of that??? If she can find a lawyer that can't be bought by monsanto, like all the others were


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> i guess you missed the part where i said this woman is a real doctor
> 
> why would she lye??? Is monsanto paying her as much as they are you???


because she's a burnt out hippy farmer who is ideologically oppose to un natural "gmo"

if she was a real doctor then she would understand that these pics of hers do not constitute proof 

and she certainly wouldnt be trying to convince you that it was


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> exactly thats why you posting that 52 page link was superfluous
> 
> saying they're accessing risk =/= added risk


ok now your rambling and making no since. Warning: Crack kills!!!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Maybe she is in the process, ever think of that??? If she can find a lawyer that can't be bought by monsanto, like all the others were


LOL obvious nonsense is obvious


what is her doctorate in homoeopathy? was it 200$ from a totally legit online source?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> because she's a burnt out hippy farmer who is ideologically oppose to un natural "gmo"
> 
> if she was a real doctor then she would understand that these pics of hers do not constitute proof
> 
> and she certainly wouldnt be trying to convince you that it was


so all natives are hippies right??? Because you declared it so on your flat land


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> ok now your rambling and making no since. Warning: Crack kills!!!


i know i seen your pics on your web page

had better days havent you?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> so all natives are hippies right??? Because you declared it so on your flat land


not all just this one


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> lol obvious nonsense is obvious
> 
> 
> what is her doctorate in homoeopathy? Was it 200$ from a totally legit online source?


sorry wrong lmao!!! Yes it is so obvious... Wtfe!!! What is obvious is the trolling by monsanto employees


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> i know i seen your pics on your web page
> 
> had better days havent you?


on my worst day, my worst feature looks better than you


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> on my worst day, my worst feature looks better than you


is that your equivalent of "im rubber and your glue"?

so very childish for someone so haggarded


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

By the way, i have been diagnosed copd, cancer, ms & sms, neuro miatonia, neuropathy, open angle glaucoma, was told i was dead already 3-4 times. Out lived their expert diagnosis of sure death, 25 yrs ago............ When they stuck me with a wheel chair that i still refuse to sit down in and told me it was lou gehrig's and i had seven yrs left in 89. And again about 3 yrs ago after they told me in 2004 i had lung cancer and 5 yrs left... Lmao!!! Because you all know what your talking about right. Rolmafo!!! All of it is already documented in the courts. Public record. So, yeah, i have had better days. Especially since i stopped listening to big corps = big chema and big pharma.......... And got away from their gmo's and chemicals........... I am the evidence!!!!!!!!!! Like i told the judges


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> By the way, i have been diagnosed copd, cancer, ms & sms, neuro miatonia, neuropathy, open angle glaucoma, was told i was dead already 3-4 times. Out lived their expert diagnosis of sure death, 25 yrs ago............ When they stuck me with a wheel chair that i still refuse to sit down in and told me it was lou gehrig's and i had seven yrs left in 89. And again about 3 yrs ago after they told me in 2004 i had lung cancer and 5 yrs left... Lmao!!! Because you all know what your talking about right. Rolmafo!!! All of it is already documented in the courts. Public record. So, yeah, i have had better days. Especially since i stopped listening to big corps = big chema and big pharma.......... And got away from their gmo's and chemicals........... *I am the evidence*!!!!!!!!!! Like i told the judges


lol the judges?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

your just mad because you can't touch this


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> View attachment 2504937View attachment 2504942
> 
> your just mad because you can't touch this


sorry im allergic to crazy brings me out in a rash


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> lol the judges?


YES I DON'T JUST SIT BEHIND A SCREEN AND RUN MY MOUTH LIKE SOME PEOPLE. I ACTUALLY FIGHT FOR WHAT I BELIEVE. MADE LEGAL HISTORY WHILE DOING SO... REMEMBER ~ http://designingyourworld.com/MyStand.html


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> sorry im allergic to crazy brings me out in a rash


good Go lick your wounds in a corner


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

I am allergic to stupid and masturbators


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> I am allergic to *stupid* and masturbators


you must have a terrible time daily then

i feel for you


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Funny my good friend jack herer didn't think i was crazy when i helped him to word cchi2013

View attachment 2504948


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> that seems to be a discernment repeated through-out this thread by several people


Well to be fair these monsanto employees like to start by insulting your intelligence and then resorting to comedy. Its funny how they insult our intelligence. We are the ones advocating reading food lables, shopping locally, natural farming, non modified food, and they have the audacity to call us stupid. Im eating pumpkin seeds from my garden last season, im a fucking reeeeeetard. These guys are good for nothing more than angry banter. FUCK GMO & FUCK MONSANTO


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

And besides don't you think the courts tried to say that crazy shi# too??? Like i said, it is all a matter of public record


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Funny my good friend jack herer didn't think i was crazy when i helped him to word cchi2013
> 
> View attachment 2504948


isnt he dead already?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> And besides don't you think the courts tried to say that crazy shi# too??? Like i said, it is all a matter of public record


and you gave just quality evidence as your "doctor/farmer" pictures to the court? you know the best sort of evidence?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> isnt he dead already?


yes, he wrote his final initiative right before he died. Read it.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Well to be fair these monsanto employees like to start by insulting your intelligence and then resorting to comedy. Its funny how they insult our intelligence. We are the ones advocating reading food lables, shopping locally, natural farming, non modified food, and they have the audacity to call us stupid. Im eating pumpkin seeds from my garden last season, im a fucking reeeeeetard. These guys are good for nothing more than angry banter. FUCK GMO & FUCK MONSANTO


when you are shown that GMO tomatoes arent sold and you are able to go out misread an article and convince yourself otherwise then fuck me yes you are stupid


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> and you gave just quality evidence as your "doctor/farmer" pictures to the court? You know the best sort of evidence?


your too funny. Yes according to all of you it is "none"


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> yes, he wrote his final initiative right before he died. Read it.


invalid link for attachment 

and it means nothing to give you authority to speak of anything even GMO

either your arguments stand on their own or they fail


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> your too funny. Yes according to all of you it is "none"


sarcasm is a bitch isnt it?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

There were at least two news articles and links attached to my photos... And court documents with case numbers.......... Hello??? Is anyone home??? 

Is the world still flat where your at???


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

the photo's of your doctor/farmer freind ?

there was nothing added to them and pages down the line i find it telling you have no more explaination to them other than "photo tells it all"


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatewood_Galbraith


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

I'd read that page above carefully if i were you.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> I'd read that page above carefully if i were you.


really wtf has that got to do with GMO or your "freinds" supposed exposure to roundup?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

AND THIS ONE, YOU'LL NOTICE HE DEFINES CANNABIS AS ALL NATURAL NON-GMO ~ http://www.jackherer.com/initiative/


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> AND THIS ONE, YOU'LL NOTICE HE DEFINES CANNABIS AS ALL NATURAL NON-GMO ~ http://www.jackherer.com/initiative/
> 
> 
> DiverseSanctuary said:
> ...





ginjawarrior said:


> really wtf has that got to do with GMO or your "freinds" supposed exposure to roundup?


i'd just be repeating myself if i said it again


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> really wtf has that got to do with gmo or your "freinds" supposed exposure to roundup?


either i am a crazy liar or i am not??? Which one is it???


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

your saying someone cant be a lying crazy person who sometimes tells the truth?




DiverseSanctuary said:


> either i am a crazy liar or i am not??? Which one is it???


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> your saying someone cant be a lying crazy person who sometimes tells the truth?


no i am saying i know that the truth and lies don't mix well. One would undo the other. I wouldn't have survived 14 yrs in courts. Standing on lies. Sorry


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Like for example... I would never say i wasn't affiliated with someone i have been friends with, worked with, depended on,... For 10 yrs... WHILE SUPPOSEDLY ASKING FOR PROTECTION OR GIFTING SOMETHING TO THEM... THE ONE UNDOES THE OTHER...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> no i am saying i know that the truth and lies don't mix well. One would undo the other. I wouldn't have survived 14 yrs in courts. Standing on lies. Sorry


and the level of evidence you gave us with your "doctor/ farmer" pictures wouldnt have been laughed out of court if they were unsupported?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jan 31, 2013)

Ginga warrior likes to hear himself talk, hes a lonely man that has no life other than trying to make others feel bad about themselves and inferior to the massive size of his brain. His arguements usually are just a bunch of bla...bla....bla. Your thinking about how much you suck arent you?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> View attachment 2504937View attachment 2504942
> 
> your just mad because you can't touch this


It always gives me a giggle when someone looks far more like a crack head than you expected. 

Have a shower.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

harrekin said:


> it always gives me a giggle when someone looks far more like a crack head than you expected.
> 
> Have a shower.


please......... Really!!! Is that the best you can do???


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> and the level of evidence you gave us with your "doctor/ farmer" pictures wouldnt have been laughed out of court if they were unsupported?


dude why are you arguing with a crazy person? 

i used glyphosate for years, and never had all my hair fall out, and i never turned into a shriveled gnome. 

i guess i was just "lucky" like the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people who have used the shit with no ill effects. 

the number one "injury" that PCA's who use glyphosate report is sometimes you get some in your eye when your mixing up your preparation. 

the shit stings when it gets in your eyes. it stings like shampoo. cuz thats what it is. 

if Monsanto teams up with the cats who make BabySham, they could eliminate nearly 80% of their health hazards by releasing a "No More Tears" version.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Sad truly sad. That you full grown men have to pick on plants, patients, children, women,... To get your power

i feel sorry for all of you

please eat all the gmo's you desire


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> and the level of evidence you gave us with your "doctor/ farmer" pictures wouldnt have been laughed out of court if they were unsupported?


*a post, it seems was ignored completely. Go figure!!!*


DiverseSanctuary said:


> please......... Really!!! Is that the best you can do???


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Sad truly sad. That you full grown men have to pick on plants, patients, children, *women*,... To get your power
> 
> i feel sorry for all of you
> 
> please eat all the gmo's you desire


professional victim?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

dr kynes said:


> dude why are you arguing with a crazy person?
> 
> I used glyphosate for years, and never had all my hair fall out, and i never turned into a shriveled gnome.
> 
> ...


i am crazy??? Like i said a matter of public record in the courts lol!

I go away twice saying this is done. Finished. No one can prove anything.... Even pointed out ron said he was writing a book and this was just an experiment what around 70 pages ago... And i come back and you all are still holding a circle jerk

rolmafo!!! And i am the one who is crazy right???


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> dude why are you arguing with a crazy person?
> 
> i used glyphosate for years, and never had all my hair fall out, and i never turned into a shriveled gnome.
> 
> ...


if you dont reply to them it seems like they have majority 

its a dirty job but it needs to be done


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

YOU GUYS ARE TOO PHUCKING FUNNY!!! I JUST CAME BACK TO LAUGH AT YOU


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> *a post, it seems was ignored completely. Go figure!!!*


I could sue the State for being run by 7 foot reptiles in human-suits...

What UnshoweredRetardSanctuary doesn't realise is that it doesn't make it groundbreaking, it makes you "uniquely retarded".


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> i am crazy??? Like i said a matter of public record in the courts lol!
> 
> I go away twice saying this is done. Finished. No one can prove anything.... Even pointed out ron said he was writing a book and this was just an experiment what around 70 pages ago... And i come back and you all are still holding a circle jerk
> 
> rolmafo!!! And i am the one who is crazy right???


you are bat shit, off with the fairies level of "gone to the sane world"


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

After all laughter is good medicine


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> After all laughter is good medicine


after of course proper medicine that you tried to discredit pages ago


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> you are bat shit, off with the fairies level of "gone to the sane world"


if that is so, i'd rather be me than any of you. Anyways! Lol!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> after of course proper medicine that you tried to discredit pages ago


oh, why are we back to the subject of coitus ??? Lol!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

You have no idea what i can do


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> oh, why are we back to the subject of coitus ??? Lol!


has your rush to post bad stuff about "GMO" clouded your memory about your pharma link?


i already told you im allergic to crazy


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> You have no idea what i can do


yep thats one of the things about batshit


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

harrekin said:


> i could sue the state for being run by 7 foot reptiles in human-suits...
> 
> What unshoweredretardsanctuary doesn't realise is that it doesn't make it groundbreaking, it makes you "uniquely retarded".



what language do you speak??? I understand latin, greek, hebrew, aramaic, some russian, some spanish, english, ganster, thug, ... Put the crack pipe down now please!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> yep thats one of the things about batshit


yes it is the best fertilizer


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

To propagate, sow or plant seeds in


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> To propagate, sow or plant seeds in


look no ones going to plough you here


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> professional victim?


no that would be monsanto who keeps suing everyone


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> look no ones going to plough you here


tell me something i don't already know


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> no that would be monsanto who keeps suing everyone


so your anti american? you dont believe in in intellectual property?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> tell me something i don't already know


it would be superfluous at your stage in life


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> so your anti american? You dont believe in in intellectual property?


i am anti corporation [ . ] 

not intellectual property you can't control that blows 

not unless it is mechanical or musical 

no

sorry

and i am an artist, builder, inventor, writer,...


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Every gmo is an experiment not property


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> it would be superfluous at your stage in life


it hasn't prevented any of you from running your mouths thus far


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

What is it you don't get about the big pharma link???


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Every gmo is an experiment not property


every invention is experiment not property

see how this works?

why do you hate america and patent laws?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> What is it you don't get about the big pharma link???


the part about you hating medicine advances


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> the part about you hating medicine advances


lol! Medicine heals people. Treating symptoms with addiction OR SURGERY isn't medicine. Sorry. Eating properly to prevent disease is medicine.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> every invention is experiment not property
> 
> see how this works?
> 
> why do you hate america and patent laws?


http://designingyourworld.com/Gliders.html

DO YOUR HOMEWORK


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> lol! Medicine heals people. Treating symptoms with addiction OR SURGERY isn't medicine. Sorry. Eating properly to prevent disease is medicine.


and heres where i fully come to arms against people like you
*
"Treating symptoms with addiction OR SURGERY isn't medicine"

"Eating properly to prevent disease is medicine "


*this bullshit is the biggest reason why i spend my time arguing against fuckwits like yourselfpeople die from shitty advice like yours


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> http://designingyourworld.com/Gliders.html
> 
> DO YOUR HOMEWORK


proof of what?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> and heres where i fully come to arms against people like you
> *
> "treating symptoms with addiction or surgery isn't medicine"
> 
> ...


really, well like i said i survived their medicine........... So go phuck yourself!!!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> really, well like i said i survived their medicine........... So go phuck yourself!!!


you took the medicine *and* survived you fucking cunt


your advocating for people to not take it and die


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> proof of what?


that i have myself filed for a patent

hello???


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> you took the medicine *and* survived you fucking cunt
> 
> 
> your advocating for people to not take it and die


read the court docs idiots i gave them their medicine up their ass and proved in court their medicine was killing me

now go lick your wounds in a corner


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

yeah thats the thing about cancer drugs they have to be fucking harsh to kill the cancer


so your remission how long now?

lets not ignore it was brought on by the "drugs" that your fighting against


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

***i beat cancer by fighting the courts proving the ANTI cancer drugs i took were bad


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> yeah thats the thing about cancer drugs they have to be fucking harsh to kill the cancer
> 
> 
> so your remission how long now?
> ...


my remiision didn't begin until nearly 2 yrs after i told them to stick their drugs


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> what language do you speak??? I understand latin, greek, hebrew, aramaic, some russian, some spanish, english, ganster, thug, ... Put the crack pipe down now please!


Bullshit. 

Aramaic? 

Lollerskates. 

You realise the more you give up, the more we have right?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> my remiision didn't begin until nearly 2 yrs after i told them to stick their drugs


how long did you take their drugs?

edit and guessing you telling them to go stick it means you stopped scanning


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 31, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> you should really take a look at what's in your processed food next time you go shopping. HFCS, soy lecithin, and others will come up almost without fail.


Trust me when i say I am a big reader of food labels. I see no problem with soy lecithin. i am no fan of HFCS or any refined carb regardless of provenance. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 31, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i'm not responsible for the fact that pretty much any processed food is also GMO. sorry.


That doesn't mean that an antipathy to processed food can be used to support a claim that GM is bad. cn


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 31, 2013)

Just for the record DiverseSanctuary, since you speak Latin I give a warning...I can go ad hominim, ad nauseum...


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> Aramaic?
> 
> ...


Do you realize that you misspelled realize? & roller skates


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> how long did you take their drugs?
> 
> edit and guessing you telling them to go stick it means you stopped scanning


stick it means I told them to take their drugs... and place them where the sun never shines.

I was put on their drugs when I got ill, in around 1984, while farming... I awoke one morning shortly after the birth of my son in 1987 totally paralyzed in the left side of my body, including my face and both legs, they then upped all their medications and treatments... i told them to stick their drugs the first time in 1989 [when i was told it was Lou Gehrig's and given 7 yrs...] it then took me nearly two yrs to climb up out of their wheel chair. I was clean until I was busted in 1995 {for trafficking in medical cannabis} when they tried to force me back on their system and their treatment of oxy cotton, ms cotton, .... I then told them to stick their ss# disability and med card up their asses. I have refused all cancer drugs and radiation treatments. during 4 bouts with cancer. have had 3 related surgeries. the last they put metal in my breast after i specifically told them i was allergic and not too. So I won't even go see them again. I have survived uterine cancer with all my baby making parts still there after surgery. Doctors at UofL called it a miracle. {their words not mine} I have survived throat cancer surgery where they were suppose to remove my vocal cords. Doctors in Mason Ohio called it a miracle. I have survived Lung cancer since 2003-04? and a little over a yr ago I survived breast cancer surgery with-out mastectomy, yet, it hasn't been right since.... all is recorded on record


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 31, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Do you realize that you misspelled realize? & roller skates


Do you realise American English isn't the type used by more than 300 odd million people. 

And lol.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Jan 31, 2013)

sorry I have been dealing with fixing and eating an organic dinner. Carry on with your gmo consumption


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 1, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> sorry I have been dealing with fixing and eating an organic dinner. Carry on with your gmo consumption


You're retarded. 

Organic is total bullshit. 

Tell me the difference in chemical makeup between metabolised organic fertilisers and pre-prepared chemical fertilisers if you can. 

I just took a 100% organic poop, it was awesome.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Feb 1, 2013)

harrekin said:


> you're retarded.
> 
> Organic is total bullshit.
> 
> ...


that's simple, "it's all natural"

ARE YOU RETARDED???


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Feb 1, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Just for the record DiverseSanctuary, since you speak Latin I give a warning...I can go ad hominim, ad nauseum...


again your spelling must be an issue here, I understand something makes you nauseated, what I am not sure of???


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 1, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> that's simple, "it's all natural"
> 
> ARE YOU RETARDED???


your trying to say nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium (N,P,K) arent all natural?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Feb 1, 2013)

Speaking of nausea, that's where I am with the BS here. As for Potpimp feel free to add me as a friend if you wish. As we do agree and see eye to eye on many things here. Though as you can see by all that I have laid out here, I am a patient who has been called everything from a crazy whore to a loose cannon and a legend. It all has made me pretty untouchable


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Feb 1, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> your trying to say nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium (N,P,K) arent all natural?


are your trying to say that those are the only ingredients found in your chemical fertilizers ???


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 1, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> are your trying to say that those are the only ingredients found in your chemical fertilizers ???


please tell me which of the elements in fertilizer are not natural?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Feb 1, 2013)

another big difference "cost" lol!


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Feb 1, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> please tell me which of the elements in fertilizer are not natural?


that would depend on the fertilizer in question, wouldn't it? By the way I have always lived in cave country and I prefer guano


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Feb 1, 2013)

if you are trying to suggest that all chemicals are natural, is meth natural in your book?


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Feb 1, 2013)

I do know that it was suggested here that all things created by man is natural because man is from nature. Yet, I disagree with this because man's ego is in conflict with his nature. It is the story of two wolves.


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Feb 1, 2013)

As we can see here when we read all and take in the entire picture of this entire thread. lol!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 1, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> that would depend on the fertilizer in question, wouldn't it? By the way I have always lived in cave country and I prefer guano


pick any fertilizer you want 

and pick any element you want 

post it here tell me how un natural it is


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Feb 1, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> specious claims about "men cant tell if a cow is pregnant" has NOTHING to do with your even more specious claims of GMO's causing false pregnancies in cows.
> 
> which proves that 100% of the time you are wrong!!!!!! do* YOU *get that science?


HELLO???

ok lets see if everyone get's this???

if a man can stick his arm up a cows ass and think he knows a cow is pregnant and then admittedly be wrong 96% of the time. Why would I trust any of his science??? 

DO YOU GET THIS???


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 1, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> HELLO???
> 
> ok lets see if everyone get's this???
> 
> ...


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Feb 1, 2013)

Why would i trust men???


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 1, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> Why would i trust men???


because misandry is stupid


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Feb 1, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> pick any fertilizer you want
> 
> and pick any element you want
> 
> post it here tell me how un natural it is


do you realize how many fertilizers there are? And how long this conversation could last? Really??? And as i said before if all chemicals are natural is meth natural in your book???


----------



## DiverseSanctuary (Feb 1, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> because misandry is stupid


wo{men} - men = same thing in my book = people 

don't turn me into a sexist


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 1, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> do you realize how many fertilizers there are? And how long this conversation could last? Really??? And as i said before if all chemicals are natural is meth natural in your book???


You realise every chemical element present in "chemical fertilisers" is also present in "organic fertilisers" or they just wouldn't work?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 1, 2013)

DiverseSanctuary said:


> do you realize how many fertilizers there are? And how long this conversation could last? Really??? And as i said before if all chemicals are natural is meth natural in your book???


i wasnt asking you to list all of them

just pick the first one you come too

pick the first unnatural element you find 

post it here


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 1, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> i wasnt asking you to list all of them
> 
> just pick the first one you come too
> 
> ...


But plants grow with only free love, kisses and sunshine...man.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 2, 2013)

http://www.apenotmonkey.com/2013/01/14/truth-in-labeling/


----------



## funkdr. (Feb 6, 2013)

I just want to be clear, when I voted yes, that is to protect cannabis from being genetically modified. I say let breeders genetically lock down good traits. I feel like if you let scientists start to fuck with the plant, the high could be modified also. Leave it to the govt to fuck up a good thing. I think the genetic structure could not be any more perfect.


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 7, 2013)

funkdr. said:


> I just want to be clear, when I voted yes, that is to protect cannabis from being genetically modified. I say let breeders genetically lock down good traits. I feel like if you let scientists start to fuck with the plant, the high could be modified also. Leave it to the govt to fuck up a good thing. I think the genetic structure could not be any more perfect.


Then you voted wrong. 

Good work you Hippy-loser.


----------



## funkdr. (Feb 7, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Then you voted wrong.


Good thing it's a landslide then.


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 7, 2013)

funkdr. said:


> Good thing it's a landslide then.


Well people can choose whether or not to indulge in GM foods/cannabis, I'd never deny the yes sides right to vote yes and not partake...why force me to not smoke/eat GM products?

Are you a facist? You seem like a facist.


----------



## DNAprotection (Feb 9, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Well people can choose whether or not to indulge in GM foods/cannabis, I'd never deny the yes sides right to vote yes and not partake...why force me to not smoke/eat GM products?
> 
> Are you a facist? You seem like a facist.


Frank...don't ever try to fly...just sayin'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST01bZJPuE0

[h=1]_*We almost have 200 votes in the poll, thanks to all<3

"Genetic Roulette - The Gamble of our Live"*_[/h][video=youtube;wnlTYFKBg18]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=wnlTYFKBg18[/video]


*Published on Oct 8, 2012 * 
 Are you and your family on the wrong side of a bet?

When the US government ignored repeated warnings by its own scientists and allowed untested genetically modified (GM) crops into our environment and food supply, it was a gamble of unprecedented proportions. The health of all living things and all future generations were put at risk by an infant technology.

After two decades, physicians and scientists have uncovered a grave trend. The same serious health problems found in lab animals, livestock, and pets that have been fed GM foods are now on the rise in the US population. And when people and animals stop eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), their health improves.

This seminal documentary provides compelling evidence to help explain the deteriorating health of Americans, especially among children, and offers a recipe for protecting ourselves and our future.

More information can be found at: http://geneticroulettemovie.com
and http://responsibletechnology.org


ps funkdr. only balanced out dd's also misplaced vote so all is well lol...


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 10, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Frank...don't ever try to fly...just sayin'
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST01bZJPuE0
> 
> ...


Bullshit, cite a journal or gtfo.


----------



## Doer (Feb 11, 2013)

Yeah, I'm saying FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are tools used against progress. Everything we eat, (unless you somehow consume heirloom only) everything has been genetically modified.

Mendel laid this out a long time ago. All dogs except the little yellow wolf have been modified...Horses, forgetaboutit. Not just food, cotton, yellow pine almost all of it. It's what we do. Innovative monkeys.

This opposition may well be the Ludites in new garb. Just against the progress by promoting fear. Irradiated food, same thing. Just vague fear proposing knee jerk roadblocks.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Feb 11, 2013)

Doer said:


> Yeah, I'm saying FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are tools used against progress. Everything we eat, (unless you somehow consume heirloom only) everything has been genetically modified.
> 
> Mendel laid this out a long time ago. All dogs except the little yellow wolf have been modified...Horses, forgetaboutit. Not just food, cotton, yellow pine almost all of it. It's what we do. Innovative monkeys.
> 
> This opposition may well be the Ludites in new garb. Just against the progress by promoting fear. Irradiated food, same thing. Just vague fear proposing knee jerk roadblocks.


Amen brother! GMO and selective cross breeding are the same thing. Why don't those fear mongers know this?


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 11, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Amen brother! GMO and selective cross breeding are the same thing. Why don't those fear mongers know this?


Cos selective breeding is nature man, and we're not nature...man.


----------



## Doer (Feb 11, 2013)

Wa? More subtle humor maybe.

Selective breeding is not natural. Unless you mean Darwin. You specifically don't allow the strongest bull, that is mean as dirt, with an evil stink eye, to breed to your friendly cow girls. You find a nice bull with straight teeth, from a decent family and with good grades. One that is known to produce safe to handle, milk cows.

So, you can experiment with cross breeding... wheat, for example, until you are pretty sure how it works. That takes us to the 60 - 70s. Then you can begin to experiment with the findings of DNA science. But, we know it is the same thing. Now finally we can see a way to make a more heat resistant wheat strain by snipping the little booger of DNA that is from a strain that is heat resistant, sure, but that has nothing else to offer. Low yield. Slow grow, whatever.

In fact, to try to selectively breed for this trait, well, it's regressive and it just was not successful.

To do the same thing in months not decades (if we get really lucky)...is just cut, snip, nip, tuck. Put the gene in already. It is exactly the same as trying to trick the gene in, over generations with back breeding, line breeding, etc.


----------



## DNAprotection (Feb 12, 2013)

Doer said:


> Wa? More subtle humor maybe.
> 
> Selective breeding is not natural. Unless you mean Darwin. You specifically don't allow the strongest bull, that is mean as dirt, with an evil stink eye, to breed to your friendly cow girls. You find a nice bull with straight teeth, from a decent family and with good grades. One that is known to produce safe to handle, milk cows.
> 
> ...


I don't think that re-sequencing and mix matching DNA can quite be described as 'speeding up the process', in fact imo it is the process (even with forced cross pollination) that is pivotal. The process of 'gene splicing' produces equations that traditional procreation methods (including forced cross pollination) do not produce. What comes from gene splicing is a forced DNA sequence.
When the collective nature sequences DNA its all based on automatic calculations of ALL the possible variables/numbers that are within that particular equation of life much like our computers work only in comparison our computers are like 'easy bake ovens' compared to the finest oven ever built and even that comparison falls short because our lack of numbers in this area of building life equations has far greater potential consequences than just one person made sick by a cake they bought from the 'easy bake' oven. This scenario gives way to possibilities of everyone being effected due to the chain reactive nature of life itself and how such carries over into genetic engineering technology etc.
The best way I have found to explain comes ironically from one of the horses mouth spitting out the infamous and all powerful Rumsfeld quote of destiny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw
This other quote from a response to the quote of destiny is also helpful in this discussion:

"Known unknowns - things we know we need to research, the results of that research might take more or less time, but we know we can figure it out before we invest into this project.
Unknown unknowns -&#65279; We will start the project not knowing these things will be a problem. These will derail our project in ways we can not foresee.
Given the context it might be a silly statement, but in and of itself it explains the mentality of approaching larger projects quite succinctly."


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 12, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> I don't think that re-sequencing and mix matching DNA can quite be described as 'speeding up the process', in fact imo it is the process (even with forced cross pollination) that is pivotal. The process of 'gene splicing' produces equations that traditional procreation methods (including forced cross pollination) do not produce. What comes from gene splicing is a forced DNA sequence.
> When the collective nature sequences DNA its all based on automatic calculations of ALL the possible variables/numbers that are within that particular equation of life much like our computers work only in comparison our computers are like 'easy bake ovens' compared to the finest oven ever built and even that comparison falls short because our lack of numbers in this area of building life equations has far greater potential consequences than just one person made sick by a cake they bought from the 'easy bake' oven. This scenario gives way to possibilities of everyone being effected due to the chain reactive nature of life itself and how such carries over into genetic engineering technology etc.
> The best way I have found to explain comes ironically from one of the horses mouth spitting out the infamous and all powerful Rumsfeld quote of destiny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw
> This other quote from a response to the quote of destiny is also helpful in this discussion:
> ...


Still no scientific journals?

You sir, lose.


----------



## Doer (Feb 12, 2013)

Yeah, the conversation is increasingly politically fear based. A genetic ludite argument. And gene splicing is a lot more simple than you think. Day glow frogs, worms, etc. have been produced from a florescence gene in bacteria. It is really very simple and getting more so.

And I owe my life to re-recombinant techniques and I like to know exactly what I'm injecting. So, I know quite a bit about it.

The future of this is only frightening for those who are motivated by fear. 

Will there be families that adopt a Wolf nose as their "tattoo?" Yeah, there got the Wolfson family. Oh, have you seen the Goldfishers lately? They have a new baby fin!

Yet, there has never been a monstrous, altered life set loose on us. The safeguard which are strict and multi-lyaered, no single point failure, etc. have never been breached.

I remember the fiasco about the Strawberry virus fear. It will get loose! It did. Nothing happened.

So, tell us one example were this Criton horror show has even threatened to occur with an Ag product.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 12, 2013)

Doer said:


> Yeah, the conversation is increasingly politically fear based. A genetic ludite argument. And gene splicing is a lot more simple than you think. Day glow frogs, worms, etc. have been produced from a florescence gene in bacteria. It is really very simple and getting more so.
> 
> And I owe my life to re-recombinant techniques and I like to know exactly what I'm injecting. So, I know quite a bit about it.
> 
> ...


dude i went round and round with dnaprotection and his dingbat ladies auxilliary. 

they are contemptuous of evidence, ignorant of the scientific method, disdainful of any who disagree, and requests for support for their charges results in more outlandish charges. they have failed to provide a single iota of evidence for their views save the french onco-mouse "experiment" with no controls, no methodology and no useful results (except that mice fed roundup live longer than other mice deprived the health benefits of roundup) 

any negative condition you might mention, from "global warming" to "morgellon's disease" to Near Earth Crossing Asteroids can be blamed on GMO food, and Monsanto is some way. 

dont bother trying to correct these dolts' foolish lies, they are shouting at clouds.


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 12, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> dude i went round and round with dnaprotection and his dingbat ladies auxilliary.
> 
> they are contemptuous of evidence, ignorant of the scientific method, disdainful of any who disagree, and requests for support for their charges results in more outlandish charges. they have failed to provide a single iota of evidence for their views save the french onco-mouse "experiment" with no controls, no methodology and no useful results (except that mice fed roundup live longer than other mice deprived the health benefits of roundup)
> 
> ...


Cannabis consuming fungi. 

Rolfcopter.


----------



## Figong (Feb 12, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Cannabis consuming fungi.
> 
> Rolfcopter.


roflmao, what fungi is this? Is this a new one, or the old rumor circulated from 1999, when they also threatened to spread things to wipe out poppy and coca?


----------



## ChesusRice (Feb 12, 2013)

God I sure do hope they produce a cocaine tomato


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 12, 2013)

Figong said:


> roflmao, what fungi is this? Is this a new one, or the old rumor circulated from 1999, when they also threatened to spread things to wipe out poppy and coca?


GAYprotection actually asserted it was a viable weapon. 

Hes mentally retarded you see.


----------



## Figong (Feb 12, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> GAYprotection actually asserted it was a viable weapon.
> 
> Hes mentally retarded you see.


Viable weapon? Yes, so viable it was threatened in `99.. and 14 years later, nothing has originated in any fashion. Huge threat there - this guy runs a good race with Finshaggy for the heavily challenged award.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 13, 2013)

Figong said:


> roflmao, what fungi is this? Is this a new one, or the old rumor circulated from 1999, when they also threatened to spread things to wipe out poppy and coca?


meh, its the same old shit

*The Lie: * the gubmint, UC Davis and Monsanto have teamed up to GMO the shit out of Fusarium Leaf Wilt to make it into a weapon against dope. 

*The Truth:* There is not, nor was there ever any such program, one DEA manager in the early 90's proposed using Fusarium or some other natural plant pathogen to target weed, poppies and coca, it never went anyhwere, it was a pipe dream. 

*The Troof!!!:* The porogram is real, but just so secret nobody talks about it, its a conspiracy so nefarious that only *The Complete Lack Of Any Evidence Whatsoever *can prove that it's real!


----------



## DNAprotection (Feb 18, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Just flyin bye'...should keep this thread alive for updates that are soon to come.
> My guess is that sometime before the end of 2014 the feds will bring legislation that will settle all the questions on this thread about genetically engineered cannabis, and that the wa,co laws will be the catalyst that ushers in Monsanto et al 'cannabis'.
> http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/look-out-for-the-little-guy-liquor-control-board-is-told-at-first-hearing-on-marijuana-legalization/
> 
> ...


*GMO fail: Monsanto foiled by feds, Supreme Court, and science 
*



http://grist.org/article/gmo-fail-monsanto-foiled-by-feds-supreme-court-and-science/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=update




*US farmers may stop planting GMs after poor global yields*



http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/06/02/2013/137518/us-farmers-may-stop-planting-gms-after-poor-global-yields.htm




*Seed Giants Sue U.S. Farmers Over Genetically Modified Seed Patents In Shocking Numbers: Report 
*



*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/genetically-modified-seed-patent-report_n_2678837.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false*




* Will a Federal Compromise on GMO Labeling Trump State Law, Forever? 
*

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/02/will-a-federal-compromise-on-gmo-labeling-trump-state-law-forever/#.USJTD2es40h





*Genetically Engineered Trees for Bioenergy Pose Major Threat to Southern Forests 
*



*http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27038.cfm*


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 18, 2013)

mindlessly quoting yourself, then posting trash links nobody will likely read based on your previous track record of re-posting the same trash over and over. 

trash which doesnt even defend your position. 

do you even know how a forum works? 

this is an arena for discussion, not a "Free Speech Zone" full of soap-box preachers, raving cassandras and shouting morons like alex jones. 

defend your positions or go away.


----------



## Figong (Feb 18, 2013)

Sorry, if I'm held to a standard of needing legitimate studies for an argument to count, nothing less than medical journals, official FDA and other reputable lab links will count for you either - Care to try again, DNAProtection?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 18, 2013)

Figong said:


> Sorry, if I'm held to a standard of needing legitimate studies for an argument to count, nothing less than medical journals, official FDA and other reputable lab links will count for you either - Care to try again, DNAProtection?


in a STUNNING departure from his usual nonsensical blathering, dnaprotection has actually posted a link that not only is somewhat reputable, not driven by agenda, and amazingly, also SUPPORTS HIS POSITION (but only in the broad strokes, ie. "Gmo Is not all that it is cracked up to be...")

http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/06/02/2013/137518/us-farmers-may-stop-planting-gms-after-poor-global-yields.htm

of course he posted it as a nonfunctional link, so on the whole, he's still failing, but it looks like he actually tried this time.


----------



## Figong (Feb 18, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> in a STUNNING departure from his usual nonsensical blathering, dnaprotection has actually posted a link that not only is somewhat reputable, not driven by agenda, and amazingly, also SUPPORTS HIS POSITION (but only in the broad strokes, ie. "Gmo Is not all that it is cracked up to be...")
> 
> http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/06/02/2013/137518/us-farmers-may-stop-planting-gms-after-poor-global-yields.htm
> 
> of course he posted it as a nonfunctional link, so on the whole, he's still failing, but it looks like he actually tried this time.


Emphasis on stunning, I'm sort of in shock at this point.. rarely do I have nothing to say - but this is one of those times. Well done on the attempt!


----------



## Doer (Feb 18, 2013)

Well, to say it is all a failure means that GM is over. Low yields. Busybody interference from the FUDers, the ignorance and lies of the Organics Lobby, has killed it. No worries.

Just mount a human rights opposition, on the very solid grounds of.....no solid ground. That should work. 

I'll guess that by the end of 2014 exactly nothing has been decided. And I will guess that the current produce patenting laws will be just fine for Monsanto and Cannabis. And for that I will be forever grateful.

Monsanto Authentic Himalayan Ganja, Strain 204....my future possible favorite. Or Tailored Genome #6. It goes perfect with any Wine and Cheese pairing. 

Why would they do anything but make it more saleable? There will be fuck ups. Bling Sponge Dog Breath will likely fail and be laughed at on the Daily Show. But, Red Shaved Slim is always a favorite.

Yes, I predict that if there is money in it for the USA, then we can eventually have it back, like alcohol. Luddites have no imagination and can't stop progress, iac.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 18, 2013)

Doer said:


> Well, to say it is all a failure means that GM is over. Low yields. Busybody interference from the FUDers, the ignorance and lies of the Organics Lobby, has killed it. No worries.
> 
> Just mount a human rights opposition, on the very solid grounds of.....no solid ground. That should work.
> 
> ...


and ill be slanging that Naturally Grown Cali Red, OG Kush and 707 Headband from ny Natural Dope Kiosk at the farmers market.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Feb 18, 2013)

Figong said:


> Sorry, if I'm held to a standard of needing legitimate studies for an argument to count, nothing less than medical journals, official FDA and other reputable lab links will count for you either - Care to try again, DNAProtection?


You won't find anything from the FDA they don't test the food, they rely on the documents/studies etc. submitted by the manufacturer


----------



## Doer (Feb 18, 2013)

Yes, Dr. K. and if I like that better, my money goes to you. Monsanto has to adapt.

New, All Natural Organic Landrace Stains. Come back to the real deal.

It's all good.


----------



## Figong (Feb 18, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> You won't find anything from the FDA they don't test the food, they rely on the documents/studies etc. submitted by the manufacturer


Was pretty sure that they mostly oversee all in-vitro testing, given the possibilities as a minimum... they're no good at all then - I believe I was thinking FD&C involved testing, just gives them the power to shut shit down should someone actually say "No, our products could be quite harmful in-vitro".


----------



## ChesusRice (Feb 18, 2013)

Doer said:


> Well, to say it is all a failure means that GM is over. Low yields. Busybody interference from the FUDers, the ignorance and lies of the Organics Lobby, has killed it. No worries.
> 
> Just mount a human rights opposition, on the very solid grounds of.....no solid ground. That should work.
> 
> ...



Got a freind who is into Homeopathy.

Thinks raw milk is healthy for you


----------



## Figong (Feb 18, 2013)

The irony of information showing Monsanto/GE projects failing... on page 187.. not so coincidental?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Feb 18, 2013)

Figong said:


> Was pretty sure that they mostly oversee all in-vitro testing, given the possibilities as a minimum... they're no good at all then - I believe I was thinking FD&C involved testing, just gives them the power to shut shit down should someone actually say "No, our products could be quite harmful in-vitro".


I used to think the same, given their charge as a regulator for food safety. The "revolving door" policy doesn't help things either.

The fact is the science isn't conclusive yet and a significant effort is needed to have independent, transparent & long term tests on the effects of these modified foods. If nothing else at this point, labelling should be introduced as mandatory in the US. The sales data from that alone would be interesting to look over....


----------



## Figong (Feb 18, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> I used to think the same, given their charge as a regulator for food safety. The "revolving door" policy doesn't help things either.
> 
> The fact is the science isn't conclusive yet and a significant effort is needed to have independent, transparent & long term tests on the effects of these modified foods. If nothing else at this point, labelling should be introduced as mandatory in the US. The sales data from that alone would be interesting to look over....


Agreed, would love to look at sales info for it - all I know based on what I see in our local supermarket chain.. is that most things that are labeled '100% natural' or 'organic' are about sold out.. all of the time. This by no means shocks me, at all.


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 18, 2013)

Figong said:


> Agreed, would love to look at sales info for it - all I know based on what I see in our local supermarket chain.. is that most things that are labeled '100% natural' or 'organic' are about sold out.. all of the time. This by no means shocks me, at all.


Can someone explain to me what exactly is "unnatural" about GM veggies?

Does it not grow or something?


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Feb 18, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Can someone explain to me what exactly is "unnatural" about GM veggies?
> 
> Does it not grow or something?


I would love to try me some supernatural meats, fruits and vegetables.


----------



## Figong (Feb 18, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Can someone explain to me what exactly is "unnatural" about GM veggies?
> 
> Does it not grow or something?


Unpredictable RNA/DNA strands that metabolize and break down differently inside of the human body, as compared to tests on animals and insects... especially if a woman is pregnant, and there's hormonal changes. Major risk? perhaps not.. do you want to be immune to a family of antibiotics that may mean the difference between life and death due to how your body processed a gene strand from an insect that got spliced into corn? I'm willing to bet no. Is it worth it in the big picture? For this one, it definitely points to: "Mileage may vary" - I'd rather stick with what I know isn't modified.


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 18, 2013)

Figong said:


> Unpredictable RNA/DNA strands that metabolize and break down differently inside of the human body, as compared to tests on animals and insects... especially if a woman is pregnant, and there's hormonal changes. Major risk? perhaps not.. do you want to be immune to a family of antibiotics that may mean the difference between life and death due to how your body processed a gene strand from an insect that got spliced into corn? I'm willing to bet no. Is it worth it in the big picture? For this one, it definitely points to: "Mileage may vary" - I'd rather stick with what I know isn't modified.


DNA/RNA strands are broken down to base aminos in the stomach...it generally how we digest proteins. 

Care to take another whack at it? What exactly is it you fear? You realise the digestive system doesn't differenciate between GM and non-GM, right?


----------



## Figong (Feb 18, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> DNA/RNA strands are broken down to base aminos in the stomach...it generally how we digest proteins.
> 
> Care to take another whack at it? What exactly is it you fear? You realise the digestive system doesn't differenciate between GM and non-GM, right?


I understand the digestion of it, and how that works - my point is that natural items are more likely to break down to something safe than something with a bang-up genetics strand that's unstable and mostly unproven.


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 18, 2013)

Figong said:


> I understand the digestion of it, and how that works - my point is that natural items are more likely to break down to something safe than something with a bang-up genetics strand that's unstable and mostly unproven.


It's still the same base "material" used to make the genetic strands, and digested the same way like all other proteins.

The inserted sections of DNA are the same as all the other DNA in the strand, they've just got different words on them. 

I think you're assuming some kind of a viral vector is involved, which it is not. 

Do you turn into a cow when you eat steak?


----------



## Doer (Feb 19, 2013)

Figong said:


> Unpredictable RNA/DNA strands that metabolize and break down differently inside of the human body, as compared to tests on animals and insects... especially if a woman is pregnant, and there's hormonal changes. Major risk? perhaps not.. do you want to be immune to a family of antibiotics that may mean the difference between life and death due to how your body processed a gene strand from an insect that got spliced into corn? I'm willing to bet no. Is it worth it in the big picture? For this one, it definitely points to: "Mileage may vary" - I'd rather stick with what I know isn't modified.


Full circle. It's all been modified. Oh, you eat heirloom produce only?

Many (most?) insects are quite palatable. But, you know the genomes modify themselves. Cosmic rays snip those DNA strands in the field. And virus modifies it all, ceaselessly.

In fact, we are modified. They can find ancient virus snips though out humans. Virus is turning out to be a main force in evolution.

So, to review, against progress is FUD.

Fear, Uncertainly and Doubt


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 19, 2013)

Doer said:


> Full circle. It's all been modified. Oh, you eat heirloom produce only?
> 
> Many (most?) insects are quite palatable. But, you know the genomes modify themselves. Cosmic rays snip those DNA strands in the field. And virus modifies it all, ceaselessly.
> 
> ...


It's exactly what the simpletons thought would happen when we turned on the LHC; "A black hole shall consume us all!!"


----------



## Doer (Feb 19, 2013)

Simpleton!?? How dare you call high school age Ozzies, simpletons? 

Even, in the most simple terms the most advanced simpletons, just can't get it. And for every idiotic notion there is a grain of truth. Even Cold Fusion. 

And the LHC can produce black holes, but the energy level is so meager, the hole would not even exist for a bill of a sec. And would it have any measurable radius?....no. Any ability to grow, to absorb even one atom of H? No.

The Press makes fools of us, and all the time claiming that's what we want.

BTW, Figong, it shows you are thinking and I like that. It's just that DNA is only 4 molecules of proteins, arranged in a certain pattern. Ingested, DNA is just a tiny bit of food. So, a Pit Viper's DNA is not poisonous. Nor is it when snipped into a Strawberry. But, if that Strawberry strain began to produce neurotoxin, that could be a problem.

But, it's what do you want? The Strawberry now may contain your universal cancer cure, based on Pit Viper, neuro-tox.

You have to think big. The Industry sure is.


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 19, 2013)

Doer said:


> Simpleton!?? How dare you call high school age Ozzies, simpletons?
> 
> Even, in the most simple terms the most advanced simpletons, just can't get it. And for every idiotic notion there is a grain of truth. Even Cold Fusion.
> 
> ...


Id just settle for "Super Ganga No.7":
THC 50%
Autoflowering, finished in 8 weeks
Yield: 1lbs per plant.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 19, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> Got a freind who is into Homeopathy.
> 
> Thinks raw milk is healthy for you


ha ha ha! dude, he never milked a cow then! 

unless you treat your cow's udder better than your girl's tits that shit is just nasty. 

i wouldnt touch any unpasteurized milk unless i tapped the cow myself, or know the guy who did, and he's drinking first.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 19, 2013)

Doer said:


> Simpleton!?? How dare you call high school age Ozzies, simpletons?
> 
> Even, in the most simple terms the most advanced simpletons, just can't get it. And for every idiotic notion there is a grain of truth. Even Cold Fusion.
> 
> ...


the venom of pit vipers is not toxic if you eat it. the digestive tract destroys the toxins, reducing them to protiens and other nutrients. 

it's only toxic in the bloostream. thats why birds that eat snakes (venom included) dont fall out of the sky. 

theres not a single venomous critter i know of who makes a toxin that cannot be digested readily. otherwise those critters would poison themselves whenever they ate their prey. 

only POISONOUS critters like poison arrow frogs, blowfish, a few insects and cane toads make toxins that kill anything that eats em. they dont use that toxin to catch prey they use it to kill predators through Mutually Assured Destruction.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Feb 19, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> the venom of pit vipers is not toxic if you eat it. the digestive tract destroys the toxins, reducing them to protiens and other nutrients.
> 
> it's only toxic in the bloostream. thats why birds that eat snakes (venom included) dont fall out of the sky.
> 
> ...


What about those in the Heloderma family?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 19, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> What about those in the Heloderma family?


they make a venom much like snakes, you can eat em, venom and all. 

gila monsters are a freaky dare food in northern mexico and southern texas. they arent poisonous, they are venomous.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 19, 2013)

Figong said:


> The irony of information showing Monsanto/GE projects failing... on page 187.. not so coincidental?


it's not ironic at all, i stated way back in the early days of this brobdingnangian monstrosity that GM crops have not fulfilled their promise generally, except for the BT cotton, which has kicked the boll wevil in the nuts and saved many indian smallholders and family farms from ruin, and a few drought and virus resistant varieties of grains which deliver decent yields in places where ordinary cultivars just wither and die. 

on a commercial scale GM crops have mainly been a benefit to the producers of GM seeds, not the people who believed the hype and bought them. 

unfortunately for DNAprotection and his minions, they are not agruing that GMO's are a bad investment for farmers,, they have been arguing the ridiculous, nay RIDONKULOUS propositions that GMO's are toxic, dangerous, carcinogenic, mysteriously powerful and able to kill bees when the crop in question has no attraction for or relationship with bees, or that GMO's are a super secret plot to destroy home growers of dope and garden vegetables. 

i could prove that GMO's are a bad investment for most farmers with simple math, but thye didnt want to talk about that, they wanted to predict doomsday scenarios and make crazy claims. 

heres the real farming fact, unless your tilling half a million acres with top of the line mechanized farming equipment, and planning to grow government subsidized commodity crops,, GMO's dont deliver yields that exceed their costs. an extra 2 bushels an acre from a GMO doesnt beat the costs of the seedstock unless your banging out hundreds of thousands of bushels with super low expenses for tillage, irrigation and harvest, basically what the media calls "Factory Farms". GMO's only work in economies of scale. 

all the other claims about destroying the native genetic diversity (domestic crops have no native analogs to contaminate with their dirty genes) being toxic (USDA Choice Bullshit) causing cancer (Grade AAA Premium Bullshit) or that they require pesticides or special fertilizers to grow (Dude... Really?) are 100% garbage. 

this is a forum full of dope growers, i cant believe how many people fell for this crap based on the title and the scary bullshit about "GMO Dope" but when you start claiming that GMO's require special nutrients and pesticides,, these potheads should have shown those clowns the door. 

In reality, if i offered seeds for cannabis that were guaranteed 100% female, every fucking time, were highly resistant to powdery mildew, immune to spider mites, or got you 30% higher when you smoked it, i wouldnt be able to keep the stoners off my shit. 

*EVEN IF IT WAS GMO'ed LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER*


----------



## Doer (Feb 20, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> they make a venom much like snakes, you can eat em, venom and all.
> 
> gila monsters are a freaky dare food in northern mexico and southern texas. they arent poisonous, they are venomous.


We had this thing in Texas called the Horned Toad. It's isn't a myth. They will spurt blood at you from their eye sockets.
Check your tea shirt, Dude!


----------



## DNAprotection (Feb 20, 2013)

Supreme Court Appears to Defend Patent on Soybean...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/bu...case.html?_r=0

Oral Arguments in Bowman v. Monsanto - Patent Law Blog (Patently-O)


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 20, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Supreme Court Appears to Defend Patent on Soybean...
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/bu...case.html?_r=0
> 
> Oral Arguments in Bowman v. Monsanto - Patent Law Blog (Patently-O)


They patented a "computer programme code" of sorts they created. 

Microsoft would sue you if you were profiting off pirated Microsoft Office...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 20, 2013)

Doer said:


> We had this thing in Texas called the Horned Toad. It's isn't a myth. They will spurt blood at you from their eye sockets.
> Check your tea shirt, Dude!


we got horned toads in the southern california desert too bro.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 20, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Supreme Court Appears to Defend Patent on Soybean...
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/bu...case.html?_r=0
> 
> Oral Arguments in Bowman v. Monsanto - Patent Law Blog (Patently-O)


more mindless derp fromn the prince of the herp a derps. 

opposition to patent and copyright law is quite common among those who know they will never hold a patent or copyright. 

but they want. 

want want want. 

all the things they desire should be free for them to take, based on their want. 

and they get childishly butthurt if the developers of those things want to get paid for their work.


----------



## Doer (Feb 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> we got horned toads in the southern california desert too bro.


Check your tee-shirt, DUDE!


----------



## Doer (Feb 21, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> They patented a "computer programme code" of sorts they created.
> 
> Microsoft would sue you if you were profiting off pirated Microsoft Office...


Looky t'chere, Ma! They trin' to say thars a difference with program code and dna code....That's just not true, is it?


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> Looky t'chere, Ma! They trin' to say thars a difference with program code and dna code....That's just not true, is it?


Can you tell me a difference between the two except one is organic (in the scientific, non-hippy sense) and one is inorganic?


----------



## Doer (Feb 21, 2013)

There ain't none, I tell you what! Oh, wait, Ma just told me there is a slight difference. We can't program DNA.

We can only, nip/tuck. It's what we call porting, not programming. You port Solaris code to Linux, if you can. You port early software releases to to new hardware.

That's exactly what DNA re-combining is and no more. It's a port of written code to new hardware.

The main thing is we can't even code "hello world" with DNA.

That would be so cool. A red frog with black letters. Hello World!


----------



## Figong (Feb 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> There ain't none, I tell you what! Oh, wait, Ma just told me there is a slight difference. We can't program DNA.
> 
> We can only, nip/tuck. It's what we call porting, not programming. You port Solaris code to Linux, if you can. You port early software releases to to new hardware.
> 
> ...


Not entirely accurate, you can re-program DNA with a virus if it's constructed to do so.


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 21, 2013)

Harvard Scientists Encode Entire Book onto DNA:
http://www.zdnet.com/harvard-scientists-encode-an-entire-book-onto-dna-7000002879/

DNA stores poems, a photo and a speech:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/347702/description/DNA_stores_poems_a_photo_and_a_speech


----------



## Doer (Feb 21, 2013)

Figong said:


> Not entirely accurate, you can re-program DNA with a virus if it's constructed to do so.


No, that's porting. The virus is just like a virus in a computer system. You port to the virus dna, with what you are going to nip/tuck. Then the virus does the nip/tuck port.

We cannot write DNA code.


----------



## Figong (Feb 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> No, that's porting. The virus is just like a virus in a computer system. You port to the virus dna, with what you are going to nip/tuck. Then the virus does the nip/tuck port.
> 
> We cannot write DNA code.


I see what you're saying.. was just thinking it's more of a re-programming.. especially in the sense of "Someone has disease X that affects every cell in their body.. the virus introduced removes it with deletion or substitution, then re-addition" - guess it's more perspective-based from my side that's the difference.. although how it works and the end result are the same.


----------



## Doer (Feb 21, 2013)

Well, that's right. These are techie, geek details. So, let's give a real world example.

To write code against a human hardware platform, you have to understand the human code. We don't. We decoded the genome but found another one. We found sitting on top of this DNA code is another code, called the epi-genome.

It seems to be written with methy- radials of the proteins that maybe function as the on/off switches. Those create the differences in humans, much much more than the relatively identical DNA sequences. And beyond that we know very little.

You know that programming at first takes vast, dumb hardware and gets it to do anything at all....Like print "hello world."

So, to actually re-write human DNA we could start with a Hello World that can change a subjects eye color from blue to green and back to blue without any harm.

We are no where near even understanding how to being that effort.


----------



## Seaf0ur (Feb 21, 2013)

desert dude said:


> You want to ban science? What are you, a Republican?
> 
> I say genetically engineer the shit right out of cannabis, and corn, and wheat, and fish, and humans.


Enjoy cancer


----------



## Doer (Feb 21, 2013)

Seaf0ur said:


> Enjoy cancer


BULLSHIT!

Tell us if, how and when that has ever happened. Nice #2 post. I really feel you can do better.


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> Well, that's right. These are techie, geek details. So, let's give a real world example.
> 
> To write code against a human hardware platform, you have to understand the human code. We don't. We decoded the genome but found another one. We found sitting on top of this DNA code is another code, called the epi-genome.
> 
> ...


MS-DOS was shit, but its turned into Windows 8 now...you gotta type the code to learn it


----------



## Doer (Feb 21, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Harvard Scientists Encode Entire Book onto DNA:
> http://www.zdnet.com/harvard-scientists-encode-an-entire-book-onto-dna-7000002879/
> 
> DNA stores poems, a photo and a speech:
> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/347702/description/DNA_stores_poems_a_photo_and_a_speech


Nice try...but this is paint your wagon, stuff. Electron gun, witting on the head of a pin, type efforts. 


Using dna to encode human patterns of language is NOT the same as coding DNA to change human attributes.

DNA strands seem to be the best chance for detecting dark matter. I posted that in the Science.

Messing with DNA is not the same as messing with organisms with DNA.


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> Nice try...but this is paint your wagon, stuff. Electron gun, witting on the head of a pin, type efforts.
> 
> 
> Using dna to encode human patterns of language is NOT the same as coding DNA to change human attributes.
> ...


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

EDIT: And a link from the same article about how he "watermarked" his synthetic creation.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/venter-institut/

Im not gonna be able to keep up much longer, just picked up some BOMB "medicinals"


----------



## Doer (Feb 21, 2013)

Thats for sure, we are persistent, innovative monkeys. All we need is a stabilized world, which we generate for ourselves with military force projection with our Allies, including the hard hitting Irish.

Given that stability, which we and friends pay for in blood, as we go, I am sure we will be coding the heck out of DNA.

Without stability, we will backslide and lose the capability to progress the Science. And that is what the Axis of Evil would dearly love.


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> Thats for sure, we are persistent, innovative monkeys. All we need is a stabilized world, which we generate for ourselves with military force projection with our Allies, including the hard hitting Irish.
> 
> Given that stability, which we and friends pay for in blood, as we go, I am sure we will be coding the heck out of DNA.
> 
> Without stability, we will backslide and lose the capability to progress the Science. And that is what the Axis of Evil would dearly love.


We "peace-keep" the SHIT out of places. 

And don't forget about it!

(Send your tanks...we have Javelins for that  )


----------



## Doer (Feb 21, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/
> 
> EDIT: And a link from the same article about how he "watermarked" his synthetic creation.
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/venter-institut/
> ...


WOW! Great contribution. I had no idea. Very cool!

"Coaxing the software to power a cell proved harder than expected."

Masterful understatement, at it's best.


----------



## DNAprotection (Feb 22, 2013)

Historically their own filings against farmers show that more farmers in court is what Monsanto wants so farmers should give them what they want ...

http://princevega.com/2013/02/18/monsanto-slapped-with-a-7-7-billion-lawsuit-by-5-million-farmers/

Excerpt:
"Launching a lawsuit against the very company that is responsible for a farmer suicide every 30 minutes, 5 million farmers are now suing Monsanto for as much as 6.2 billion euros (around 7.7 billion US dollars). The reason? As with many other cases, such as the ones that led certain farming regions to be known as the &#8216;suicide belt&#8217;, Monsanto has been reportedly taxing the farmers to financial shambles with ridiculous royalty charges. The farmers state that Monsanto has been unfairly gathering exorbitant profits each year on a global scale from &#8220;renewal&#8221; seed harvests, which are crops planted using seed from the previous year&#8217;s harvest."


----------



## Doer (Feb 22, 2013)

Yeah, it is the rule of Law. If there is a soy beef, that's why we have courts.

So, Monsanto gets to push, the farmers get to push back. But, I have to say everyone in this are adults. Everyone can read the fine print, have access to legal opinions before they sign and quite frankly do not have to buy Monsanto.

So, they signed. If they have a case they will prevail. That is the rule of Law. Meanwhile you and your source are engaged in emotion tampering. Suicide? Yes. Because they signed on with Monsanto's stated program? That's preposterous.


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 22, 2013)

Doer said:


> Yeah, it is the rule of Law. If there is a soy beef, that's why we have courts.
> 
> So, Monsanto gets to push, the farmers get to push back. But, I have to say everyone in this are adults. Everyone can read the fine print, have access to legal opinions before they sign and quite frankly do not have to buy Monsanto.
> 
> So, they signed. If they have a case they will prevail. That is the rule of Law. Meanwhile you and your source are engaged in emotion tampering. Suicide? Yes. Because they signed on with Monsanto's stated program? That's preposterous.


Again, I implore GAYprotection to try pirate any patented technology and see how long he stays out of court for. 

It seems ALL of the cases Monsanto have brought against farmers involve the farmers illegally keeping seed for the following year, which they freely signed a contract stating. 

If someone broke a legal contract with me, I'd drag them through the courts until I received "satisfaction" too.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Feb 22, 2013)

Not sure if this has been posted in this thread yet .....

http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html


----------



## Doer (Feb 22, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Again, I implore GAYprotection to try pirate any patented technology and see how long he stays out of court for.
> 
> It seems ALL of the cases Monsanto have brought against farmers involve the farmers illegally keeping seed for the following year, which they freely signed a contract stating.
> 
> If someone broke a legal contract with me, I'd drag them through the courts until I received "satisfaction" too.


I really have no familiarity with the particulars...I might be tempted to find out more. There is precident both ways. But, I think the "never happened before" argument is trumped by "you have never had magic corn before."

IAC, a royalty means that increasing yield increases the royalty due, or something. The more you make the more Monsanto makes. It's a lot like a new hit single in the old days. Before it was a hit, you had to work the system of DJs and markets and airplay. Everyone gets some good and some bad, but a hit is GOLD. 

If the corn is magic corn, un-availium except thru Monsanto...or if Monsanto cut these farmers in for the sweetheart deal, it doesn't matter. They signed up. And now they try to withhold the Royalty? They only want to pay once like for old corn, so go get old corn. But, the rule of law, you sign you pay. Don't steal seed corn. You said you wouldn't.

Ask Kim Basinger , No Box, Helena? But, still you pay. You signed.


----------



## Doer (Feb 22, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Not sure if this has been posted in this thread yet .....
> 
> http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html


OK, read it. Very interesting. Good contribution. I understand this now a bit better. It is not the dna that's the problem nor are they splicing in the way I had imagined or for the purpose I thought.

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [42].
-----------------
OK, they were not studying mutagens. But, they are saying the process used, leaves residue of pesticides. ((glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863).

So, if the corn creates it own synthetic pesticides untested in human trial.....that's a different story indeed.

Or is the corn contaminated and the corn doesn't create it? It's a pretty dense, statistical analysis of Monsanto data, I guess. And it seems to show horrible problems in mice after only 90 days.

I feel a bit ill, now.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Historically their own filings against farmers show that more farmers in court is what Monsanto wants so farmers should give them what they want ...
> 
> http://princevega.com/2013/02/18/monsanto-slapped-with-a-7-7-billion-lawsuit-by-5-million-farmers/
> 
> ...


stopped reading there. 

you are full of shit. 

you are a fear mongering ignorant twat with an agenda of personal gain.


----------



## Doer (Feb 22, 2013)

Read the study I posted. I didn't read the clap trap at all.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 22, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Not sure if this has been posted in this thread yet .....
> 
> http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html


the same stupid discredited french Onco-Mouse study that has been trotted out nearly a dozen times in this thread alone, and has been discredited again and again. 

a "homeopathic doctor" in france used GM mice who were genetically modified to get cancers, as test subjects with no controls, no scientific methodology, and no lab hygiene and no real findings uses his UNPUBLISHED and soundly rejected "work" to claim gmo's cause cancer. 

his actual findings: GMO Onco-Mice get fewer tumors and live longer if they are fed with a diet made of ordinary randomly selected grocery store corn, and their water is dosed with glyphosate to about 850 ppm. 

roundup is a health potion. 

sweet mother of god i just realized youre trolling me.


----------



## Doer (Feb 22, 2013)

Well, I'm learning something. There was that part about including Roundup in the diet, for some reason.

I'm pretty sure if you stare at an onco-mouse long enough it will grow a cancer of your face.

They are supposes to grow cancer.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 22, 2013)

Doer said:


> Read the study I posted. I didn't read the clap trap at all.


thats the fucking french bullshit Onco-mouse "study' again. it's been roundly and soundly rejected. it is flawed like a motherfucker. 

there are a few studies of BT crops which are a concern, but this is not one of them the lead author is a fraudster and a "homeopathic doctor"

here's his CV. 
http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=104

it's crap, 100% crap. 



dude, the BT producing food products have some serious problems, since the BT toxin has been used as a spray for decades and is considered safe as fuck, and a "natural alternative" to chemical pesticides the BT food products got a pass from the usual health and safety testing. 

theres been a few studies that show BT food crops may contain a LOT more BT than one would get from pesticide residue, and at these levels BT may not be safe at all. 

heres one that suggests BT Toxin may be leeching into the soil from GM crops and could damage the soil's microbial balance (which is already nonexistant on any farm which uses GM crops) it's non-sequitor, but its interesting. 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2000.tb00724.x/full

despite all the concern, BT food products are NOT in the human food supply, nor are they used in livestock feed. (a few bushels of "starlink" BT corn gort into a cattle feed, and the whole operation was shut down in reaction) 

BT is a concern to me, but its not been approved for human food or livestock feed yet. 

the ferench study was NOT on BT corn, it was on NK603, or "roundup ready/starlink"

glyphosate resistance is not anything like production of BT toxin.. glyphosate resistance (roundup ready) allows the use of glyphosate on crops with the promise of only killing the weeds. unfortunately it hasnt worked as well as advertised, since glyphoisate resistance is not immunity, and using roundup damages your own crop when it kills the weeds, and the lower doses needed to prevent killing your roundup resistant crops encourages survival and natural resistance in weed species. 

roundup ready crops were supposed to let you hose your feilds down, killing all weeds without harming your crop, like a magic bullet. 

it's more of an enchanted flamethrower that scorches your shit, and kills a lot of weeds, but the surviving weeds come back stronger than ever.

roundup resistance has not been linked to ANYTHING, and being resistant to roundup does not allow a crop to receive more roundup than is legally allowed by the FDA. 

or in non-farming terms, even if you put your kid in flame retardant jammies, are you gonna let him play with matches and gasoline? i think not. 

some farmers may be tempted to over use glyphosate trusting in the resistance to protect their crops, but the PCA still has to do the job, and abide by all existing federal restrictions. 

glyphosate resistance means you can use glyphosate on crops which would previously die if you brought a jug of roundup into the same county, but does not eliminate already established useage regulations and residue limitations.

*Edit*: i read that shit again, he has released more data since his first dump, but still not all. 

the french silly "study" feature 2 BT varieties, Mon610 and Mon863, as well as the Glyphosate resistant NK603

they only offered up the detailed results from the NK603 glyphosate resistant subjects, and only at 1 feeding level with a single control group, and the rest was all statistical charting of outliers and texas sharpshooter nonsense for the 2 BT varieties since the results were not dramatic enough. 

thats why it was never published, only publicized. frenchy never released all the data or any of the details for peer review since he knows quite well that homeopathic medicine and acupuncture degrees will not help him sell his shit to real scientists.


----------



## DNAprotection (Feb 24, 2013)

I woke up this morning to the radio blaring Al Gore seemingly lecturing me on the virtues of 'spidergoat' farming...for a brief moment thought I died and woke up in 'hell'




then I remembered hearing about this bit a year or so ago...

BBC News - The goats with spider genes and silk in their milk

I was reading this letter this morning and somehow I couldn't help replacing the recipients to be Monsanto et al and the issue of the war over the gene pool...


----------



## Doer (Feb 24, 2013)

Well, to me it just shows the level of emotional stupidity you operate from and intend to foster here. So, I'm not for that.

I'm for giant quantities of spider silk proteins harvested from Goat Milk.....aren't you?


----------



## DNAprotection (Feb 24, 2013)

The new fed bills recently introduced in congress may end up being a perfect vehicle for making fed approved 'safe' cannabis (=Genetically engineered) the only 'legal' cannabis.
Keep a good watch for amendments etc...


----------



## Doer (Feb 24, 2013)

If we could get THC in goat milk that would be great! How about a THC, spider strand tea-shirt. So light so comfortable.

And no, you don't wash it...You smoke it! Wear your stash-ware where ever!


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> The new fed bills recently introduced in congress may end up being a perfect vehicle for making fed approved 'safe' cannabis (=Genetically engineered) the only 'legal' cannabis.
> Keep a good watch for amendments etc...


Link us to that bill, GAYprotection.


----------



## Figong (Feb 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> The new fed bills recently introduced in congress may end up being a perfect vehicle for making fed approved 'safe' cannabis (=Genetically engineered) the only 'legal' cannabis.
> Keep a good watch for amendments etc...


haha.. the gov't can barely afford to do most normal things, and at that.. they're still going in debt - they couldn't possibly check -every- bit of weed from a bust in a gas chromatograph / spec without wasting a shitload more money than they do already. Unrealistic to think that they'd even try to do it just to determine legal vs not...


----------



## Harrekin (Feb 24, 2013)

Figong said:


> haha.. the gov't can barely afford to do most normal things, and at that.. they're still going in debt - they couldn't possibly check -every- bit of weed from a bust in a gas chromatograph / spec without wasting a shitload more money than they do already. Unrealistic to think that they'd even try to do it just to determine legal vs not...


GAYprotection doesn't think, that's the point. 

He just regurgitates what his homeopath tells him.


----------



## Figong (Feb 24, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> GAYprotection doesn't think, that's the point.
> 
> He just regurgitates what his homeopath tells him.


This doesn't surprise me at all, based on previous posts.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> I woke up this morning to the radio blaring Al Gore seemingly lecturing me on the virtues of 'spidergoat' farming...for a brief moment thought I died and woke up in 'hell'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so, you see yourself as ghandi, and all your opponents and questioners as hitler. 


how terribly enlightening. 
that explains a lot.


----------



## Figong (Feb 24, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so, you see yourself as ghandi, and all your opponents and questioners as hitler.
> 
> 
> how terribly enlightening.
> that explains a lot.


I guess that means we win, heil? hahahaha


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 24, 2013)

Figong said:


> I guess that means we win, heil? hahahaha


this thread has been subject to so many halfassed godwins already that the Law has lost all power. 

we're through the looking glass here people....



claiming he is like ghandi is a new one though.


----------



## DNAprotection (Mar 2, 2013)

*Monsantos Patents on Life*

* By Katherine Paul, Ronnie Cummins 
Organic Consumers Association, Feb. 27, 2013 *

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27105.cfm

Excerpt:

"The real issue is this: Why have we surrendered control over something so basic to human survival as seeds? Why have we bought into the biotech industrys program, which pushes a few monoculture commodity crops, when history and science have proven that seed biodiversity is essential for growing crops capable of surviving severe climate conditions, such as drought and floods?"


----------



## DNAprotection (Mar 2, 2013)

Imagine the opportunity cannabis has the potential to provide Monsanto et al in their effort to control seeds.
What better way to begin the process of all seeds needing to be gov approved than to start with a species that is already illegal?
If we had fought in court for our self evident unalienable rights to posses and plant seeds when gov first began to impose on these rights we wouldn't be waiting for congress to further harm us in this area by way of 'legalization' and whatever that ends up meaning after the smoke clears.
Its never to late to stand up and fight for whats right until we no longer recognize what is right.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Mar 2, 2013)

Time to let this thread go...


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 2, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *Monsanto&#8217;s Patents on Life*
> 
> * By Katherine Paul, Ronnie Cummins
> Organic Consumers Association, Feb. 27, 2013 *
> ...


You argue for biodiversity yet argue against GM?

You realise there will come a time when we'll HAVE to modify crops simply to introduce new genetic material to the ecosystem?

Also, Monsanto banned heirloom varieties? I didn't realise they'd the power.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 2, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> GAYprotection doesn't think, that's the point.
> 
> He just regurgitates what his homeopath tells him.


You mean naturopath? I don't think DNA is that dumb.


----------



## Figong (Mar 2, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Imagine the opportunity cannabis has the potential to provide Monsanto et al in their effort to control seeds.
> What better way to begin the process of all seeds needing to be gov approved than to start with a species that is already illegal?
> If we had fought in court for our self evident unalienable rights to posses and plant seeds when gov first began to impose on these rights we wouldn't be waiting for congress to further harm us in this area by way of 'legalization' and whatever that ends up meaning after the smoke clears.
> Its never to late to stand up and fight for whats right until we no longer recognize what is right.


Fuck their approval, given... I am in a medicinal state but I will not have anyone telling me that because they own all the rights, genetics can only produce X % of THC, THCV, CBN, etc - simply won't happen. That said, if Monsanto goes near the cannabis field, they would have very big issues, and be sitting on something useless. 

As for your last statement of fighting for what's right, until we no longer recognize what's right. Right is natural plant growth, natural (or mostly natural) conditions based on growing cases.. not modifying plants to do things they shouldn't, and fucking with the genetics to the point that the government at any point with Monsanto sock puppet in their pocket could modify plant strains heavily to control THC/V, CBN, etc. This would cause a revolt, and more then a few geneticists world-wide would band together to create a superbug that was a hunter/killer of Monsanto cannabis. -bet on it-


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 2, 2013)

Figong said:


> Fuck their approval, given... I am in a medicinal state but I will not have anyone telling me that because they own all the rights, genetics can only produce X % of THC, THCV, CBN, etc - simply won't happen. That said, if Monsanto goes near the cannabis field, they would have very big issues, and be sitting on something useless.
> 
> As for your last statement of fighting for what's right, until we no longer recognize what's right. Right is natural plant growth, natural (or mostly natural) conditions based on growing cases.. not modifying plants to do things they shouldn't, and fucking with the genetics to the point that the government at any point with Monsanto sock puppet in their pocket could modify plant strains heavily to control THC/V, CBN, etc. This would cause a revolt, and more then a few geneticists world-wide would band together to create a superbug that was a hunter/killer of Monsanto cannabis. -bet on it-


GAYprotection is a joke. 

We merely return to this thread to submit him to more ridicule for his BATSHIT crazy stories.


----------



## Figong (Mar 2, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> GAYprotection is a joke.
> 
> We merely return to this thread to submit him to more ridicule for his BATSHIT crazy stories.


No kidding, this is getting somewhat crazy at this point... how about we just let Monsanto go bankrupt from previous failures, and put an end to this thread?


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 2, 2013)

Figong said:


> No kidding, this is getting somewhat crazy at this point... how about we just let Monsanto go bankrupt from previous failures, and put an end to this thread?


True that, once they realise it isn't actually all it's cracked up to be they'll just tell Monsanto to go fuck themselves. 

But just cos they (Monsanto) are dicks doesn't mean we ban genetic research.


----------



## Doer (Mar 3, 2013)

That's right, there are some farmers hooked in. Probably liked the primrose path of trust. Maybe went for the sweetheart, long term deals.

Maybe, like most everything else, it's complicated. And then Mother Jones makes it seem rabid.

Being business contract experienced, I imagine it goes a little bit like this:

Sure, just buy the seed like you always. But, magic corn is very expensive. 

And it is new, so we don't know really all about it's yield, yet. (seems reasonable but the typical sales lie and I have told them all and made up a few new ones)

So, we have this deal where you don't pay much up front for seed corn, but you pay a royalty (say what>>!!!??) 

Oh don't worry about it. In case you have lower yields (huh???) Yeah, you would not want to pay Cadillac prices for all that seed corn if it doesn't yield. RIGHT???

So, they sign. No Money Down. Good Credic, bad Credic! Lookee Ma, this feller goona save r' farm!

And it yields like a sonofabitch, so that 20 year royalty contract......It just ain't fair.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 3, 2013)

Figong said:


> Fuck their approval, given... I am in a medicinal state but I will not have anyone telling me that because they own all the rights, genetics can only produce X % of THC, THCV, CBN, etc - simply won't happen. That said, if Monsanto goes near the cannabis field, they would have very big issues, and be sitting on something useless.
> 
> As for your last statement of fighting for what's right, until we no longer recognize what's right. Right is natural plant growth, natural (or mostly natural) conditions based on growing cases.. not modifying plants to do things they shouldn't, and fucking with the genetics to the point that the government at any point with Monsanto sock puppet in their pocket could modify plant strains heavily to control THC/V, CBN, etc. This would cause a revolt, and more then a few geneticists world-wide would band together to create a superbug that was a hunter/killer of Monsanto cannabis. -bet on it-


You are equating "right" with "natural". I question that.

Sent from a colossally artificial bit of electronics. cn


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 3, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> You are equating "right" with "natural". I question that.
> 
> Sent from a colossally artificial bit of electronics. cn


Are you eating or smoking those electronics. Derp.


----------



## Figong (Mar 3, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> You are equating "right" with "natural". I question that.
> 
> Sent from a colossally artificial bit of electronics. cn


Yup, that statement would be correct in what I typed (personal opinion). - 'right' is 'natural', or as close to it as possible. This is completely separate than anything electronics-based, in terms of focus. I'd rather eat what I would consider natural / heirloom .. same with cannabis as I won't have profiteering gluttons trying to cause more headache than the cannabis-using community already gets by throwing new rules/regulations/etc on top of the bullshit many states/countries are already trying to fight for. Just seems to make sense that a simplification of it at that point is easier. Don't you agree?


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 3, 2013)

Figong said:


> Yup, that statement would be correct in what I typed (personal opinion). - 'right' is 'natural', or as close to it as possible. This is completely separate than anything electronics-based, in terms of focus. I'd rather eat what I would consider natural / heirloom .. same with cannabis as I won't have profiteering gluttons trying to cause more headache than the cannabis-using community already gets by throwing new rules/regulations/etc on top of the bullshit many states/countries are already trying to fight for. Just seems to make sense that a simplification of it at that point is easier. Don't you agree?


You can choose what varieties to buy, don't buy GM ones. 

Some people don't give a fuck, let them buy whatever they want. 

Why do you hate consumer choice?


----------



## Figong (Mar 3, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> You can choose what varieties to buy, don't buy GM ones.
> 
> Some people don't give a fuck, let them buy whatever they want.
> 
> Why do you hate consumer choice?


I don't hate consumer choice whatsoever, if people want to end up getting GE Monsanto cannabis that's 1% CBD, and 4% THC, they're more then welcome to do so.. they just better not bitch when they don't get the intended/expected effects of it, due to Monsanto being a gov't controlled sock puppet is all.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 3, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> You can choose what varieties to buy, don't buy GM ones.
> 
> Some people don't give a fuck, let them buy whatever they want.
> 
> Why do you hate consumer choice?


How do you know what's in it? Some homies of mine have shown me "kush" from a dispensary that's really a 90%+ sativa. My homies can't even get sativa or indica. But at least you can tell because of their effects once smoked. Now you want to add GMO? Weed ain't regulated like organic produce even. Organic isn't even guaranteed real organic according to the rules. The current rule: it's organic until you get caught, just don't do it again.

You need to stop smoking gear laced weed, bro.

I can see it now. GMO weed which mimics organic, even if grown dro. They just need to GMO it with natural flavors. Buck will peddle that shit as it were the turbo charged model.


----------



## Doer (Mar 3, 2013)

But, who controls the govt? We.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 3, 2013)

Doer said:


> But, who controls the govt? We.


True, if you're one of the good ol' boy, we. Even then, if you get out of line, you become part of government grade foundation.


----------



## Figong (Mar 3, 2013)

Doer said:


> But, who controls the govt? We.


If 'we' as a big entity, used loosely.. control the government - how did Michigan just get medicinal marijuana laws changed, with dispensaries closed and / or raided? Michigan was making progress, and I would have expected things to go the way of any state that's already decriminalized it as a bare minimum, but that wasn't to be the case this time based on some clowns.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 3, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Are you eating or smoking those electronics. Derp.


Are you equating "right" with "natural" as well? Taken to the limit, this yields the conclusion that man is unnatural, a bad thing. That is what I do not accept. cn


----------



## Grandpapy (Mar 3, 2013)

Doer said:


> But, who controls the govt? We.


"We" just told the (entire) city of Oakland to STFU.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_22691131/oakland-tries-keep-medical-marijuana-fight-against-feds?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 3, 2013)

Figong said:


> Yup, that statement would be correct in what I typed (personal opinion). - 'right' is 'natural', or as close to it as possible. This is completely separate than anything electronics-based, in terms of focus. I'd rather eat what I would consider natural / heirloom .. same with cannabis as I won't have profiteering gluttons trying to cause more headache than the cannabis-using community already gets by throwing new rules/regulations/etc on top of the bullshit many states/countries are already trying to fight for. Just seems to make sense that a simplification of it at that point is easier. Don't you agree?


I do not see how one can compartment the "natural is right" dictum to food andor crops. 
I accept simplifications if they are genuine. So many simplifications are fraught with unintended and seriously complex consequences. "Going back to Nature" is one such imo. cn


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 3, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Are you equating "right" with "natural" as well? Taken to the limit, this yields the conclusion that man is unnatural, a bad thing. That is what I do not accept. cn


I said it before, I'd love me some supernatural food.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 3, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> I said it before, I'd love me some supernatural food.


A Big Mac is 100% natural, as is Diet Coke. cn


----------



## Figong (Mar 3, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I do not see how one can compartment the "natural is right" dictum to food andor crops.
> I accept simplifications if they are genuine. So many simplifications are fraught with unintended and seriously complex consequences. "Going back to Nature" is one such imo. cn


I can see where you're coming from and respect your views on that, I didn't see it as an over-simplification by any means.. just would rather have things 'natural' and to me personally - that's 'right'. I am not asking anyone to agree with me, or even entertain the thought.. was just tossing it into the discussion is all.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 3, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> A Big Mac is 100% natural, as is Diet Coke. cn


So is strychnine, cyanide and radium.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 3, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> So is strychnine, cyanide and radium.


Exactly. Nature is a rose. Beauty plus thorns. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 3, 2013)

Figong said:


> I can see where you're coming from and respect your views on that, I didn't see it as an over-simplification by any means.. just would rather have things 'natural' and to me personally - that's 'right'. I am not asking anyone to agree with me, or even entertain the thought.. was just tossing it into the discussion is all.


I approve of your restraint in identifying it as a personal moral decision. Please understand that all my life i have been surrounded by the evangelical variety: "I have had an insight that you should accept along with me. Otherwise you are Wrong." cn


----------



## Figong (Mar 3, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I approve of your restraint in identifying it as a personal moral decision. Please understand that all my life i have been surrounded by the evangelical variety: "I have had an insight that you should accept along with me. Otherwise you are Wrong." cn


Oh no, am by no means like that - anything I say in any form of a discussion like this is purely personal feelings/thoughts.. I'm by no means the type to force or try to otherwise interject those thoughts/feelings onto others, or dismiss them and say they're wrong. The only time I will tell someone they're wrong is if I am 100% certain, and it's proven by chemistry, phytology, or some other type of 'law' that could by no means be argued or dismissed. I do understand how you could be subjected to things like that, but that's by no means the case this time.


----------



## p51mustang23 (Mar 3, 2013)

When dealing with Monsanto, you have to realize that GMO's are being weaponized. This happens in two ways:

1) Monsanto patents DNA. They put some of their GMO seeds in Mr. Smalltime farmer's field, or the seeds blow in from a Monsanto farm. They sue him to oblivion for stealing their patented seeds, then take his land when he is ruined. 

2) They engineer the food products to produce poison ("pesticide") that the plant naturally makes in lower than trace quantities. Americans proceed to eat this poison, and are not given the right to know if it is in their food. 

furthermore, we must consider that GMO plants interbreed with our natural heirloom genetics, and eventually it will be hard to find true natural genetics. 


GMO technology is an insidious danger to the world. There is a reason that Monsanto serves all organic food to their employees. 


Monsanto can stay the hell away from cannabis.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 3, 2013)

p51mustang23 said:


> When dealing with Monsanto, *you have to realize that GMO's are being weaponized*. This happens in two ways:
> 
> 1) Monsanto patents DNA. They put some of their GMO seeds in Mr. Smalltime farmer's field, or the seeds blow in from a Monsanto farm. They sue him to oblivion for stealing their patented seeds, then take his land when he is ruined.
> 
> ...


Do you have any quality citations (no vids or blogs!) to support that assertion? cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 3, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Do you have any quality citations (no vids or blogs!) to support that assertion? cn


INB4 moar wild assertions as proof...


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 3, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> INB4 moar wild assertions as proof...


Yup; that sort of went nowhere. cn


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 4, 2013)

GAYprotection must've birthed another shit-sock puppet. 

I guess those "all natural" birth control methods are as useless as the homeopathy "feel good" potions (it's fucking water, I'm sorry people).


----------



## Doer (Mar 4, 2013)

p51mustang23 said:


> When dealing with Monsanto, you have to realize that GMO's are being weaponized. This happens in two ways:
> 
> 1) Monsanto patents DNA. They put some of their GMO seeds in Mr. Smalltime farmer's field, or the seeds blow in from a Monsanto farm. They sue him to oblivion for stealing their patented seeds, then take his land when he is ruined.
> 
> ...


So, you didn't sign up for the royalty deal. But, suddenly a white van roars up and 4 guys jump out and sample and before you get there, they say AH HA. (You have no idea we planted this just to steal your land.)

So, this could happen? Maybe. But, if the pattern is identified or any proof provided it could be different in a court of law. 

Woops, but, corn is not a seed that blows on the wind. So, not that.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 6, 2013)

Doer said:


> So, you didn't sign up for the royalty deal. But, suddenly a white van roars up and 4 guys jump out and sample and before you get there, they say AH HA. (You have no idea we planted this just to steal your land.)
> 
> So, this could happen? Maybe. But, if the pattern is identified or any proof provided it could be different in a court of law.
> 
> Woops, but, corn is not a seed that blows on the wind. So, not that.



what about tornadoes? 

youre one of THEM arent you??!! 

J'Accuse!!!!


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 6, 2013)

Part of me wonders why this piece of shit keeps floating back to the surface. 

At the same time tho, it is a reminder of the "squeezing" you've done.


----------



## Doer (Mar 6, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> what about tornadoes?
> 
> youre one of THEM arent you??!!
> 
> J'Accuse!!!!


OH NO! Busted. Can I keep my Planting Schedule poster? MONSANTO


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 7, 2013)

When a company's product fails and destroys your property, that's fraud. There are laws against snake oil salesman.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/attack-of-the-superweed-09082011.html


----------



## Doer (Mar 7, 2013)

Great! And this is their answer?

Monsanto itself is adding resistance to dicamba, an older weedkiller, to Roundup Ready crops for sale by 2015. The cavalry is coming, Grant says.

Now, team, is that not double-think? (twilght zone theme here)


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 7, 2013)

Doer said:


> Great! And this is their answer?
> 
> Monsanto itself is adding resistance to dicamba, an older weedkiller, to Roundup Ready crops for sale by 2015. &#8220;The cavalry is coming,&#8221; Grant says.
> 
> Now, team, is that not double-think? (twilght zone theme here)


Double the chemicals, double the fun


----------



## Wigmo (Mar 7, 2013)

This is a terrible, and terrifying idea. ge weed could be dangerous for the same reason pharmaceutical drugs are dangerous. when humans tamper with things we dont know yet how we have affected it. weed evolved symbiotically with man and was around thousands of years before. anything in nature is part of us and therefore medecine. there is the argument that we are part of nature and therefore anything we create is nature too. but all the dangerous fucked up pharmys that are killing people and turning them into zombies are proof otherwise.

however i do have a really incredible idea that would be similar contact me if you want to know more about a natural way to genetically alter seeds. it is cutting edge technology and would require big time investors. if you are interested in being involved. send me a message, and i will tell you more.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 7, 2013)

Wigmo said:


> This is a terrible, and terrifying idea. ge weed could be dangerous for the same reason pharmaceutical drugs are dangerous. when humans tamper with things we dont know yet how we have affected it. weed evolved symbiotically with man and was around thousands of years before. anything in nature is part of us and therefore medecine. there is the argument that we are part of nature and therefore anything we create is nature too. but all the dangerous fucked up pharmys that are killing people and turning them into zombies are proof otherwise.
> 
> however i do have a really incredible idea that would be similar contact me if you want to know more about a natural way to genetically alter seeds. it is cutting edge technology and would require big time investors. if you are interested in being involved. send me a message, and i will tell you more.


You realise viral vectors could be considered a cutting edge, "natural" technology?


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 7, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Double the chemicals, double the fun


I've lived large stretches of my life by that rule. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 7, 2013)

Wigmo said:


> This is a terrible, and terrifying idea. ge weed could be dangerous for the same reason pharmaceutical drugs are dangerous. when humans tamper with things we dont know yet how we have affected it. weed evolved symbiotically with man and was around thousands of years before. anything in nature is part of us and therefore medecine. there is the argument that we are part of nature and therefore anything we create is nature too. but all the dangerous fucked up pharmys that are killing people and turning them into zombies are proof otherwise.
> 
> however i do have a really incredible idea that would be similar contact me if you want to know more about a natural way to genetically alter seeds. it is cutting edge technology and would require big time investors. if you are interested in being involved. send me a message, and i will tell you more.


Reported as possible spam. If you're unwilling to describe it openly, you're selling/recruiting, either of which is a permaban offense. cn


----------



## Doer (Mar 7, 2013)

Perma-ban. I thought that was hyphenated. Who knew?

I was wondering if he just wanted me to send him a couple of boxes of large bills. I trust him......wha?


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 7, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I've lived large stretches of my life by that rule. cn


----------



## Doer (Mar 7, 2013)

Me Too!


----------



## Figong (Mar 7, 2013)

Doer said:


> Me Too!


You're sitting on a stash from 84'?


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 8, 2013)

Now now guys. Site rule: no lude images. ~running in circles giggling madly~ cn


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 8, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Now now guys. Site rule: no lude images. ~running in circles giggling madly~ cn


You gonna tell me what to do?







"Iv only got two things in this world, my word and my balls, and I ain't breaking them for nobody"


----------



## Doer (Mar 8, 2013)

Figong said:


> You're sitting on a stash from 84'?


No. I'm a Frayed Knot.


----------



## DNAprotection (Mar 9, 2013)

Gr8 response to this poll, thanks to all<3


Leading environmentalists set record straight about Mark Lynas
Tuesday, 05 March 2013 20:25

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/april/16a-anti-gmo-efforts-us#.UTp90VeJAdd
Sidebar: Anti-GMO Grass-Roots Effort Gains Ground in U.S.
By Linda Marsa|Thursday, March 07, 2013

http://www.newera.com.na/articles/50697/Millers-promise-to-strengthen-anti-GMO-measures
Millers promise to strengthen anti-GMO measures *04 Mar 2013 - *

Gene giants seek "philanthrogopoly"
Friday, 08 March 2013 19:30

*Monsanto threatens to sue EFSA over publication of GM maize data
Friday, 08 March 2013 19:2*

Pawar challenged on GM crops
Monday, 04 March 2013 18:01

*Farmers' seed options drastically reduced in GMO-producing countries
Friday, 01 March 2013 11:05*


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 9, 2013)

Oh look, GAYprotection has come back to fail some more. 

By all means sir, proceed


----------



## Doer (Mar 9, 2013)

Me too. Party on, Garth!


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 9, 2013)

Doer said:


> Me too. Party on, Garth!


Turns out this comes from one of his links regarding the EFSA. 

"The EFSA concluded the findings did not stand up scientifically". 

He's just SO bad at this.


----------



## Doer (Mar 9, 2013)

But, not scientifically bad....as a person I mean.


----------



## Old Mate Gorks (Mar 10, 2013)

You don't NEED to modify its genetics, at all. Why even bother? So that companies, scientists and corporations can cash in on the benefits perhaps? 

Small shit like this throws the ecosystem out of sync even more so than it currently is.

Here's a plausible hypothetical scenario:

What if a bunch of genetically modified plants fucked up in one or more very important aspect, (lets say for example, it has something to a similar degree of the 'flat stem' plants in India) then this fucked up plant is introduced into the wild by accident... It spreads/or receives pollen, and starts to reproduce. Eventually mixing with and threatening the survival of the natural genetics in that area. 

Think of it (Genetically modified plants in the wild) as a growing cancer, taking over and fucking up all the good shit in the local area. Or as a spreading mold.

And by the way, Harriken, my apologies for being so blunt but you've proven yourself to be quite a dickhead. Pull your head in please.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 10, 2013)

Old Mate Gorks said:


> You don't NEED to modify its genetics, at all. Why even bother? So that companies, scientists and corporations can cash in on the benefits perhaps?
> *
> Small shit like this throws the ecosystem out of sync even more so than it currently is.*
> 
> ...


Can you support the bolded without resorting to posting a blog? cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 11, 2013)

Old Mate Gorks said:


> You don't NEED to modify its genetics, at all. Why even bother? So that companies, scientists and corporations can cash in on the benefits perhaps?
> 
> Small shit like this throws the ecosystem out of sync even more so than it currently is.
> 
> ...


genetic modification is a tool.
back in the 50's the musician's union claimed multitrack recording would spell the end for musicians and musicianship. 
back in the 70's they said that home tape recorders would ruin the recording industry. 
in the 80's the VCR would doom the cinema
in the 90's home cd burners would ruin the music industrry
in the 2000's file sharing would ruin every industry
and now gmo's will destroy the planet. 

GMO plants are domestic plants. domestic plants do not "spead like weeds" weeds snuff domestic plants easily. the claim that domestic plants would "get pollen" is ridiculous since domestic plants have NO NATURAL ANALOG which might pollenate or be pollenated by the domesticated plant. despite hundreds of years of intensive farming, the only way to get corn to grow in iowa is to PLANT IT YOURSELF. iowa's forests are not overrun with wild corn plants spreading inexorably deeper into the natural ecosphere pushing out the sycamore trees, willows and pine trees and replacing them with endless vistas of maize. 

even persistent and hardy crops like Rye dont crowd out native plants. when was the last time you went out to your lawn and found a soya plant growing in your flowerbed? 

why can you not see how silly this is?


----------



## Old Mate Gorks (Mar 11, 2013)

I realise its a broad statement to make without footnotes or citations, and I'll try find some legit sources to back it up shortly.

Compared to the overall impact of humans on the earth over the last 200 or so years, which includes (amongst others) de-forestation, nuclear energy/waste, pollution, etc. it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. But, when you look at the 'cause and effect' side of the situation (see definition on chaos theory below, same concept), it isn't hard to picture that a large scale effect is eventually inevitable, whether you or I will be around to witness it.

"Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos." - Wikipedia. 

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=Genetically+modified+organisms+impact+on+environment&btnG=Submit&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

I've read a few articles from this page that shed some light on the topic, however there's too much information and articles for me to sit here and sift through in order to give you an in depth explanation, I'd be here for hours. Hope it helped clear things up at least a little though.

(edit) PS. Im here to learn about shit, by no means do I think I know it all, I acknowledge that there is a fuckload of information out there on this subject. Having said that, at this point in time these are my thoughts on GM plants.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 11, 2013)

Old Mate Gorks said:


> I realise its a broad statement to make without footnotes or citations, and I'll try find some legit sources to back it up shortly.
> 
> Compared to the overall impact of humans on the earth over the last 200 or so years, which includes (amongst others) de-forestation, nuclear energy/waste, pollution, etc. it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. But, when you look at the 'cause and effect' side of the situation (see definition on chaos theory below, same concept), it isn't hard to picture that a large scale effect is eventually inevitable, whether you or I will be around to witness it.
> 
> ...


so we should stop all genetic research because you heard about this thing called chaos theory and it sounded like if you do ANYTHING catastrophe will eventually result... 

yeah... not so much. 

throwing out references to chaos theory which are really just rehashings of the plot macguffins for Jurassic Park doesnt make your case. Chaos Theory is just an overly complicated attempt to restate the heisenberg uncertainty principle and the theories of quantum mechanics as a force at play in the newtonian universe. 

that which occurs in the sub-atomic realm does not necessarily hold true in biology, or agriculture. heisenberg may not know where his electons are, but i do know exactly where my tomatoe plants and spring herbs are planted. barring some unforeseen difficulty with squirrels or raccoons, they will be there tomorrow, and the next day and the next. i dont need complex math games to figure out that they need water and sunlight, and i can be fairly certain they will not be invading my neighbor's yard or popping up paving stones in the street down the block, even if they are GMO's.


----------



## Old Mate Gorks (Mar 11, 2013)

I'm against the idea of playing God.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 11, 2013)

Old Mate Gorks said:


> I'm against the idea of playing God.


im sure that sounded profound in your head bro.

but this thread has put the arguments for and against gmo research through the wringer. the anti-gmo crowd has failed to make any case at all for banning genetic research. 

if you got some evidence, bring it in, but im not gonna hold my breath.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 11, 2013)

Old Mate Gorks said:


> You don't NEED to modify its genetics, at all. Why even bother? So that companies, scientists and corporations can cash in on the benefits perhaps?
> 
> Small shit like this throws the ecosystem out of sync even more so than it currently is.
> 
> ...


I'm a dickhead? Why, because what I post is true and you can't deal with it?

Reality is tough, Josephine.


----------



## Old Mate Gorks (Mar 11, 2013)

Kynes, I'm not here to bicker or start an argument, I think you've misread my intentions. Maybe you can provide some evidence that supports there is no risk in intervention?

And Harreken I apologise for the name calling, I had a problem with your attitude until I realised mine was no better by slandering insults.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 11, 2013)

Old Mate Gorks said:


> Kynes, I'm not here to bicker or start an argument, I think you've misread my intentions. Maybe you can provide some evidence that supports there is no risk in intervention?
> 
> And Harreken I apologise for the name calling, I had a problem with your attitude until I realised mine was no better by slandering insults.


It's ok, I can't debate irrational fear anyways, if you want to think the sky is falling, who am I to stop you?

I do have a problem with the attitude of people who blindly say "natural" is better when clearly these people just spent too long at the organic market and the smell of organic manure fried their brain. 

Onus of proof is on the chicken making the claim, you claim GM is harmful, prove it.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Mar 11, 2013)

I cant believe you guys are still kicking this dead horse. And your still probably defending the DNA butchers just because its impossible to publish against Monsanto without getting sued. You idiots are pathetic, i hope you get cancer for defending those creeps. You guys only keep dredgeing this thread up so you can jack each other off. Pathetic


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 11, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> I cant believe you guys are still kicking this dead horse. And your still probably defending the DNA butchers just because its impossible to publish against Monsanto without getting sued. You idiots are pathetic, i hope you get cancer for defending those creeps. You guys only keep dredgeing this thread up so you can jack each other off. Pathetic


Irrational fear or grounded in reality?

You're the former, unless you post something to the opposite effect?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Mar 11, 2013)

Nobody care about this tread anymore. You suck


----------



## echelon1k1 (Mar 11, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Onus of proof is on the chicken making the claim, you claim GM is harmful, prove it.


Lucky multinationals and the like would never deceive the pubic or mislead regulators... 

In this day and age of IP & Copyright laws, corporations hire security specialists recruited straight out of high level government jobs to minimise their vulnerability to industrial espionage, how is the general public able to get to access to data to prove beyond a resonable doubt they pose a danger to human health and that of the animals we ingest? Corporations are not bound by FOIA laws...

If monsanto had a safe product, free from defect or the potential to cause unwanted side effects in humans or animals and could prove this - independent scientific testing, review & verification shouldn't be a problem...................... But we all know they fight tooth and nail to ensure this does not happen.

GM tech is an area that needs gruelling scientific oversight and LONG TERM, independent studies that are transparent, in all forms and financially independent. It's not coming anytime soon and the consequences will be at our expense, but you all seem content just kicking the can down the road...

I do remember a similar situation many years ago with tobacco, at least smoking is a choice, kind of hard to make that choice with the food you eat if you don't know if it's GM or not, although some places required labelling many do not and regulators are no where to be found...


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 11, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Lucky multinationals and the like would never deceive the pubic or mislead regulators...
> 
> In this day and age of IP & Copyright laws, corporations hire security specialists recruited straight out of high level government jobs to minimise their vulnerability to industrial espionage, how is the general public able to get to access to data to prove beyond a resonable doubt they pose a danger to human health and that of the animals we ingest? Corporations are not bound by FOIA laws...
> 
> ...


If Monsanto GM's a product which is harmful they'll get sued to kingdom come, the free market is awesome like that. 

Theyve already started their fall from grace now that people are discovering their GM crops don't infact pwn normal crops. 

People seem to think pro-GM mean pro-Monsanto which is entirely untrue, Im pro GM and "couldntgiveafuck" about Monsanto, the same as I don't give a shit about Nike or Pepsi...they're just companies that make products I don't buy.


----------



## Doer (Mar 11, 2013)

Old Mate Gorks said:


> You don't NEED to modify its genetics, at all. Why even bother? So that companies, scientists and corporations can cash in on the benefits perhaps?
> 
> Small shit like this throws the ecosystem out of sync even more so than it currently is.
> 
> ...


And in 8 posts, what have you managed to prove?


----------



## Doer (Mar 11, 2013)

Old Mate Gorks said:


> Kynes, I'm not here to bicker or start an argument, I think you've misread my intentions. Maybe you can provide some evidence that supports there is no risk in intervention?
> 
> And Harreken I apologise for the name calling, I had a problem with your attitude until I realised mine was no better by slandering insults.


If you want no risk then you must be wanting death. That's the only no-risk state for humans.

Glad you are coming around, mate. Lot of things to discuss. If I want mudslinging, I can chase my dogs though mud.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 11, 2013)

Old Mate Gorks said:


> I realise its a broad statement to make without footnotes or citations, and I'll try find some legit sources to back it up shortly.
> 
> Compared to the overall impact of humans on the earth over the last 200 or so years, which includes (amongst others) de-forestation, nuclear energy/waste, pollution, etc. it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. But, when you look at the 'cause and effect' side of the situation (see definition on chaos theory below, same concept), it isn't hard to picture that a large scale effect is eventually inevitable, whether you or I will be around to witness it.
> 
> ...


I would have to opine that you addressed "can throw" in the original bolded but not "does throw". I know there is an f-load of info out there, and it is the contradictory nature of that info that leaves me feeling frustrated. I dislike blogs because they place an ideological filter first, then cherrypick from the f-load whatever works for them. it's a fundamentally dishonest process, and it gets in the way of folks like me who would begin by saying "define the problem; provide upper&lower limits and establish the median" ... cn


----------



## st0wandgrow (Mar 11, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Can you support the bolded without resorting to posting a blog? cn


Should we just wait, cross our fingers and find out?


----------



## Doer (Mar 11, 2013)

cross-fingers but keep breathing


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 11, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Should we just wait, cross our fingers and find out?


Nnaahh. I'm getting a burger. cn


----------



## Doer (Mar 11, 2013)

<crickets> stars wheeling


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 11, 2013)

Doer said:


> <crickets> stars wheeling


i prefer pages being blown off of calenders and flowers sprouting blooming and withering in time lapse.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 11, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Of course you would you don't have a farm, you light fires for a living and your completely retarded... You marxist cunt


*You're 

And lol at the irony. 

Australia...lmao.


----------



## Doer (Mar 11, 2013)

That is jobist!! Fire lighter is a noble profession of one can get it.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 11, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> *You're
> 
> And lol at the irony.
> 
> Australia...lmao.


is that silly dingbat following me around from thread to thread making useless ad hominems on subjects he is ill equipped to discuss? 

i bet if i came out in favour of puppies he would have to declare the superiority of kitties. 

what a tool.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Mar 11, 2013)

Doer said:


> That is jobist!! Fire lighter is a noble profession of one can get it.


not when its a suitable cover for arsonists...


----------



## echelon1k1 (Mar 11, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> is that silly dingbat following me around from thread to thread making useless ad hominems on subjects he is ill equipped to discuss?
> 
> i bet if i came out in favour of puppies he would have to declare the superiority of kitties.
> 
> what a tool.


Former farmer with no farm thinks he's the gatekeeper of GM science... Please...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 11, 2013)

Doer said:


> That is jobist!! Fire lighter is a noble profession of one can get it.


actually he is e-stalking me like a lovesick retard. 

i was discussing my past experience in wildland firefighting in another thread, and he apparently thinks he can win my love by following me around and trying to dip my pig-tails in ink. 

when will he get it, im not into dudes.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 12, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Former farmer with no farm thinks he's the gatekeeper of GM science... Please...


Lol...rebranded Penal Colony citizen pretending not to be great great grandson to a diddler. 

Australia - Where you send the people you don't want in your country anymore. 

Thanks for taking all the out of work construction guys off our dole tho, pity yous are too dumb to train your own labourers tho.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Mar 12, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Lol...rebranded Penal Colony citizen pretending not to be great great grandson to a diddler.
> 
> Australia - Where you send the people you don't want in your country anymore.
> 
> Thanks for taking all the out of work construction guys off our dole tho, pity yous are too dumb to train your own labourers tho.


you're just butthurt that we've got a great economy and everything that goes with it and you're wallowing in austerity... we can accomodate immigration and employment increases that's why the irish are heading here like rats fleeing a sinking ship... the writings on the wall and it's saying one in four...


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 12, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> you're just butthurt that we've got a great economy and everything that goes with it and you're wallowing in austerity... we can accomodate immigration and employment increases that's why the irish are heading here like rats fleeing a sinking ship... the writings on the wall and it's saying one in four...


Lol, I havnt been unemployed in years, and that was for 6 months when I was younger. 

Im not a builder, they were the only ones struck by the recession, so we sent them over your way cos we didn't want to pay for those non-school finishers


----------



## echelon1k1 (Mar 12, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Lol, I havnt been unemployed in years, and that was for 6 months when I was younger.
> 
> Im not a builder, they were the only ones struck by the recession, so we sent them over your way cos we didn't want to pay for those non-school finishers


no recession = cheaper grog

_edit: we're feeling your pain_


----------



## Doer (Mar 12, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> actually he is e-stalking me like a lovesick retard.
> 
> i was discussing my past experience in wildland firefighting in another thread, and he apparently thinks he can win my love by following me around and trying to dip my pig-tails in ink.
> 
> when will he get it, im not into dudes.


Oh, i get it. Well let the tards be trads, I guess.

BTW...Puppies Rule!


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 12, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> no recession = cheaper grog
> 
> _edit: we're feeling your pain_
> 
> View attachment 2564908


Wow, a new "nigger class"

You Australians are so forward thinking and progressive.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Mar 12, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Wow, a new "nigger class"
> 
> You Australians are so forward thinking and progressive.


there's a link in the pic irish..

"I've had five or six Irish people come in saying they are bricklayers, they say they have WA experience, but they turn up and don't know what they are doing in WA" - ad placer Simon.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> there's a link in the pic irish..
> 
> "I've had five or six Irish people come in saying they are bricklayers, they say they have WA experience, but they turn up and don't know what they are doing in WA" - ad placer Simon.


Ahh so that gives him the right to discriminate based on nationality?

Cool story, no wonder your indigenous people are already like a second class.


----------



## UncleBuck (Mar 13, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> actually he is e-stalking me like a lovesick retard.
> 
> i was discussing my past experience in wildland firefighting in another thread, and he apparently thinks he can win my love by following me around and trying to dip my pig-tails in ink.
> 
> when will he get it, im not into dudes.


at least i wait until you show up to a thread i'm in, or show up in a thread that you're in that i would be in anyway.

some people's kids.


----------



## fb360 (Mar 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> you're just butthurt that we've got a great economy and everything that goes with it and you're wallowing in austerity... we can accomodate immigration and employment increases that's why the irish are heading here like rats fleeing a sinking ship... the writings on the wall and it's saying one in four...


Immigration increases? You mean to like 100M and then you break. You live on a large island. You only have so much lol. 
Most of Australia is crocodiles, snakes and other deadly fucking shit.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Mar 13, 2013)

fb360 said:


> Immigration increases? You mean to like 100M and then you break. You live on a large island. You only have so much lol.
> Most of Australia is crocodiles, snakes and other deadly fucking shit.


Like 23m gonna take a while to get to 100m - all the deadly shit just helps keep the population down - tourists are scared of all the deadly shit


----------



## ChesusRice (Mar 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Like 23m gonna take a while to get to 100m - all the deadly shit just helps keep the population down - tourists are scared of all the deadly shit


I want to see and explore the great barrier reef


----------



## echelon1k1 (Mar 13, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> I want to see and explore the great barrier reef


Don't come over during our summers way too hot and humid especially up north, best time is between June to October


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Don't come over during our summers way too hot and humid especially up north, best time is between June to October


Yeah the rape-o's and paedos go extra nuts in the heat Iv heard.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 14, 2013)

I am curious about the aspects of this issue that you have ignored....with all due respect. Why genetically modify a coded sequence that evolution has defined? Besides profit, what makes restricting this Un-American exactly? To what experience do you owe your certainty on the matter? Does DNA have intrinsic value...why/why not? Do you ever purchase non-GMO organic produce? Does human evolution technologically negate the sovereignty of all non-humans? In the preceding questions you have a choice to be intellectually honest or dismiss it as the work of a moron. Your input would be appreciated as would a level of respect. I am interested in whether arrogance or intellect motivates your slander and the truth as you know it to be. This is simply your voice, no debate, no links, just answers.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I am curious about the aspects of this issue that you have ignored....with all due respect.


these issues have not been ignored, they have been buried in the bullshit of DNAprotection's linkdumps, welcome back kotter video postings and name calling. ill separate the issues and respond to each individually for ease of access. 



burgertime2010 said:


> Why genetically modify a coded sequence that evolution has defined?


for the same reasons we selectively breed plants into forms which simply cannot survive without our assistance, but provide us with a crop which we desire. we NEED maize wheat rice and other cereal grains, because nothing else provides the nutritional density and long term storage to feed us, and our livestock. any technology, innovation or cultivar which promises to increase productivity or reduce the need for pesticides and fertilizers is very desirable. 



burgertime2010 said:


> Besides profit, what makes restricting this Un-American exactly?


the restrictors seek to stop progress, and ban an entire line of scientific research because of their irrational fears, and telling another person that they cannot do a thing because youre afraid they cant be trusted with it is un-american as a motherfucker. 



burgertime2010 said:


> To what experience do you owe your certainty on the matter?


farming for most of my life. i know the market, i know the pressures a farmer is under and why farms fail. it's all about making the mortgage and paying the property tax, once youve got those two big problems sorted the rest of farming is easy. (comparatively) 
any technology or innovation that offers the hope of bigger harvests, less expense in fertilizers and pesticides, and less chance youll loose the entire crop to budworms, boll weevils or locusts is not something you can just snatch away because your afraid that pollen from my feild will contaminate the "native ecoshpere" which does not naturally contain corn, wheat, rice, potatoes, or any other domestic crop. it's just silly, and the stakes are too high for farmers who are already on the hind tit, and up against the wall. 

GMO's are not by any stretch a certainty since only a few GMO's have actually fulfilled their promises, most fail miserably, but the technology itself still has the promise of huge success. james watt didnt invent the steam engine, he simply made it better, working on existing steam engines which had been around for 50 years before he was born. thats how technology advances, a slow building on the existing knowledge until sucess makes a revolution occur. back at the time, theree were a group of fools called the Luddites who wanted to ban steam engines and all industrial machines, for their own financial security, but they wer shortsighted fools, as are the fools demanding we abandon all Genetic research because they are afraid, or, like DNAporotection, he has a personal profit motive. 




burgertime2010 said:


> Does DNA have intrinsic value...why/why not?


of course. 
any unique cultivar, whether a natural mutant (like the commercial bananas which are ALL every last one, cloned from a single mutant plant, called the Cavendish plant) a selectively bred marvel (like soft winter wheat, which has fed more people than anyone can count) or a GMO from some lab could prove to be of great value, and in those cases, the genetic code of those cultivars are priceless. if you like sweet red juicy apples, red tasty tomatoes, bread of every description, popcorn, sweet corn, meal corn, hominy, wild rice, basmati rice, long grain short grain sushi, etc etc etc all these plants are cultivars and each has it's own unique genetics, and those genetics are valuable. GMO's do not destroy existing cultivars, they ADD to our stock of plants, some winners, some losers, but it is addition, not destruction. 



burgertime2010 said:


> Do you ever purchase non-GMO organic produce?


 i prefer the non-gmo varieties both as a grower and as a buyer, since they are good. they are proven, and they deliver. there have as yet been NO successful GMO food crops, since they have all balanced their promised benefits, with equal or greater negatives. 
BT corn doesnt really stop the bud worm. or the corn root worm, only reduces the damage, while judicious use of pesticides ENDS the problem, and in the final analysis, the pesticides wind up costing less than the BT seed prices. 
roundup ready crops are fucking worthless to most non-corporate farmers since we dont generally use herbicides except to clear weeds around grapevines and fruit and nut trees, and in those cases, it is hand sprayed very carefully by a PCA (professional Pest Control Applicator) and in pastures to control spurge (a deadly poisonous plant that kills livestock if it grows in your pasture, the sap from spurge will blister your skin and when eaten it is lethal) which is the only time any herbicide is sprayed in a wide area. 

giant corporate farms which use roundup as their first last and only solution to kill weeds desire a plant which is immune to roundup so they can just hose down their giant feilds indiscriminately, but roundup ready crops are merely RESISTANT to roundup, so when you spray your feild to kill the weeds you fuck up your own crops, so if you use too much, you lose the entire crop, if you use too little you still have weeds which increases the costs for harvest and processing and reduced overall yield, and if you use JUST ENOUGH you reduce your yield a little and kill off almost all the weeds, but in the end you didnt really save that much per acre. but when your tilling half a million acres, an extra $5 an acre really adds up. if youre tilling 50 to 100 acres, not so much. 




burgertime2010 said:


> Does human evolution technologically negate the sovereignty of all non-humans?


 the what? dude. sheep dont have sovereignty. nor do cows, and fucking barley and sorghum definately dont. 



burgertime2010 said:


> In the preceding questions you have a choice to be intellectually honest or dismiss it as the work of a moron. Your input would be appreciated as would a level of respect. I am interested in whether arrogance or intellect motivates your slander and the truth as you know it to be. This is simply your voice, no debate, no links, just answers.


i hope this clears up some of your questions.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 14, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> these issues have not been ignored, they have been buried in the bullshit of DNAprotection's linkdumps, welcome back kotter video postings and name calling. ill separate the issues and respond to each individually for ease of access. for the same reasons we selectively breed plants into forms which simply cannot survive without our assistance, but provide us with a crop which we desire. we NEED maize wheat rice and other cereal grains, because nothing else provides the nutritional density and long term storage to feed us, and our livestock. any technology, innovation or cultivar which promises to increase productivity or reduce the need for pesticides and fertilizers is very desirable. the restrictors seek to stop progress, and ban an entire line of scientific research because of their irrational fears, and telling another person that they cannot do a thing because youre afraid they cant be trusted with it is un-american as a motherfucker. farming for most of my life. i know the market, i know the pressures a farmer is under and why farms fail. it's all about making the mortgage and paying the property tax, once youve got those two big problems sorted the rest of farming is easy. (comparatively) any technology or innovation that offers the hope of bigger harvests, less expense in fertilizers and pesticides, and less chance youll loose the entire crop to budworms, boll weevils or locusts is not something you can just snatch away because your afraid that pollen from my feild will contaminate the "native ecoshpere" which does not naturally contain corn, wheat, rice, potatoes, or any other domestic crop. it's just silly, and the stakes are too high for farmers who are already on the hind tit, and up against the wall. GMO's are not by any stretch a certainty since only a few GMO's have actually fulfilled their promises, most fail miserably, but the technology itself still has the promise of huge success. james watt didnt invent the steam engine, he simply made it better, working on existing steam engines which had been around for 50 years before he was born. thats how technology advances, a slow building on the existing knowledge until sucess makes a revolution occur. back at the time, theree were a group of fools called the Luddites who wanted to ban steam engines and all industrial machines, for their own financial security, but they wer shortsighted fools, as are the fools demanding we abandon all Genetic research because they are afraid, or, like DNAporotection, he has a personal profit motive. of course. any unique cultivar, whether a natural mutant (like the commercial bananas which are ALL every last one, cloned from a single mutant plant, called the Cavendish plant) a selectively bred marvel (like soft winter wheat, which has fed more people than anyone can count) or a GMO from some lab could prove to be of great value, and in those cases, the genetic code of those cultivars are priceless. if you like sweet red juicy apples, red tasty tomatoes, bread of every description, popcorn, sweet corn, meal corn, hominy, wild rice, basmati rice, long grain short grain sushi, etc etc etc all these plants are cultivars and each has it's own unique genetics, and those genetics are valuable. GMO's do not destroy existing cultivars, they ADD to our stock of plants, some winners, some losers, but it is addition, not destruction. i prefer the non-gmo varieties both as a grower and as a buyer, since they are good. they are proven, and they deliver. there have as yet been NO successful GMO food crops, since they have all balanced their promised benefits, with equal or greater negatives. BT corn doesnt really stop the bud worm. or the corn root worm, only reduces the damage, while judicious use of pesticides ENDS the problem, and in the final analysis, the pesticides wind up costing less than the BT seed prices. roundup ready crops are fucking worthless to most non-corporate farmers since we dont generally use herbicides except to clear weeds around grapevines and fruit and nut trees, and in those cases, it is hand sprayed very carefully by a PCA (professional Pest Control Applicator) and in pastures to control spurge (a deadly poisonous plant that kills livestock if it grows in your pasture, the sap from spurge will blister your skin and when eaten it is lethal) which is the only time any herbicide is sprayed in a wide area. giant corporate farms which use roundup as their first last and only solution to kill weeds desire a plant which is immune to roundup so they can just hose down their giant feilds indiscriminately, but roundup ready crops are merely RESISTANT to roundup, so when you spray your feild to kill the weeds you fuck up your own crops, so if you use too much, you lose the entire crop, if you use too little you still have weeds which increases the costs for harvest and processing and reduced overall yield, and if you use JUST ENOUGH you reduce your yield a little and kill off almost all the weeds, but in the end you didnt really save that much per acre. but when your tilling half a million acres, an extra $5 an acre really adds up. if youre tilling 50 to 100 acres, not so much. the what? dude. sheep dont have sovereignty. nor do cows, and fucking barley and sorghum definately dont. i hope this clears up some of your questions.


 I appreciate your candor and abiding me here, thank you...I will leave you be now.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I appreciate your candor and abiding me here, thank you...I will leave you be now.


dude it's a discussion forum, if you got questions answers or even just ideas, put em out there. 

this thread got a little crazy but the assholes have mostly wandered off to troll the anarcho-__________ist threads 

if i didnt want to talk about this issue i wouldnt be watching it.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 14, 2013)

That is fair, I just don't want to give the assholes the fight they are looking for. Regardless, my goal here is to teach and be taught, and I just wanted to make good on my promise of no debate. The answers you explained were interesting, like the anti-progressive idea behind non-modified food supporters. All technology is not the same first of all. I don't speak from a place of fear rather a loathing for the degree of arrogance and greed I cannot help but feel pushes the profit motive on this issue. Everything is pennies per pound, the faith I have that our best interests are even thought about is absent completely. It seems that once you blur this line, the rationalizations for business to invade and patent life forms become what progressive becomes. Where is the line for this? Is anything fair game? Nature deserves respect and advocacy.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> That is fair, I just don't want to give the assholes the fight they are looking for. Regardless, my goal here is to teach and be taught, and I just wanted to make good on my promise of no debate. The answers you explained were interesting, like the anti-progressive idea behind non-modified food supporters. All technology is not the same first of all. I don't speak from a place of fear rather a loathing for the degree of arrogance and greed I cannot help but feel pushes the profit motive on this issue. Everything is pennies per pound, the faith I have that our best interests are even thought about is absent completely. It seems that once you blur this line, the rationalizations for business to invade and patent life forms become what progressive becomes. Where is the line for this? Is anything fair game? Nature deserves respect and advocacy.


but again, patenting cultivars is not new. 

many existing slective and cross bred cultivars were kept as closely guarded trade secrets for decades. plant breeders breed plants for a living, their skill knowledge and talent gives us the plants we crave, but if they cannot make a living at plant breeding or seed selling from their exclusive cultivars, they will not develop new varieties. 

much in the way most people getting out of high school dont even consider becoming ferriers these days, since theres not nearly as much demand for horseshoes as there once was, but when my grandfather was a young fellow, his grandpappy told him to become a blacksmith, since horseshoeing is a job with a real future.... and in just a few years everybody was driving automobiles. 

if we eliminate the ability to actually make money creating GM crop cultivars then these cultivars will NEVER be developed.


----------



## Doer (Mar 14, 2013)

Well it takes two to have a forum fight. I can fight, and the Dr. is very scrappy. kpmarine can mix it up. But, what a waste of time. In person, this venom can't happen. (say we are waiting line for a concert, sports, a bus) People know what people will do in person. So, ignore, formally or informally, fight or not, it doesn't matter

Quite a few of us adults around here. And we can suffer the youugun' to provide their lack of experience and education, and discuss it all.

Or.....

Now. Does nature deserve respect, admiration, worship, protection? No. 

What is worshiped as Nature often excludes Man. We didn't need to be told we have dominion. And we didn't need to be granted it and we were not. It simply IS reality.

This Nature is either one of two things. It is either the bone pile of mankind or it's the resource to got the hell out of here.

We just stood around while a giant space rock almost hit us....a few weeks ago. Do think it will be any different in a impact event. Yes. PANIC and DEATH before it even gets here.

This place it doomed. I don't worship the bio-skin of this planet. It will be gone. I do think we are beginning finally to husband it a bit more carefully....despite the AGW nuts began pushing world societies toward the intended collision for $$$.

Is clean air, tyranny or freedom. If you can answer that, one way are another....think again. It has no answer, or the answer is both.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 14, 2013)

Doer said:


> Well it takes two to have a forum fight. I can fight, and the Dr. is very scrappy. kpmarine can mix it up. But, what a waste of time. In person, this venom can't happen. (say we are waiting line for a concert, sports, a bus) People know what people will do in person. So, ignore, formally or informally, fight or not, it doesn't matter
> 
> Quite a few of us adults around here. And we can suffer the youugun' to provide their lack of experience and education, and discuss it all.
> 
> ...


I told a person earlier in real life thaf if he didn't stop annoying me I'd pull his stupid looking ears off. 

Speak for yourself bro, you might pretend to like people in real life, I'd rather be blunt as fuck. 

Diplomacy is only useful when you gain something from it


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 14, 2013)

It would be one thing if we were making quality a directive, the GMO fear is eating empty food. I have a belief that beyond its chemistry or genetics there is a life force in foods that seems to get left behind. I wonder who really benefits in this new world....farmers are scraping by, I cant get real food at the market, hunger is still a mathematical certainty. What genetic research is motivated by philanthropy? As a farmer the proprietors of these things own you right? I don't mean to be self-righteous or disrespectful. Can I ask your opinion on something? Is the desperate state of the independent farm manufactured by the titans of industry who sell this shit? Kind of a join or die scenario? Innovation is my occupation, Technology is this masturbatory impulse to create an obsolescence in most cases...new is better...new is better....new is better. Bad technology is far more pervasive and damaging than we realize. Because I am cautious about GMO simply means I am undecided, the companies that make good food their bitch can go to hell. I cant shake my instinct that there is an insidious pulse behind the door. I apologize if my ranting seems negative and paranoid. The beneficial part of all of this I now see with more clarity and perspective....thank you.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 14, 2013)

Ignore the false pretence laid by GAYprotection and ignore the GM food debate. 

DNA's bill posted above basically bans ALL genetic research. 

That is why people here are so passionate about their responses. 

BTW, most of have no love for Monsanto, but they're a business, protecting patents and contracts is to be expected, and use of Monsanto seeds are optional. 

Would you ban ALL genetic research purely because GM food/cannabis arnt your particular preference?


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 14, 2013)

Doer said:


> Well it takes two to have a forum fight. I can fight, and the Dr. is very scrappy. kpmarine can mix it up. But, what a waste of time. In person, this venom can't happen. (say we are waiting line for a concert, sports, a bus) People know what people will do in person. So, ignore, formally or informally, fight or not, it doesn't matter Quite a few of us adults around here. And we can suffer the youugun' to provide their lack of experience and education, and discuss it all. Or..... Now. Does nature deserve respect, admiration, worship, protection? No. What is worshiped as Nature often excludes Man. We didn't need to be told we have dominion. And we didn't need to be granted it and we were not. It simply IS reality. This Nature is either one of two things. It is either the bone pile of mankind or it's the resource to got the hell out of here. We just stood around while a giant space rock almost hit us....a few weeks ago. Do think it will be any different in a impact event. Yes. PANIC and DEATH before it even gets here. This place it doomed. I don't worship the bio-skin of this planet. It will be gone. I do think we are beginning finally to husband it a bit more carefully....despite the AGW nuts began pushing world societies toward the intended collision for $$$. Is clean air, tyranny or freedom. If you can answer that, one way are another....think again. It has no answer, or the answer is both.


 Don't give us a diatribe on the end of the world.....talk about a waste of time, go find somewhere where you are even more irrelevant. The sad thing about a mind like yours is that inside you can see an intellect too lazy to let itself own the present or an ego so expansive it consumes its' audience because they almost admire the gall it takes. Regardless, the combination is powerful and I hope it serves you and the people who can care about you better than this. I don't know what you are about, just negate someone else, better yet show us what you got.


----------



## Figong (Mar 14, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Don't give us a diatribe on the end of the world.....talk about a waste of time, go find somewhere where you are even more irrelevant. The sad thing about a mind like yours is that inside you can see an intellect too lazy to let itself own the present or an ego so expansive it consumes its' audience because they almost admire the gall it takes. Regardless, the combination is powerful and I hope it serves you and the people who can care about you better than this. I don't know what you are about, just negate someone else, better yet show us what you got.


Re-sub'd for this one:


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Don't give us a diatribe on the end of the world.....talk about a waste of time, go find somewhere where you are even more irrelevant. The sad thing about a mind like yours is that inside you can see an intellect too lazy to let itself own the present or an ego so expansive it consumes its' audience because they almost admire the gall it takes. Regardless, the combination is powerful and I hope it serves you and the people who can care about you better than this. I don't know what you are about, just negate someone else, better yet show us what you got.


And So It Begins...


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 14, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> And So It Begins...


I don't know if Doer has the fight for this one...


----------



## ilikecheetoes (Mar 14, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> genetic modification is a tool.
> back in the 50's the musician's union claimed multitrack recording would spell the end for musicians and musicianship.
> back in the 70's they said that home tape recorders would ruin the recording industry.
> in the 80's the VCR would doom the cinema
> ...


hmm interesting. I was kind of on the side of not letting this shit get in the wild but you make great points. Hell Weed is a ummmm weed, and it barely grows in my yard. lol


----------



## Doer (Mar 14, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I told a person earlier in real life thaf if he didn't stop annoying me I'd pull his stupid looking ears off.
> 
> Speak for yourself bro, you might pretend to like people in real life, I'd rather be blunt as fuck.
> 
> Diplomacy is only useful when you gain something from it


It kinda grows on ya....


----------



## Doer (Mar 14, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Don't give us a diatribe on the end of the world.....talk about a waste of time, go find somewhere where you are even more irrelevant. The sad thing about a mind like yours is that inside you can see an intellect too lazy to let itself own the present or an ego so expansive it consumes its' audience because they almost admire the gall it takes. Regardless, the combination is powerful and I hope it serves you and the people who can care about you better than this. I don't know what you are about, just negate someone else, better yet show us what you got.


Well, I'm very glad to waste your time....and I read this very closely, I really did. I have no idea what you are talking about. And, how you can have a personal opinion of me through what I have written in this various forum?

But, ignorance is bliss as they say. So, try not to explain. I've said many times NOW is all there is. So, you can go play in traffic?

But, still, None of what you just said makes any sense, even sentence by sentence. I read it twice, so as not to waste my time. Just seems to me you lack the manners you would show in person. 

Instead of bathing me in the warrnth of your personal regard, why not reply to my disdain of this Earth Mother nonsense? 

You are showing hubbub and disorder, while I remain disciplined and calm.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

ilikecheetoes said:


> hmm interesting. I was kind of on the side of not letting this shit get in the wild but you make great points. Hell Weed is a ummmm weed, and it barely grows in my yard. lol


cannabis is not a GMO anyhow since it is not a cash crop. no company can even attempt to sell GMO weed seeds in america save by the underground, and DJ Short and the Amsterdam Weed Breeder Collectives arent Monsanto. 

weed is Kinda-Sorta-Not-Quite-Banned based on the entire species, not individual cultivars or varieties. i couldnt legally grow GM weed any more than i could grow cocaine, not even if i planted the new variety "La Millionaira" 

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/columbia.html?pg=1&topic=columbia&topic_set=

(read this shit. it's fascinating, apparently Columbian Coca Growers have created their own Roundup Ready coca plant)


----------



## Doer (Mar 14, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I don't know if Doer has the fight for this one...


*

*May I have a stick...oh about 4 ft long?


----------



## Figong (Mar 14, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> cannabis is not a GMO anyhow since it is not a cash crop. no company can even attempt to sell GMO weed seeds in america save by the underground, and DJ Short and the Amsterdam Weed Breeder Collectives arent Monsanto.
> 
> weed is Kinda-Sorta-Not-Quite-Banned based on the entire species, not individual cultivars or varieties. i couldnt legally grow GM weed any more than i could grow cocaine, not even if i planted the new variety "La Millionaira"
> 
> ...


That's pretty crazy shit re: the coco plant! Monsanto isn't who I'm worried about in the big picture, am more worried about those already in the Pharma market like Bayer, or chem-based like Dupont... with some of their tests going back to the early 90's.. the chart below is pretty self-explanatory as to why I may be a bit worried.


 Alfalfa
Monsanto Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds Bacteria, virus Roundup Ready
2005  Canola
Bayer Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds Bacteria, virus LibertyLink 2000  Canola
Monsanto Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds Arabidopsis, bacteria, virus  Roundup Ready
1999 
CanolaMonsantoAltered oil (high lauric acid) for soap and food productsCalif bay, turnip rape, bacteria, virusLaurical
1995CanolaBayerMale sterile to facilitate hybridization; resist glufosinate herbicide to control weedsBacteriaSeedLink
2000Chicory (radicchio)Bejo ZadenMale sterile to facilitate hybridizationBacteriaSeedLink
1997CornBayerResist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds/male sterile to facilitate hybridizationBacteria, virusSeedLink
Date unknownCornBayerResist glufosinate herbicide to control weedsBacteria, virusLibertyLink
Date unknownCornBayerResist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)Bacteria, virusStarLink
1998 (approved only for animal feed)Corn
Dow/MycogenBt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)Corn, bacteria, virusNatureGard
1995 Corn ​  Dow/Mycogen​  Bt toxin to control insect pests (corn rootworm)/Resist glufosinate herbicide​  Bacteria, virus​  Herculex Rootworm 2005​ Corn
Dow/Mycogen
DuPont/Pioneer
Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (Lepidopteran)Corn, bacteria, virusHerculex I
2001Corn
DuPont/Pioneer Male sterile to facilitate hybridizationPotato, corn, bacteria, virusName unknown
1998Corn
Monsanto/
DeKalbBt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)BacteriaBt-Xtra
1997Corn
Monsanto/
DeKalbResist glufosinate herbicide to control weedsBacteria, virusName, date unknownCorn
MonsantoBt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)BacteriaYieldGard
1996Corn
MonsantoResist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)Arabidopsis, bacteria, virusName unknown
1998 Corn​  Monsanto​  Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (corn rootworm)​  Bacteria​  Name unknown 2006​ Corn
MonsantoResist glyphosate herbicide to control weedsArabidopsis, bacteria, virusRoundup Ready
1998 Corn​  Renessen (Monsanto and Cargill)​  Higher levels of lysine to enhance animal feed​  Bacteria​  Mavera High Value Corn with Lysine
2006​  Corn​ SyngentaBt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)BacteriaBt11
1996Corn
SyngentaBt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)Corn, bacteria, virusKnock Out
1995 Corn​  Syngenta​  Bt toxin to control insect pests (corn rootworm)​  Bacteria​  Name unknown 2007​ Corn (pop)
SyngentaBt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)Corn, bacteria, virusKnock Out
1998Corn (sweet)
SyngentaBt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)BacteriaBt11
1998 Cotton​  Bayer/Aventis​  Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds​  Virus​  Name unknown 2003​ CottonMonsanto/
BayerResist bromoxynil herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (cotton bollworms and tobacco budworm)BacteriaName unknown
1998CottonMonsanto/
BayerResist bromoxynil herbicide to control weedsBacteria, virusBXN Cotton
1995CottonMonsantoBt toxin to control insect pests (cotton bollworms and tobacco budworm)BacteriaBollgard
1995CottonMonsantoResist glyphosate herbicide to control weedsArabidopsis, bacteria, virusRoundup Ready
1996 Cotton​  Mycogen/Dow​  Bt toxin to control insect pests/Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds​  Bacteria, virus​  Bollgard II 2002​  Cotton​  Mycogen/Dow​  Bt toxin to control insect pests/Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds​  Bacteria, virus​  HerculexT I 2001​ FlaxUniv SaskatchewanResist sulfonylurea herbicide to grow in soils with herbicide residuesArabidopsis, bacteriaCDC Triffid
1999PapayaCornell Univ/
Univ HawaiiResist papaya ringspot virusBacteria, virusSunup, Rainbow
1997PotatoMonsantoBt toxin to control insect pests (Colorado potato beetle)BacteriaNewLeaf
1995Potato
MonsantoBt toxin to control insect pests (Colorado potato beetle)/resist potato virus YBacteria, virusNewLeaf Y
1999Potato
MonsantoBt toxin to control insect pests (Colorado potato beetle)/resist potato leafroll virusBacteria, virus NewLeaf Plus
1998
 Rice​  Bayer​  Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds​  Bacteria, virus​  LibertyLink
2004​  Soybean

BayerResist glufosinate herbicide to control weedsBacteria, virusName unknown
1998Soybean
DuPontAltered oil (high oleic acid) to increase stability, reduce polyunsaturated fatty acidsSoybean, bean, bacteria, virusName unknown
1997Soybean
MonsantoResist glyphosate herbicide to control weedsPetunia, soybean, bacteria, virusRoundup Ready
1995Squash
Seminis 
Vegetable SeedResist watermelon mosaic 2 and zucchini yellow mosaic virusesBacteria, virusFreedom II
1995Squash
Seminis 
Vegetable SeedResist watermelon mosaic 2, zucchini yellow mosaic, cucumber mosaic virusesBacteria, virusName unknown
1997Sugarbeet
BayerResist glufosinate herbicide to control weedsBacteria, virusName unknown
2000Sugarbeet
Monsanto/
SyngentaResist glyphosate herbicide to control weedsBacteria, virusName unknown
1999Tomato (cherry)
AgritopeAltered ripening to enhance fresh market valueBacteriaName unknown
1996Tomato
DNA Plant TechnologyAltered ripening to enhance fresh market valueTomato, bacteria, virusEndless Summer
1995Tomato
Monsanto/
CalgeneAltered ripening to enhance fresh market valueTomato, bacteria, virusFlavrSavr
1994Tomato
MonsantoAltered ripening to enhance fresh market valueBacteriaName unknown
1995Tomato
Zeneca/
PetoSeedThicker skin and altered pectin to enhance processing valueTomato, bacteria, virusName unknown
1995


----------



## roseypeach (Mar 14, 2013)

two words HELL NO!

The idea of GMO seeds, corn, whatever, I refuse to use. I don't want anything that mother nature didn't put together her damn self. A TRUE GMO HATER here!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

roseypeach said:


> two words HELL NO!
> 
> The idea of GMO seeds, corn, whatever, I refuse to use. I don't want anything that mother nature didn't put together her damn self. A TRUE GMO HATER here!


what about forced hybrids and forced mutation crops? 

those are unnatural, and cannot exist without human artifice as well.


----------



## Figong (Mar 14, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> what about forced hybrids and forced mutation crops?
> 
> those are unnatural, and cannot exist without human artifice as well.


Agreed, saw a few fruit trees in the 4seasons nursery catalog yesterday that when in bloom, produce 5 or 6 different types of fruit on 1 tree.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

Figong said:


> Agreed, saw a few fruit trees in the 4seasons nursery catalog yesterday that when in bloom, produce 5 or 6 different types of fruit on 1 tree.


those are grafted, even the craziest frootloops cant argue against grafting.


----------



## Figong (Mar 14, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> those are grafted, even the craziest frootloops cant argue against grafting.


The tree was a seedling, didn't see any graft wounds/scars in the pic - must look closer. I was wondering of someone actually had the time/drive and re-built it from the ground up given that it's almost 50 bucks for 1 sapling.


----------



## Doer (Mar 14, 2013)

Figong said:


> Agreed, saw a few fruit trees in the 4seasons nursery catalog yesterday that when in bloom, produce 5 or 6 different types of fruit on 1 tree.


....not that there is anything wrong with that....


----------



## Figong (Mar 14, 2013)

Doer said:


> ....not that there is anything wrong with that....


Agreed, I see no issue with that at all.


----------



## Doer (Mar 14, 2013)

So, seriously. I think this is just right around the corner. Where are you on bat ears? Or dog snout on young adults?

EDit (i read too much si fi)


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

Figong said:


> The tree was a seedling, didn't see any graft wounds/scars in the pic - must look closer. I was wondering of someone actually had the time/drive and re-built it from the ground up given that it's almost 50 bucks for 1 sapling.


hmmm 

i would double check. 

a common ploy at nurseries is to pull the tag and stake from a more expensive plant and replace it with a much cheaper variety of similar size or description 

you may hve see a 5 way graft tree tag on a standard single graft seedling, but all commercially available apple trees are grafted at least once, for desirable fruit wood on sturdy rootstock. (in fact almost all fruiting perennials are grafted)

edit: 

upon review you said it was in a catalog. that make sit even easier to explain, catalogs always show an idealized image as a representation. even if the image has no bearing on the tree at question. 
my mum had a 5 way grafted apple tree for several years (before she brutally killed it by making me transplant it 5 times in one year, no joke) and you could totally see where the root stock was grafted with the differing varieties for each limb.


----------



## Doer (Mar 14, 2013)

Well, grafting is hardly gm.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 14, 2013)

Doer said:


> Well, I'm very glad to waste your time....and I read this very closely, I really did. I have no idea what you are talking about. And, how you can have a personal opinion of me through what I have written in this various forum? But, ignorance is bliss as they say. So, try not to explain. I've said many times NOW is all there is. So, you can go play in traffic? But, still, None of what you just said makes any sense, even sentence by sentence. I read it twice, so as not to waste my time. Just seems to me you lack the manners you would show in person. Instead of bathing me in the warrnth of your personal regard, why not reply to my disdain of this Earth Mother nonsense? You are showing hubbub and disorder, while I remain disciplined and calm.


 Sitting in judgement mocking, hijacking a dialogue and injecting your plaigarism, you are not Sun-Tzu and those are poor manners too. You are irrelevant in this case...deal with it. It takes balls to pontificate as you do about panic and death and unknowable truth without humility. The "calmer than you are" approach. Leave the dialogue alone unless you have an original thought....empathize...we have to deal with you not, the other way around. Your horse is dead and your sword is dull, Mother Earths' severed head shares your pillow while you sleep blissfully, none the wiser. Bliss is not me, I am hubbub and disorder. Leave well enough alone, you got nothing on me.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Sitting in judgement mocking, hijacking a dialogue and injecting your plaigarism, you are not Sun-Tzu and those are poor manners too. You are irrelevant in this case...deal with it. It takes balls to pontificate as you do about panic and death and unknowable truth without humility. The "calmer than you are" approach. Leave the dialogue alone unless you have an original thought....empathize...we have to deal with you not, the other way around. Your horse is dead and your sword is dull, Mother Earths' severed head shares your pillow while you sleep blissfully, none the wiser. Bliss is not me, I am hubbub and disorder. Leave well enough alone, you got nothing on me.


is that the new Tupac? 

its beautiful prose.


----------



## Doer (Mar 14, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Sitting in judgement mocking, hijacking a dialogue and injecting your plaigarism, you are not Sun-Tzu and those are poor manners too. You are irrelevant in this case...deal with it. It takes balls to pontificate as you do about panic and death and unknowable truth without humility. The "calmer than you are" approach. Leave the dialogue alone unless you have an original thought....empathize...we have to deal with you not, the other way around. Your horse is dead and your sword is dull, Mother Earths' severed head shares your pillow while you sleep blissfully, none the wiser. Bliss is not me, I am hubbub and disorder. Leave well enough alone, you got nothing on me.


Kinda with a back beat, right? UH hu...UH hu... Like that?

Boy, that was a raw nerve about that space rock I guess.

"Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus he is master of his enemy's fate."

(guess who?) Sun Tsu

I kinda liked that horse, too.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 14, 2013)

Doer said:


> Kinda with a back beat, right? UH hu...UH hu... Like that? Boy, that was a raw nerve about that space rock I guess. "Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus he is master of his enemy's fate." (guess who?) Sun Tsu I kinda liked that horse, too.


 Meet her halfway to 2029.


----------



## Doer (Mar 14, 2013)

Bucephalus. The horse's name was Bucephalus. Dead now, thanks to you.

So what is this gibber-jabber anyhow, Mayan Apocalyptic Modern?

The big rock, come from Sky. Many flee, many die. 

This doesn't seem real to you, does it? 

Mother would never doom her childern with her Right to be in the way?
It could never happen in your lifetime, we hope. 

And, uh, aren't you kinda bossing me around a bit? Do this? Do that?

Do you think I will? Or not? Or is it salvia?


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 14, 2013)

Your battered mother is ignoring you? Comic-diffusion, at least she taught you coping mechanisms.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

apparently this thread is now about Beat Poetry. 

right on man. 



*coiling indolently, wisps of fragrant smoke

the spliff burns with incandescent joy

my EZWiders long forgotten, welcome me home like a brother

someone has misplaced the bowl to my bong. 

*


----------



## Doer (Mar 14, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Your battered mother is ignoring you? Comic-diffusion, at least she taught you coping mechanisms.


Salvia....coming around now, huh?


----------



## Doer (Mar 14, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> apparently this thread is now about Beat Poetry.
> 
> right on man.
> 
> ...


Haiku...can you?

Forever displayed moment's swirling wonder...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

Doer said:


> Salvia....coming around now, huh?


two minute haiku time

*Tiny Cacti, Crushed to Pulp

Simmered well on the camp fire

Just a Sip. COLOURS!*


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

Doer said:


> Haiku...can you?
> 
> Forever displayed moment's swirling wonder...


that was free verse bro, but i made 2 minute haiku before i saw your post


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 14, 2013)

Same words" Incandescent joy wisps misplaced the fragrant myeindolently. Someone, home like a brother coiling long forgotten ez widers the bowl to my bongs fragrant smoke"


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Same words" Incandescent joy wisps misplaced the fragrant myeindolently. Someone, home like a brother coiling long forgotten ez widers the bowl to my bongs fragrant smoke"


man... thats heavy!

*Gentle Skirl of Steel on Stone

Quiet Sussurations, Easing troubled Thoughts

A Habit Long Remembered From Lessons Never To Be Forgot

Suddenly I Discover I'm Honing a Knife 

The Gift From My Grandfather on the Morning of My First Hunt. 

Three Decades of a Eulogy For the Man Who Was My Hero 

The Blade Shows Wear. His Memory Undimmed*


----------



## Doer (Mar 14, 2013)

Well....that's pretty good. Kinda cowboy. Deep like. For me anyway. Thanks...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

Doer said:


> Well....that's pretty good. Kinda cowboy. Deep like. For me anyway. Thanks...


lay down some meters bro, cant you hear the bongos? 

lay it on us man.


----------



## Doer (Mar 14, 2013)

ba ba bump sha bu, sah be bump sha boo... ba ba bump...like that?

OK, Ok

Wild wispy stands are willing my woman closer, man.

Endless ectoplasmic streamers of love, baby

Positively feelin it..


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 14, 2013)

yeah man. i can dig it. 

i feel the need to expand upon your verse


Gentle touch, Soft Caress, She Needs you To Stake Your Claim

Throbbing, He Rises Tumescent, Prepared to Make Good On His Name

To Do Her, Doer Prepares, but a Nefarious Hangnail Awaits

The Puncture Kit Is Here Somplace

Quickly Bro, Before She Deflates!


----------



## Doer (Mar 15, 2013)

HA LOLOOLL...we all have different ideals.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 17, 2013)

Doc,

You know anything about lemon trees? I want to get a Meyer lemon. I tried looking up how easy it is to grow, NPK, etc. Different sites list all kinds of ratios for citrus/lemon. 1:1:1, 8:4:4, 2:3:3. Those are all radically different.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 17, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Doc,
> 
> You know anything about lemon trees? I want to get a Meyer lemon. I tried looking up how easy it is to grow, NPK, etc. Different sites list all kinds of ratios for citrus/lemon. 1:1:1, 8:4:4, 2:3:3. Those are all radically different.


lemon trees (and all citrus) are not terribly particular, they prefer well drained soil and plenty of sun, just keep the roots cool by shading the pot if you grow it in a container. 

the differeing ratios for fertilization are all based on different bas soils (very few hydroponic citrus growers out there) but the good old fashioned Miracle Gro citrus works good. 

once established,, citrus trees dont really need much attention unless your running a citrus farm, in which case as i recall we used a 3-2-2 product but that was in sandy soil with a clay substrate. (deserts, lol) and lots of mulching and cattle shit from the nearby harris beef feedlot.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 17, 2013)

Thanks. What about NaCl ppm? For weed I use about 1350 depending on variety. I've never done soil watering. I heard you alternate: water, water, nutrient. Feeding are done when the soil is nearly dry. From what I read, you only feed nutrient during flower. Since I mix my own nutrient, I thought why not. Nutrient chemicals are cheap.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 17, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Thanks. What about NaCl ppm? For weed I use about 1350 depending on variety. I've never done soil watering. I heard you alternate: water, water, nutrient. Feeding are done when the soil is nearly dry. From what I read, you only feed nutrient during flower. Since I mix my own nutrient, I thought why not. Nutrient chemicals are cheap.


dont add salt to your fertilizing routine. citrus hates salt. salt accretion is a serious problem for citrus growers who over-fertilize. 

epsom salts (MgSo4, not NaCl which is table salt)were added twice a year, we would put 10lb in the 10,000 gallon fertilizer mixing tank in the spring, and autumn. 

and yes i had to look up the chemical name for epsom salts.


----------



## UncleBuck (Mar 17, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Doc,
> 
> You know anything about lemon trees? I want to get a Meyer lemon. I tried looking up how easy it is to grow, NPK, etc. Different sites list all kinds of ratios for citrus/lemon. 1:1:1, 8:4:4, 2:3:3. Those are all radically different.


citrus meyeri are easy.

get a bag of citrus tone and use as directed.

bring that sucker inside if it's gonna dip below 30 degrees, but don' bring it into a 75 degree room or anything. stick it in the 50 degree garage. it doesn't like those temp shocks. leaves will turn yellow and fall off.

mine survived several 25 degree night this winter, but it's suffering for it.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> dont add salt to your fertilizing routine. citrus hates salt. salt accretion is a serious problem for citrus growers who over-fertilize.
> 
> epsom salts (MgSo4, not NaCl which is table salt)were added twice a year, we would put 10lb in the 10,000 gallon fertilizer mixing tank in the spring, and autumn.
> 
> and yes i had to look up the chemical name for epsom salts.


I meant the NaCl conversion factor, also called 442 or EC * 0.7.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 17, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> I meant the NaCl conversion factor, also called 442 or EC * 0.7.


unless youre growing hydroponically thats largely irrelevant. i mix my nutrients volumetrically not by testing with a PPM meter. again, citrus isnt that picky. 

if youre concerned over salt buildup from your nutrient solution, unless youre seriously overdoing the nutrients you wont have to worry about salt buildup in your soil. 

if you plan to grow in a container, just make sure theres planty of drainage, and give it a flush if your worried. if youre growing in the ground, dont sweat it, all you have to worry about is frost, but you can cover your tree with a clear visquine sheet and it will do just fine through aything short of a hard freeze.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 17, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I am curious about the aspects of this issue that you have ignored....with all due respect. Why genetically modify a coded sequence that evolution has defined? Besides profit, what makes restricting this Un-American exactly? To what experience do you owe your certainty on the matter? Does DNA have intrinsic value...why/why not? Do you ever purchase non-GMO organic produce? Does human evolution technologically negate the sovereignty of all non-humans? In the preceding questions you have a choice to be intellectually honest or dismiss it as the work of a moron. Your input would be appreciated as would a level of respect. I am interested in whether arrogance or intellect motivates your slander and the truth as you know it to be. This is simply your voice, no debate, no links, just answers.


I have never seen "sovereignty" of nonhuman life discussed in biology. How can this sovereignty be established to exist? What are its measures and properties? What is the experiment to do? cn


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 17, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> It would be one thing if we were making quality a directive, the GMO fear is eating empty food. I have a belief that beyond its chemistry or genetics *there is a life force in foods that seems to get left behind*. I wonder who really benefits in this new world....farmers are scraping by, I cant get real food at the market, hunger is still a mathematical certainty. What genetic research is motivated by philanthropy? As a farmer the proprietors of these things own you right? I don't mean to be self-righteous or disrespectful. Can I ask your opinion on something? Is the desperate state of the independent farm manufactured by the titans of industry who sell this shit? Kind of a join or die scenario? Innovation is my occupation, Technology is this masturbatory impulse to create an obsolescence in most cases...new is better...new is better....new is better. Bad technology is far more pervasive and damaging than we realize. Because I am cautious about GMO simply means I am undecided, the companies that make good food their bitch can go to hell. I cant shake my instinct that there is an insidious pulse behind the door. I apologize if my ranting seems negative and paranoid. The beneficial part of all of this I now see with more clarity and perspective....thank you.


I think you answered some of my previous questions. You treat this article of faith as fact. The life force as you define it is supernatural and mystical. I hope you accept that i do not see that as a useful springboard for debate, as is the case with any Credo. cn


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 17, 2013)

There ya go, Buck. But you're still on ignore unless you agree to a non-picture nuke treaty.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 17, 2013)

I meant the hundreds of pictures you did in November with ten posts. My phone froze for ten minutes. That wasn't cool.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 17, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> I meant the hundreds of pictures you did in November with ten posts. My phone froze for ten minutes. That wasn't cool.


Buy a laptop or a tablet, you cheap vegan c**t. 

It was Paddys Day yesterday...I can still say what I want


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 20, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I think you answered some of my previous questions. You treat this article of faith as fact. The life force as you define it is supernatural and mystical. I hope you accept that i do not see that as a useful springboard for debate, as is the case with any Credo. cn


 I use the term sovereignty in terms of maintaining a crisp genetic descent. The ownership of ones' code with an emphasis on self preservation.


----------



## Doer (Mar 20, 2013)

That I agree with. And I believe that is being honored, or call the ACLU!

We are Sovereign, but our trash is not. And we cast billions and billions of skin cells, just check your laundry bill. 

Is that ours, anymore? Or have we discarded it. Salvage rights apply?

Can we extend that ownership principle to our code if all of us leave it all over the place?


----------



## Figong (Mar 20, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I think you answered some of my previous questions. You treat this article of faith as fact. The life force as you define it is supernatural and mystical. I hope you accept that i do not see that as a useful springboard for debate, as is the case with any Credo. cn


Free energy! Only thing missing is free gas.


----------



## Doer (Mar 20, 2013)

burgertime, a life force left behind? So, to be clear you think we may be tampering with the genetic imperatives of the selected species. 

That perhaps the will to survive of corn, itself as a species....??? I agree with that an precautions are being made and can be made on a personal level....tear a page from the heirloom survival guide of your choice. 

This is how I see that the System is working. Any one person... we can be what we want; prepared as we care, and we only have about 36,000 days or much much less, and the world goes on. 

Or we can be the Legend. We were prepared at the end of the world. The one that was there with what was needed and pulled it through with only a shoelace. I know people that crawled under barbwire that had only just appeared a few weeks before, to get out of Hungary. They were almost too late.

We all know what can happen, I hope. And we are as ready as we can at any one moment. But, it's a crap shoot. Many a Survivalist has gone to the grave with a $100,000 worth of readiness, still sitting there. It's a family affair.

Cursed to live in interesting times........or not.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 20, 2013)

Doer said:


> burgertime, a life force left behind? So, to be clear you think we may be tampering with the genetic imperatives of the selected species. That perhaps the will to survive of corn, itself as a species....??? I agree with that an precautions are being made and can be made on a personal level....tear a page from the heirloom survival guide of your choice.  This is how I see that the System is working. Any one person... we can be what we want; prepared as we care, and we only have about 36,000 days or much much less, and the world goes on. Or we can be the Legend. We were prepared at the end of the world. The one that was there with what was needed and pulled it through with only a shoelace. I know people that crawled under barbwire that had only just appeared a few weeks before, to get out of Hungary. They were almost too late. We all know what can happen, I hope. And we are as ready as we can at any one moment. But, it's a crap shoot. Many a Survivalist has gone to the grave with a $100,000 worth of readiness, still sitting there. It's a family affair. Cursed to live in interesting times........or not.


 True enough. I am not sure the logic I use is digestible to most people. There exists a binary simultaneity that plays out truths as one is able to become separated from observed reality. I am not an advocate for the sanctity of life nor am I concerned to entertain the worst case scenario with a tired Nihilism. There are existential issues when a population is hungrily awaiting life itself to become more user friendly. The dialogue is a fascinating, substantive, paradox and needs to be seen through hearts and minds until it is no longer swollen as it is. On a personal level, I do have a great respect for non-modified foods. I believe them to have a harmonic signature on health and intelligence as well as simply tasting better. The force left behind is emotive and bound by quantum law(non-linear). My concern is a tainted nature that looks a lot better in retrospect. The argument that humankind is a vector to punctuating a better code out of nature is still to young to support in my view. The system has crystallized into human sovereignty that can reflect our guardianship towards the natural world in the latest innovations. Treading the earth cautiously, we are unique in time-space. The race to save ourselves from ourselves is here. The species needs to cultivate a wisdom out of the blank checks here, a paradigm in which our revolution will be drawn into, astonishing quantum science that empowers the willing towards consciousness that abides by an invisible new format. Our wheelhouse is not technocratic, it seems to me that the mastery over the natural world has validated us as well as left us entitled, lazy, and invested in a singularity that cannot hold up. The binary is additive and subtractive together, capable of opposite and non-sequential realities, and from which a human mind is to sculpt the future script. This is hybrid science alongside ancient text revisited......a beginning of a nonsense that asks more from you. The idea is power and creation on a curved time-space, emotion comes first, then procedure, then a curious newness in your completed task. In a methodical revolution comes the empowered confusion that creation demands. Here a dialogue is inviting the uninvited towards unobservable conclusions as this mystery is a propellant to reinvention. Urgently devolve into mastery.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 20, 2013)

Doer said:


> That I agree with. And I believe that is being honored, or call the ACLU! We are Sovereign, but our trash is not. And we cast billions and billions of skin cells, just check your laundry bill. Is that ours, anymore? Or have we discarded it. Salvage rights apply? Can we extend that ownership principle to our code if all of us leave it all over the place?


 I believe so, intent is where ones' privacy is easily violated. It is not intentionally discarded and by default is protected until it leaves your property, at least where I am. It is a massive intrusion to have that kind of personal data without consent. Confidentiality and the right to privacy should apply. The information is beyond what we think our genes are disclosing...I don't see a realistic way to preserve what you cannot protect without the law. This is no object of ownership, moreover, this code owns you....it should be protected like other sensitive data....especially for those with pre-existing health concerns.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 20, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> True enough. I am not sure the logic I use is digestible to most people. There exists a binary simultaneity that plays out truths as one is able to become separated from observed reality. I am not an advocate for the sanctity of life nor am I concerned to entertain the worst case scenario with a tired Nihilism. There are existential issues when a population is hungrily awaiting life itself to become more user friendly. The dialogue is a fascinating, substantive, paradox and needs to be seen through hearts and minds until it is no longer swollen as it is. On a personal level, I do have a great respect for non-modified foods. I believe them to have a harmonic signature on health and intelligence as well as simply tasting better. The force left behind is emotive and bound by quantum law(non-linear). My concern is a tainted nature that looks a lot better in retrospect. The argument that humankind is a vector to punctuating a better code out of nature is still to young to support in my view. The system has crystallized into human sovereignty that can reflect our guardianship towards the natural world in the latest innovations. Treading the earth cautiously, we are unique in time-space. The race to save ourselves from ourselves is here. The species needs to cultivate a wisdom out of the blank checks here, a paradigm in which our revolution will be drawn into, astonishing quantum science that empowers the willing towards consciousness that abides by an invisible new format. Our wheelhouse is not technocratic, it seems to me that the mastery over the natural world has validated us as well as left us entitled, lazy, and invested in a singularity that cannot hold up. The binary is additive and subtractive together, capable of opposite and non-sequential realities, and from which a human mind is to sculpt the future script. This is hybrid science alongside ancient text revisited......a beginning of a nonsense that asks more from you. The idea is power and creation on a curved time-space, emotion comes first, then procedure, then a curious newness in your completed task. In a methodical revolution comes the empowered confusion that creation demands. Here a dialogue is inviting the uninvited towards unobservable conclusions as this mystery is a propellant to reinvention. Urgently devolve into mastery.




now both me and Puffy are confused.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 20, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> now both me and Puffy are confused.


 It is set up to articulate a concept that is, by its' design, impossible to articulate Actually, confusion is the logical response.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> It is set up to articulate a concept that is, by its' design, impossible to articulate Actually, confusion is the logical response.


Design?

Like burning bushes and talking snakes?

An excellent tale, brethren.


----------



## Figong (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> It is set up to articulate a concept that is, by its' design, impossible to articulate Actually, confusion is the logical response.


In your words quoted, not mine.. you're trying to tell us something that we can't understand because you can't articulate it, and as such.. the capability to understand it would be illogical? Sounds like blindfolded mimes trying to play a game of charades.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Mar 21, 2013)

This thread suxs bitches


----------



## Ninjabowler (Mar 21, 2013)

Just listen to uncle buck and get your heads outta your asses puppets


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

Don't start. If you are certain that I am wrong than prove it and if you are just talking shit than I won't stop you. I would have you read but I sense antagonism brewing. Articulating a non-linear concept would require readers willing to become confused for a bit certainly. You can take it or leave it....I put it out there because it interests me and I am creative as an occupation. Quantum theory and the Tao are worth probing if you want to see confusion as it pertains here.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Mar 21, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> Just listen to uncle buck and get your heads outta your asses puppets


But UB is the ass puppet here...


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 21, 2013)

You're so obsessed with Buck that you take time out from watching the kids in the playground to post weak sauce comments. 

Maybe he's the cure for diddlers like you?


----------



## Doer (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Don't start. If you are certain that I am wrong than prove it and if you are just talking shit than I won't stop you. I would have you read but I sense antagonism brewing. Articulating a non-linear concept would require readers willing to become confused for a bit certainly. You can take it or leave it....I put it out there because it interests me and I am creative as an occupation. Quantum theory and the Tao are worth probing if you want to see confusion as it pertains here.


My brother....


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> My brother....


 I knew you would come around. It's hard at the top...I mean, nobody wants to listen anyhow....especially when you are right or self-assured. Regardless, I had fun fighting with you last week. -No Respect


----------



## Doer (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I knew you would come around. It's hard at the top...I mean, nobody wants to listen anyhow....especially when you are right or self-assured. Regardless, I had fun fighting with you last week. -No Respect


No respect intended of course
I don't take sides or carry grudges
So if we had disagreements last week
I hardly remember last week and I barely remember any one here

Most I don't pay attention with whom I spar. Not risen to that level, sorry

So I agree with some person this week certainly DOES NOT mean I am coming around to a point of view or other 

I just liked the way it was said

(No) peace


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

Speak on that...I just like to envision strangers in bed with dead horses, to cyber-shush, and taking sides while remembering to remember to hold a grudge. Do you get hate mail?


----------



## Doer (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Speak on that...I just like to envision strangers in bed with dead horses, to cyber-shush, and taking sides while remembering to remember to hold a grudge. Do you get hate mail?


Oh that's right you killed my horse when you were drunk on st pats


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

I am new to elegance. My prose was spot on I recall......Tupacesque even.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Don't start. If you are certain that I am wrong than prove it and if you are just talking shit than I won't stop you. I would have you read but I sense antagonism brewing. Articulating a non-linear concept would require readers willing to become confused for a bit certainly. You can take it or leave it....I put it out there because it interests me and I am creative as an occupation. Quantum theory and the Tao are worth probing if you want to see confusion as it pertains here.


"quantum theory" is the new woo, used to "explain" shit far beyond it's actual scope. 

actual quantum theory, which is still only *theory*, appertains to the interactions of sub-atomic particles and forces too small to measure. it has no evidence to support itself in the newtonian universe beyond the logical consistency of the mathematic models. 

the Dao is a religious system based on ancestral worship and the chinese zodiac, it is not, nor was it ever scientific in nature. 

religions of any stripe are useless when examining science, or even logic, since they are all based on assumptions which can be neither proved nor disproved. 

you may freely believe anything you like, but without evidence to support it, you cannot expect others to embrace your beliefs, and getting butthurt because youre previous post (which was really just profound sounding gibberish) left those of us looking for FACTS limp, is self-defeating. 

i believe many things based on religious principles which cannot be explained scientifically, but recognizing that assertions based on religious opinion hold no water outside their religious context, i do not offer those beliefs as evidence to explain scientific principles. 

religious observances and beliefs are best kept to their proper sphere, and among the faithful, so espousing the burning of Lucky Money to please Qin Ser Huang Di, the Celestial Emperor, Pyramid Power in honour of Horus The Vigilant One, dancing daked on the Solstice in praise of Cernunnos, slaughtering a goat in honor of Yaweh, ritual bloodlettings to please Xipitoltec, The Flayed God or cutting open your forehead in praise of allah will convince nobody save those who already believe the same way as you. 

keep to the sciences and observable repeatable evidence based statements and we can advance the understanding of the subject. 

otherwise we will merelyt start a pissing match between various religious beliefs and the non-believers


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

I respect your intelligence and I am not religious. Do me a favor and don't tell me what category everything falls into and what holds water in a scientific setting....you can't know what I have seen to be repeatable and/or statistically significant. The gibberish is what everybody calls what they don't understand and I don't mean to condescend. The Tao is not a religion as quantum is not science right? If I were to know that will and intent is measurable would these defined spaces that took you so long to stuff your reality into change shape? It does not matter, FACTS without an observer are not facts at all. I take what I say seriously and I utilize science based assertions. See whatever you want to in what I say if it helps you. I do not care really. You WILL see my positions validated by science if time is on your side....that is a fact.


----------



## Figong (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I respect your intelligence and I am not religious. *Do me a favor and don't tell me what category everything falls into and what holds water in a scientific setting*....you can't know what I have seen to be repeatable and/or statistically significant. The gibberish is what everybody calls what they don't understand and I don't mean to condescend. The Tao is not a religion as quantum is not science right? If I were to know that will and intent is measurable would these defined spaces that took you so long to stuff your reality into change shape? It does not matter, FACTS without an observer are not facts at all. I take what I say seriously and I utilize science based assertions. See whatever you want to in what I say if it helps you. I do not care really. You WILL see my positions validated by science if time is on your side....that is a fact.


How about scientific law, and not theory re: what's in bold?


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

Explain Scientific law beyond what I have. What are you asking? what are you poorly articulating?


----------



## Figong (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Explain Scientific law beyond what I have. What are you asking? what are you poorly articulating?


I see you've failed to understand a simple answer to your own statement. Part of your rambling:

"* Do me a favor and don't tell me what category everything falls into and what holds water in a scientific setting"

*Scientific law is all that holds weight in terms of 'solid proof'. As for poor articulation, there was nothing to misinterpret in my statement. As an aside, for being semi-intelligent.. I was pretty sure I wouldn't have to walk you through the flow of logic required to understand it.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

Continue beyond to part you highlighted. Observable, repeatable, statistically significant....that is the scientific law. Technology heightens our ability to observe thus what holds water shifts. You are lazy boss...


----------



## Figong (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Continue beyond to part you highlighted. Observable, repeatable, statistically significant....that is the scientific law. Technology heightens our ability to observe thus what holds water shifts. You are lazy boss...


I read all of it, it seemed that you were looking for 'theory'-based discussion to be included as something at least semi-definite in your previous posts, unless I completely misinterpreted the implied tone based on previous word choices, which very well could be the case.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

You have an uncanny ability to nitpick and be dismissive. You should walk away.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I respect your intelligence and I am not religious. Do me a favor and don't tell me what category everything falls into and what holds water in a scientific setting....you can't know what I have seen to be repeatable and/or statistically significant. The gibberish is what everybody calls what they don't understand and I don't mean to condescend. The Tao is not a religion as quantum is not science right? If I were to know that will and intent is measurable would these defined spaces that took you so long to stuff your reality into change shape? It does not matter, FACTS without an observer are not facts at all. I take what I say seriously and I utilize science based assertions. See whatever you want to in what I say if it helps you. I do not care really. You WILL see my positions validated by science if time is on your side....that is a fact.


the Dao IS religious. it is one of the oldest continuously practiced religions on the planet, but it is still a religion, based on assumptions of a metaphysical world which is inexplicable to science. 

when science attempts to incorporate ANY religious beliefs it stops being science. 

the statement above is full of anger and butthurt, which is a direct response to having religious views questioned, not a result of scientific discourse. 

and to the meat of your statement above, quantum theory IS science, just a very new and largely untestable one. embracing this theory as truth, beyond question is also a form of faith, and faith in what is inexplicable is the definition of religion. 

claiming to be non-religious, yet asserting that Daoism is truth, is contradictory and illogical.


----------



## Doer (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> See whatever you want to in what I say if it helps you. I do not care really. You WILL see my positions validated by science if time is on your side....that is a fact.


Ah, now seeing the future, a fact if you don't die first.


----------



## Doer (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> You have an uncanny ability to nitpick and be dismissive. You should walk away.


The Life Force, future seers, can't stand nit-picky and submissiveness....why is that? And pretty bossy.


----------



## Figong (Mar 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> The Life Force, future seers, can't stand nit-picky and submissiveness....why is that? And pretty bossy.


The life force in my plants told me to sit back and have a smoke with some coffee while I get caught up on a bit of reading on soil physics, and things related to herbicide action and metabolism.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

I make the future


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> the Dao IS religious. it is one of the oldest continuously practiced religions on the planet, but it is still a religion, based on assumptions of a metaphysical world which is inexplicable to science. when science attempts to incorporate ANY religious beliefs it stops being science. the statement above is full of anger and butthurt, which is a direct response to having religious views questioned, not a result of scientific discourse. and to the meat of your statement above, quantum theory IS science, just a very new and largely untestable one. embracing this theory as truth, beyond question is also a form of faith, and faith in what is inexplicable is the definition of religion. claiming to be non-religious, yet asserting that Daoism is truth, is contradictory and illogical.


 I call bullshit!!!


----------



## Doer (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Continue beyond to part you highlighted. Observable, repeatable, statistically significant....that is the scientific law. Technology heightens our ability to observe thus what holds water shifts. You are lazy boss...



None of the close spaced babble so far points to Observable, repeatable, statistically significant. Taoism as you know, pontificates that Universal Energy is Conscious.

No proof of that. And that is the basis of all relgion, imo, since, I think religion spread east, collided with the Aryan, One God concept in the Indus and re-bounded as Buddism spreading back East and One God or, in Greek, Kristos spreading West. Krishna myth spread South from the initial Aryan contact about 4500 years ago. But, all is religion and all attributes, in some way or another, that the Universal Energy is not only Alive, Conscious, Intelligent, but, all Powerful, All Knowing and Beyond Time and Space, Lord of all Worlds. Believe me I can chant more of this stuff in Sanskrit or Hebrew. 

But this Energy and will also take sides, if you ask nice...beg like. Has an imperative that only you clam as FACT. Preposterous, with no basis what so ever, except old stories of the experience of Joy describable to you as a Higher Force.

Tao is Religion and may be the root of relgion as far as I'm concerned. But that doesn't make the Energy alive.


----------



## Doer (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I make the future


 you make your future. thus it is ever so


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

Put my words in context.....it strengthens the merit of whatever position all you petty followers bastardize. Actually, there is proof of that....that is exactly the case. Look MENSA.....I participated in a long term study conducted by published physicists testing a technology that measured the effect of consciousness on matter. I saw it first hand.....eat your fiction.


----------



## Doer (Mar 21, 2013)

You can't demonstrate it in a double bind test.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> you make your future. thus it is ever so


 "The Tao of Physics" Love to hate or hate to love it....either way you should check it.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> You can't demonstrate it in a double bind test.


 We did and are proud to have done so....I cannot go into detail. Science is changing faster than our ability to logically comprehend.....I don't choose this, but I can defend it.


----------



## Doer (Mar 21, 2013)

I've had that for quite some time now. And, I'm also aware of in certain circles of Kabala and Numerology being attempted to be linked with Physics.

You can't prove it, as you have said as much. You claim it will become a future fact.

It is fine, but being a trained physicist as it pertains to computer science, I can tell you this, you may overlay Tao on what we now call Physics. But, that's it. Conjecture.

Your study was fun I'm sure. But, had it resulted in your objective, repeatable, observable by all, and Double Blind finding, you would not need to show me. I have plenty of effort into this, a lifetime. I would already be aware. (still willing to be surprised, however)
i


----------



## Doer (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> We did and are proud to have done so....I cannot go into detail. Science is changing faster than our ability to logically comprehend.....I don't choose this, but I can defend it.


No you can't. You are just being mysterious.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I call bullshit!!!


bullshit on what in specific? 

the Dao being a religion? 

rel;igion being based on an assuption which can be neither tested nor proved or disproved? 

religion being poisonous to science? 

quantum theory being largely untestable? 

or that asserting that you are non religious but Daoism is truth is inconsistent and illogical? 

each of these statements is FACTUAL, particularly the last. if you could PROVE Daoism to be true, then only a real dolt would refuse to embrace it. after all the Celestial Emperor is a awesome, Sun Wu Kong is a badass, and Ma Xing Wu has peaches that grant immortality. if thats all totally factual and 100% true, then ill convert and embrace the Dao. fuck, ill build a shrine to Guan Di in my livingroom.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> I've had that for quite some time now. And, I'm also aware of in certain circles of Kabala and Numerology being attempted to be linked with Physics. You can't prove it, as you have said as much. You claim it will become a future fact. It is fine, but being a trained physicist as it pertains to computer science, I can tell you this, you may overlay Tao on what we now call Physics. But, that's it. Conjecture. Your study was fun I'm sure. But, had it resulted in your objective, repeatable, observable by all, and Double Blind finding, you would not need to show me. I have plenty of effort into this, a lifetime. I would already be aware. (still willing to be surprised, however) i


 It was not fun at all. The test was work...intensive, focused, and long term. It is not visible without the developed aptitude. All the parameters for experimental integrity were met by an intellectual pool that I choose to trust beyond yours. I recommended a book to you.....you are reaching now. Save this, it will help your shitty memory when the time comes. You will be surprised.


----------



## Doer (Mar 21, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> It was not fun at all. The test was work...intensive, focused, and long term. It is not visible without the developed aptitude. All the parameters for experimental integrity were met by an intellectual pool that I choose to trust beyond yours. I recommended a book to you.....you are reaching now. Save this, it will help your shitty memory when the time comes. You will be surprised.


what is all this jbber jabber ?!!! it is pretty funny. you are an advanced, but secret human. And with others of your kind you were able to deduce higher truths that you (with no BIG FAT EGO,) choose not to reveal.....
You cannot show us because you are from the future where they must grow some kinda ganja!

But, if I send in $25 could I see the pre-report leaked DETAILS, of this fantastically documented mind over matter? wow.....that is the best troll this year so far. 

So, this is Scientology.....no Maharishi Mashi Yogi! Am I right? Frog hopping? "Levitation"....


----------



## Figong (Mar 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> what is all this jbber jabber ?!!! it is pretty funny. you are an advanced, but secret human. And with others of your kind you were able to deduce higher truths that you (with no BIG FAT EGO,) choose not to reveal.....
> You cannot show us because you are from the future where they must grow some kinda ganja!
> 
> But, if I send in $25 could I see the pre-report leaked DETAILS, of this fantastically documented mind over matter? wow.....that is the best troll this year so far.
> ...


----------



## Callisto (Mar 21, 2013)

Monsanto are nothing but a pack of eugenicists owned by the scum of the earth. Anything they propose should be be fought, they are already well underway to ruining nature and population control.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 21, 2013)

Callisto said:


> Monsanto are nothing but a pack of eugenicists owned by the scum of the earth. Anything they propose should be be fought, they are already well underway to ruining nature and population control.


more assertions without evidence, more assumptions with no real basis save hatred for monsanto, and more pointless ad hominem attack. 

dont like monsanto, dont buy shit from them. 

it's easy to do.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 22, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> more assertions without evidence, more assumptions with no real basis save hatred for monsanto, and more pointless ad hominem attack.
> 
> dont like monsanto, dont buy shit from them.
> 
> it's easy to do.


You've got to hate those environ*mental* extremists.


----------



## Doer (Mar 22, 2013)

Figong said:


>



Transcendental Meditation...

During the guru phase of the west (which we direly needed) many came forward to show us their ideas. Some of these, such as Kundali Yoga represent a claim of fantastic worldly powers. (how did they put when the early Christian cult re-wrote Josephus, to lay ground work for a historical Jesus?) Ah, paradoxical feats...that was it. Said to perform paradoxical feats.

And like Scientology, this TM (tm) was approached with a patina of Western science. Levitation. Yogic Flying.

If you want to ignore the prattle, I just turned down the sound....I can't listen this stuff anymore. I sat for years and listened and practiced and found Self, not God. From Self it can be pontificated one can know GOD....but the concept of Universal Benevolent Energy or even a vengeful, smitting and smotting God is not in evidence at all. 

It is a leap of Faith and totally unnecessary, imo, All we have and all we need is Self right Now, (if we can find Now. Not so easy, sometime with Mr Mind's, obsessive talking)

I was never part of TM, but I did get involved in a counterfeit Guru project, a bit later. And wow, to look at it all from that side was also enlightening. Then that org was co-opted by Christians and became against all Gurus. Strange world.

About 2 min. in. Yogic Flying caught on tape....maybe you will like to hear them all gushing about it before you see what it actually means.
More fun? Better surprise?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFfQuCGU0ZQ


Yikes! I get lost in youtube.....here is a floating Buddhist that is not FAKE. I watched it. She floats alright. Makes a regular little tourist attraction out of it. 

So, it is a toss up, but, I still stick with TM for burger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mfyCeVdbHw

OH NO....the flying girl in the Russian forest is not a fake either.....no....nooooooooooooooooo I'm done.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 23, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I use the term sovereignty in terms of maintaining a crisp genetic descent. The ownership of ones' code with an emphasis on self preservation.


I have heard that before. cn


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 23, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I have heard that before. cn


Did you not hear?

Apparently the Nazis were actually Joos pretending to being holocausting people just so they could get Israel!

(Im obviously being smart, but I read something similar here recently).


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 24, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I reiterate... if you can't see we're being sarcastic then you are so dumb, you are really dumb, for real.


But if he wasn't, we have to inform Obama so he can drone his spice dealing ass! Even if he's not, can we take that chance?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 24, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> You might want to keep this thread between you two. This belongs on an Aryan Brotherhood board....this is amazingly inappropriate dialogue in a public forum.


youre clearly buffleheaded.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 24, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> youre clearly buffleheaded.


Relax.


----------



## Doer (Mar 24, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> No No No! the nazis werent jews, they wre VICTIMS of the jews and their incredibly complicated plots and schemes. the nazis were USED by nefarious Jews in an amazingly circuitous and convoluted plot to trick the nazis into actually committing genocide as the impetus for the UN (which didnt exist at the time) to give the zionists the land of israel....


Yeah, how else would you get enough sympathy in this world to add perpetuity for Skinheads, and so have a forever enemy of your Zion, to cry about?

Cool trick. Ya gotta respect that.


----------



## Doer (Mar 24, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> You might want to keep this thread between you two. This belongs on an Aryan Brotherhood board....this is amazingly inappropriate dialogue in a public forum.


That's it. You are revealed as the Soup Nazi. You DO NOT get to say what is appropriate here. If I went that far, I'd say your entire hyper-personal approach to this is completely, and childishly inappropriate of you.

When you attempt to censor you don't belong here.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 24, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> But if he wasn't, we have to inform Obama so he can drone his spice dealing ass! Even if he's not, can we take that chance?


Thanks for quoting that, seems the delete-fairy did their rounds. 

Its like, totally, censorship...man.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 24, 2013)

Doer said:


> That's it. You are revealed as the Soup Nazi. You DO NOT get to say what is appropriate here. If I went that far, I'd say your entire hyper-personal approach to this is completely, and childishly inappropriate of you. When you attempt to censor you don't belong here.


 The funny thing is I can say whatever I like. You are guilty of the same offense. I would say calling me a Soup Nazi is childish. I don't have a lot space for Nazi rhetoric. Settle down.


----------



## Doer (Mar 24, 2013)

that was Seinfeld 

We can both say what we want.... get used to it. Go read the phrasing...nothing personal


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 24, 2013)

Doer said:


> that was Seinfeld We can both say what we want.... get used to it. Go read the phrasing...nothing personal


 Ok, I guess getting used to it isn't easy with certain topics. It seems so obvious I guess...I will be the first to admit I am oversensitive....watch me get emasculated.


----------



## lovemymj (Mar 24, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> There it is. I do not like the idea of a company creating a monopoly on a naturally occurring plant.
> 
> Greedy bastards!


 I couldn't agree more!


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 24, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> The funny thing is I can say whatever I like. You are guilty of the same offense. I would say calling me a Soup Nazi is childish. I don't have a lot space for Nazi rhetoric. Settle down.


Do you perhaps see how your post about sovereignty and genetic purity can be seen as such, though? You still have not explained to me what you mean by sovereignty, and if any part of it isn't posited as axiom. How do i detect/measure this sovereignty? How much of it withstands hostile review? Is it real, imagined, or presumed? If not the first, I have no use for the concept: it contributes nothing and casts a mystical light upon questions that are engineering in nature. My opinion. cn


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 29, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Do you perhaps see how your post about sovereignty and genetic purity can be seen as such, though? You still have not explained to me what you mean by sovereignty, and if any part of it isn't posited as axiom. How do i detect/measure this sovereignty? How much of it withstands hostile review? Is it real, imagined, or presumed? If not the first, I have no use for the concept: it contributes nothing and casts a mystical light upon questions that are engineering in nature. My opinion. cn


 I see how it would be possible to link my words to the concepts you mentioned, but, to run with it and assign a meaning seems like it was fun to you. For the record, I do not align with national socialism. I use sovereignty to express the notion that unmodified plant forms are free from a factor of control. A state of independence and strength that grants domain to unmolested genetics, the measurement of which is simply DNA comparison. Hypothetically, having custodianship over genetics over the long term would suffice. A class in genetics is what you need, I cannot give you more than my perceived value of such a state of being.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I have never seen you out of combat, do you ever take time and offer it in a way that benefits others? From what I can see, you look for fights and bullshit people until they flee. Please, get help.


This is the politics section. Are you new here?


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I see how it would be possible to link my words to the concepts you mentioned, but, to run with it and assign a meaning seems like it was fun to you. For the record, I do not align with national socialism. I use sovereignty to express the notion that unmodified plant forms are free from a factor of control. A state of independence and strength that grants domain to unmolested genetics, the measurement of which is simply DNA comparison. Hypothetically, having custodianship over genetics over the long term would suffice. A class in genetics is what you need, I cannot give you more than my perceived value of such a state of being.


So basically, you're all for "genetic purity" ??


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 29, 2013)

NLXSK1 said:


> This is the politics section. Are you new here?


Failure to submit to his Obviously Correct, and Unavoidable Wisdom defies his Mandate from Heaven, so he re-writes history to support his Glorious Dynasty. 

go back a few pages, and youll see a discussion wherin he demanded answers to his misconceptions and flawed assumptions, which he then countered with a bizarre screed about "Scientifically Proven" secrets of the Dao and claims that he has special knowledge regarding the secrets of the universe, received obviously through direct communion with the Celestial Emperor and the Jade Court. 

you must not question his imperial mejesty, for he has tasted the sweet nectar of the Peaches Of Immortality recieved from the hand of Ma Xing Wu, the Queen Mother Of The West, he has sat at the feet of Guan Yin, and learned the true nature of things, Studied the Eternal Sciences of Medicine with the Celestial Healer Qi Bo, and communed on the nature of plants and herbs with the Celestial Farmer Shen Nong, and absorbed the wit and wisdom of the Monkey King Sun Wu Kong. 

You see Daoism is not a religion, and how dare anyone claim it is! Daoism is scientific fact! Its totally proven, scientifically by scientists, and he would show us these scientific proofs, but it would Blow Our Minds, and nobody wants that, it's so messy. 

One must be ever respectful of such a great mind, and give him face. Failing to give face is proof that your filial piety is less than perfect, and tha t's just not allowed. 

Oh yeah, and you cannot discuss wacky moonbat conspiracy theories, because thats racist and insensitive, nor can you question his claims of the Sovereignty of Non-Human Life. He got that one in a Revelation from Nu Wa, the Goddess of The Sky. 

This forum exists as a vehicle for his Perfect Thoughts, which he disseminates in tiny doses as he deems us ready. Contrary views are forbidden.


----------



## Doer (Mar 29, 2013)

Well, let's not go crazy. The point burger misses and get's trolled on is that all genomes are under constant assault and modification by virus. And since almost surely virus has made us Humans, virus wants us to:

(1)Take them off planet. We are doing that for them. We just took a contaminated tool locker to Mars. So, we don't know if virus is able to directly make folks do these mistakes, but they can and do capitalize on them.

(2) Continue their modification work using our brains and hands.

The plain fact to me is that human sovereignty is actually viral sovereignty.

It's beyond our control. Microbes of all types control us.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I see how it would be possible to link my words to the concepts you mentioned, but, to run with it and assign a meaning seems like it was fun to you. For the record, I do not align with national socialism. I use sovereignty to express the notion that unmodified plant forms are free from a factor of control. A state of independence and strength that grants domain to unmolested genetics, the measurement of which is simply DNA comparison. Hypothetically, having custodianship over genetics over the long term would suffice. A class in genetics is what you need, I cannot give you more than my perceived value of such a state of being.


I have read some genetics, and never have I encountered your value-judging terms: sovereignty, control, molestation. You are implying something both serious and (irreducibly/irredeemably) doctrinal: that human manipulation of genomes is evil. There isn't a biology or any other science of evil; that concept remains in the province of religion. 
I challenge and oppose this viewpoint as utterly unnecessary (in terms of its potential to advance the discussion) and very capable of harm (by imposing what amounts to a doctrinal taboo on an activity with tremendous potential). 

We cannot really discuss this fruitfully, since your position is one of faith. I was hoping you'd at least make the effort to provide insight into the basis for your beliefs, to try to convince me that these things you'd posted as fact (sovereignty, freedom from implicitly inappropriate control, GM is a sort of molestation) have in fact a compelling basis in reason. 
I don't think you can however. You seem to be making the basic mistakes of priests throughout the last fifteen (at least) thousand years: it is so because you damned well say so. 
Well I am not buying, and I doubt you will convince anyone who doesn't already share your visceral impression that GM is indeed inherently evil. I do not. More to the point, I've seen your pseudo-objective post for what it is: nothing better than evangelism.

And of course I had fun drawing the parallel without ever honestly believing that you were indeed some sort of Nazi. My preferred response would have been to see I'd shocked you into really considering how what you said sounded. In its moral presumption, i see it as no better than any other ideology imposed upon a group. It appears I failed. cn


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 29, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I have read some genetics, and never have I encountered your value-judging terms: sovereignty, control, molestation. You are implying something both serious and (irreducibly/irredeemably) doctrinal: that human manipulation of genomes is evil. There isn't a biology or any other science of evil; that concept remains in the province of religion. I challenge and oppose this viewpoint as utterly unnecessary (in terms of its potential to advance the discussion) and very capable of harm (by imposing what amounts to a doctrinal taboo on an activity with tremendous potential). We cannot really discuss this fruitfully, since your position is one of faith. I was hoping you'd at least make the effort to provide insight into the basis for your beliefs, to try to convince me that these things you'd posted as fact (sovereignty, freedom from implicitly inappropriate control, GM is a sort of molestation) have in fact a compelling basis in reason. I don't think you can however. You seem to be making the basic mistakes of priests throughout the last fifteen (at least) thousand years: it is so because you damned well say so. Well I am not buying, and I doubt you will convince anyone who doesn't already share your visceral impression that GM is indeed inherently evil. I do not. More to the point, I've seen your pseudo-objective post for what it is: nothing better than evangelism. And of course I had fun drawing the parallel without ever honestly believing that you were indeed some sort of Nazi. My preferred response would have been to see I'd shocked you into really considering how what you said sounded. In its moral presumption, i see it as no better than any other ideology imposed upon a group. It appears I failed. cn


 Let me begin by saying my response you demanded of me. The definition I gave you is legitimate, look for yourself. Unmolested simply means not interfered with, unchanged, and/or unharmed. Your unquestioning faith is simplistic in a way when all it requires is to berate and negate. You "have no use for" further elaboration unless it is the answer you are fishing for. Your faith in the contrary is no different, by insulting me you attempt to imply my stance has no merit. However, I never said that GM is inherently evil, I spoke of caution and articulated respect for non gmo-foods. You are a reactionary plain and simple. When you preface your question as you did, you cannot feign interest in my process, you can marinate in convoluted hyperbole but the irony here is amazing. Hypocrisy is this level of dishonesty.....shame on you.


----------



## Figong (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Let me begin by saying my response you demanded of me. The definition I gave you is legitimate, look for yourself. Unmolested simply means not interfered with, unchanged, and/or unharmed. Your unquestioning faith is simplistic in a way when all it requires is to berate and negate. You "have no use for" further elaboration unless it is the answer you are fishing for. Your faith in the contrary is no different, by insulting me you attempt to imply my stance has no merit. However, I never said that GM is inherently evil, I spoke of caution and articulated respect for non gmo-foods. You are a reactionary plain and simple. When you preface your question as you did, you cannot feign interest in my process, you can marinate in convoluted hyperbole but the irony here is amazing. Hypocrisy is this level of dishonesty.....shame on you.


I'll counter with:


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 29, 2013)

I agree and realize that GMO exist in nature, it is evolutions' way. I see the impact you speak of but in terms of these crazy fucks and their hyperbolic gangbang I am just going to watch.


----------



## Doer (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Let me begin by saying my response you demanded of me. The definition I gave you is legitimate, look for yourself. Unmolested simply means not interfered with, unchanged, and/or unharmed. Your unquestioning faith is simplistic in a way when all it requires is to berate and negate. You "have no use for" further elaboration unless it is the answer you are fishing for. Your faith in the contrary is no different, by insulting me you attempt to imply my stance has no merit. However, I never said that GM is inherently evil, I spoke of caution and articulated respect for non gmo-foods. You are a reactionary plain and simple. When you preface your question as you did, you cannot feign interest in my process, you can marinate in convoluted hyperbole but the irony here is amazing. Hypocrisy is this level of dishonesty.....shame on you.


It is interesting how some can twist this into a personal fight and will not let go, jammed jaws. And the personal angst and acting put upon, the lashing out, it is not dis-smilar from Rap or Hip-Hop, or base Trolling.

Burger, if you tell me you actually believe we can demand anything from you....I'll tell you, you are trolling.


----------



## Doer (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I agree and realize that GMO exist in nature, it is evolutions' way. I see the impact you speak of but in terms of these crazy fucks and their hyperbolic gangbang I am just going to watch.


Well you can. It really is more an arena of ideas than a fight club. Best to watch until your head clears.

This forum is the most important thing we can experience, because it ruthlessly strips our self shit and leave us breathless. We fall for our own illusion that much of ourselves is important to these other Idea Icons. No.

I can't fight, but I can flee. I can only learn to be less personal with typed photons. So, I stay. Work it out.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 29, 2013)

Figong said:


> I'll counter with:


 You plagiarist moron. Graph warfare.....whats next an altered comic? a quote? do me a favor and see how smart you can pretend to be without Google. When I called you lazy, I didn't expect this sorry nonsense. Unless, you have something to say that isn't merely combative, you are a waste of time and space. Who are you?


----------



## Doer (Mar 29, 2013)

Well, if you are just pretending to be mad, that's one thing...


----------



## Figong (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> You plagiarist moron. Graph warfare.....whats next an altered comic? a quote? do me a favor and see how smart you can pretend to be without Google. When I called you lazy, I didn't expect this sorry nonsense. Unless, you have something to say that isn't merely combative, you are a waste of time and space. Who are you?


Plagiarism would imply that I claimed I did it, which I didn't. That said, put your retarded thesaurus down as you can't even grasp simple words. Graph warfare? No, a picture to explain your position vs the rest of the discussion. When did you call me lazy? I must have missed that as I haven't posted here in a bit. Do I really have to explain the picture to you, and how it relates to the subject?


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 29, 2013)

Semantics Doer..you get it.


----------



## Figong (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Boring.....the picture isn't yours. You are lazy. Make a statement!!!Answer a question!!!!Be creative!!!All I know about you is that you know how to copy and paste. Explain the picture, in its totality....please.....seriously.


No shit the pic isn't mine, we've already established that - please put down your crack pipe and stop repeating yourself, really. The reason I used the image was so I didn't have to try to use words to explain it as I highly doubted your comprehension level - as proven by the complete misuse of the word 'plagiarism'.  As for the pic, sorry.. I can't explain it in a safe fashion for me, my views and beliefs clash with your thought processes. We'd go in a circle - rest assured.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 29, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> Failure to submit to his Obviously Correct, and Unavoidable Wisdom defies his Mandate from Heaven, so he re-writes history to support his Glorious Dynasty. go back a few pages, and youll see a discussion wherin he demanded answers to his misconceptions and flawed assumptions, which he then countered with a bizarre screed about "Scientifically Proven" secrets of the Dao and claims that he has special knowledge regarding the secrets of the universe, received obviously through direct communion with the Celestial Emperor and the Jade Court. you must not question his imperial mejesty, for he has tasted the sweet nectar of the Peaches Of Immortality recieved from the hand of Ma Xing Wu, the Queen Mother Of The West, he has sat at the feet of Guan Yin, and learned the true nature of things, Studied the Eternal Sciences of Medicine with the Celestial Healer Qi Bo, and communed on the nature of plants and herbs with the Celestial Farmer Shen Nong, and absorbed the wit and wisdom of the Monkey King Sun Wu Kong. You see Daoism is not a religion, and how dare anyone claim it is! Daoism is scientific fact! Its totally proven, scientifically by scientists, and he would show us these scientific proofs, but it would Blow Our Minds, and nobody wants that, it's so messy. One must be ever respectful of such a great mind, and give him face. Failing to give face is proof that your filial piety is less than perfect, and tha t's just not allowed. Oh yeah, and you cannot discuss wacky moonbat conspiracy theories, because thats racist and insensitive, nor can you question his claims of the Sovereignty of Non-Human Life. He got that one in a Revelation from Nu Wa, the Goddess of The Sky. This forum exists as a vehicle for his Perfect Thoughts, which he disseminates in tiny doses as he deems us ready. Contrary views are forbidden.


 You are not ready........my way into light, in the dark here you pave. Behind this ugliness is only more. Next time use a shotgun.


----------



## Doer (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Semantics Doer..you get it.



Semantics? I don't know the meaning of semantics, semantically speaking. It's OK. You believe in the Divine Spark. Or whatever you may describe as your own inner creed.

And those that believe this and want to trade ideas with these other Icons, should understand that many here don't buy it. So, if you insist on this course of portraying personal slight at anothers' view, phrases, taunts or whatever, then you are off the top of the most excellent diagram with your self proclaimed belief. 

And it is OUR humble opinion that those that harbor belief may be the first to fight when the beliefs are challenged.

So, I don't think you are looking for respect. (I hope) And I really don't think honesty goes with combativeness. Yet, these self describing beliefs are very prone to that, seems to me.

If however, you are trolling; good one. Carry one.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 29, 2013)

Doer said:


> Semantics? I don't know the meaning of semantics, semantically speaking. It's OK. You believe in the Divine Spark. Or whatever you may describe as your own inner creed. And those that believe this and want to trade ideas with these other Icons, should understand that many here don't buy it. So, if you insist on this course of portraying personal slight at another's' view, phrases, taunts or whatever, then you are off the top of the most excellent diagram with your self proclaimed belief. And it is OUR humble opinion that those that harbor belief may be the first to fight when the beliefs are challenged. So, I don't think you are looking for respect. (I hope) And I really don't think honesty goes with combativeness. Yet, these self describling beliefs are very prone to that, seems to me. If however, you are trolling; good one. Carry one.


 I don't understand. What is the wisdom here? I am honest and am here to learn as well as discuss. Please rephrase, I want to hear. What is more important than here now? Believe it or not I am well trolled upon.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Let me begin by saying my response you demanded of me. The definition I gave you is legitimate, look for yourself. Unmolested simply means not interfered with, unchanged, and/or unharmed. Your unquestioning faith is simplistic in a way when all it requires is to berate and negate. You "have no use for" further elaboration unless it is the answer you are fishing for. Your faith in the contrary is no different, by insulting me you attempt to imply my stance has no merit. However, I never said that GM is inherently evil, I spoke of caution and articulated respect for non gmo-foods. You are a reactionary plain and simple. When you preface your question as you did, you cannot feign interest in my process, you can marinate in convoluted hyperbole but the irony here is amazing. Hypocrisy is this level of dishonesty.....shame on you.


And yet you have provided zero arguable basis for your belief that you presented as fact. If all you can do is deflect the argument by characterizing the arguer, we're done. 
I do not see how I have insulted you. That is a serious charge. Corroborate or retract; those are the two and only honorable choices. My opinion. cn


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 29, 2013)

This has gone too far, I am not interested in your ideas about my ideas. What began with respect, turned into whatever this is called and the me in reality has manners and finds this reprehensible. I apologize for my part and you are free to take it or leave it...if our paths are to cross in the future I hold no ill will and respectful dialogue is all that I would ask. I think the important aspect that we have all lost sight of is the freedom to speak the truth as we see it. The last statement is the one I see us agreeing on hopefully. Moving forward, we all could benefit from introspection, the dialog box is hard to see the complexity of the subject here and a lot was lost I am sure. Good Evening.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> This has gone too far, *I am not interested in your ideas about my ideas*. What began with respect, turned into whatever this is called and the me in reality has manners and finds this reprehensible. I apologize for my part and you are free to take it or leave it...if our paths are to cross in the future I hold no ill will and respectful dialogue is all that I would ask. I think the important aspect that we have all lost sight of is the freedom to speak the truth as we see it. The last statement is the one I see us agreeing on hopefully. Moving forward, may understanding one-day prevail. -Burger.


I can live with that.

However you've claimed I insulted you. 
My text is all here unedited.
Please show where or retract; that is a serious charge. Simply disengaging after you've fanned this fire is something I perceive as snide. 

You have also charged me with imposing my faith. Where have I done so? As far as I know, I've restricted myself to saying "I cannot derive what you say from objective first principles", and challenged you to produce the origin and development of your ideas. My premise is "Show me." I am looking for something more tangible than something visceral, nonrational. If I have exceeded that, I'm not seeing it. Again the burden is on you to back your claim up ... or acknowledge that you did the thing of which you accuse me.

As to the bolded: then why even post the post that began all this? We all learn by being challenged, and being put on the spot to either organize our thesis or modify it. I am interested in how you arrived at your position. Since it is a position for which i haven't been able to find an argument rooted in reason, I was hoping you'd "cowboy up" and teach me. It seems you're unwilling to do that, and in the past I have learned to equate such an abdication with an unwillingness to admit not having a cogent argument. Jmo. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 29, 2013)




----------



## cannabineer (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Nazi comparison's are insulting especially when you don't know who you are talking to. It gets to be anti-climactic when 6 others are taking what you say and bastardizing it. The above statement is not for just you. I choose to let this die. If you feel that your actions are not insulting that is your prerogative.


Then you choose the dishonor of not standing behind what you said. My opinion. cn


----------



## Figong (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Is this intended?????


No he's waxing metaphors.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 29, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Then you choose the dishonor of not standing behind what you said. My opinion. cn


 As do you for standing behind your posting.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> As do you for standing behind your posting.


If you can show that I am wrong, I invite that. However that would require that you post a response that is reasoned in a way that allows a reader to follow the deductive chain. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 29, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Dear Sir, have an ounce of class and just apologize for insinuating that I sounded like a Nazi. Moreover, to post such a picture on my wall is incredibly insulting. Dead relatives being trivialized does not get tolerated. Nazi assholes dissapear...you are a Nazi $#@[email protected] There is your chain.....hang yourself. You are wrong, when something you say/do offends.....that is it!!! No negotiation. For shame!!!


But with your talk of genetic purity an'all that, I'd be lying if I tendered an apology. You even admitted that [the way you stated the original premise] can be seen to sound like it. 
Saying you sound like a Nazi is not the same as saying you are one. Thoughtful folk don't need to be reminded of the distinction. 
As for offense, you are entirely responsible for choosing to be inappropriately offended. That doesn't make you the victim in this little drama. 

As for class, consider your response to what started with my drawing parallels between the language you chose to use and the language used by you-know-who. Your response is to call me a Nazi $#@[email protected], without qualification. Oh do instruct me more on behaving with class. cn


----------



## Apomixis (Mar 29, 2013)

Ok boys, disengage. It's done.

As for GE weed, is it more potent? Or is it a decepticon, a plant that carries with it an internal destruct code with which it shall genetically invade other herb in the vicinity....? This question needs parameters.


----------



## abandonconflict (Mar 29, 2013)




----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 30, 2013)

Apomixis said:


> Ok boys, disengage. It's done.
> 
> As for GE weed, is it more potent? Or is it a decepticon, a plant that carries with it an internal destruct code with which it shall genetically invade other herb in the vicinity....? This question needs parameters.


First, their is no GM weed, and will not be unless The Man drops the prohibition on the species, even industrial hemp is prohibited. sorta. 

Second, Terminator Genes are not in use, they still dont work right, and nobody has been able to make a plant that produces sterile seeds save by hybridization (see Triticale for an example)

Third, domestic crops cannot infect the natrual ecosphere since domesticated plants have no natural analog with which to exchange pollen. if there were a terminator seed variety of say, tomatoes, wheat corn soya barley or whatever, since these plants do not grow unless WE plant them and tend them, they would not run rampant. only weeds like star thistle, russian thistle (tumble weeds), dandelions, kudzu and other invasive species are a problem, and the state of california would pay FAT SACKS for a terminator pollen for star thistle or spurge. 

the question posed in the title and the OP is a deception.


----------



## DNAprotection (Mar 30, 2013)

abandonconflict said:


>



"Obama betrays America yet again by signing the 'Monsanto Protection Act' into law"

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039668_Monsanto_Protection_Act_Obama_deception_GMOs.html#ixzz2P2gIxYkz

Thursday, March 28, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

Excerpt:
"(NaturalNews) President Barack Obama campaigned on promises to end secret prisons, decriminalize marijuana, balance the budget, honor the Second Amendment and make health care affordable. But what really unfolded was an explosion in the national debt (now $16 trillion and climbing), the signing of the NDAA, a claimed new power to kill any American at any time, even on U.S. soil, the use of military drones to murder American children overseas, a full-on assault against the Bill of Rights, a doubling of health insurance rates and the destruction of the U.S. economy.

But that's not all.

Now Obama has signed the "Monsanto Protection Act" into law, stabbing America in the heart yet again and proving that no matter how convincing politicians appear on the campaign trail, they are still sociopathic liars in the end."

Bill Summary & Status
113th Congress (2013 - 2014)
H.R.933
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.933:


----------



## Doer (Mar 30, 2013)

Or, I could say, Obama avoided letting certain types of tree huggers betray America, by signing the Bill.

Just a point of view.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 30, 2013)

What is the actual title of the bill? "Monsanto Protection Act" is deliberately pejorative, tarring the entire act with the brush of one piratical firm. cn


----------



## Doer (Mar 30, 2013)

Of course it's not called that. And the only reason anyone reads these hate spew rags is to learn how to hate spew.

*H.R.933* 
*Latest Title:* Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 
*Sponsor: *Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] (introduced 3/4/2013) Cosponsors (None) 
*Related Bills:* H.RES.99, H.R.1265, S.444 
*Latest Major Action: * Became Public Law No: 113-6 [GPO: Text, PDF] 
*Note: *A House explanatory statement was printed in the March 6, 2013, Congressional Record, beginning on page H1029. A Senate explanatory statement was printed in the March 11, 2013, Congressional Record, beginning on page S1287. 

Someone search these links and show me even one mention of Monsanto. I could not find it. And I can't find anyone printing the specific provision of this Law that allows what is claimed.

Please show me the text, and I will judge it.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Mar 30, 2013)

Section 735. was a rider on H.R. 933.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 30, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> Section 735. was a rider on H.R. 933.


Care to perhaps quote it for us?


----------



## Doer (Mar 30, 2013)

H. R. 93335
SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of 

the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, 

notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, 

immediately grant emporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to

necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection 

Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation,

commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures 

designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the

Secretarys evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other 

users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized

activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim 

period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related

to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed 

as limiting the Secretarys authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 30, 2013)

Doer said:


> H. R. 933&#8212;35
> SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of
> 
> the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall,
> ...


lulz. i couldnt even find sec 735 in the version of the bill passed by the senate and house. 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:6:./temp/~c113JBzkV0:: this is the Enrolled Bill, as it will become law, and theres no sec.735 at all in the index. 

is this all bullshit or am i just to Easter Bunny Baked to see it? 

further the text you have provided doesnt grant immunity to monsanto or any company, it allows cultivators to apply for a waiver when a plant's regulatory status is in question so they can grow it until the issue is settled. 

thats the way our system works, if it's not ILLEGAL or the legality is in question, the assumption is that it is LEGAL. 

this section (if still in the bill) has Fuck All to do with monsanto. it's just more hyperbole and fearmongering.


edit, found it, it's in *Title IV*, under *General Provisions. *

im too high.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 30, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> "Obama betrays America yet again by signing the 'Monsanto Protection Act' into law"
> 
> Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039668_Monsanto_Protection_Act_Obama_deception_GMOs.html#ixzz2P2gIxYkz
> 
> ...


and again, instead of citing the evidence for your outrageous claims, you throw out more blogger's claims and eco-loon website assertions as "proof. 

the relevant section does not even appear to be in the link to the entire giant bill dealing with every facet of the government. 
you threw out wild accusations and then bumped a raw bill on our laps as if we should all read the thing, which you havent read, obviously, rather than the relevant portion. 

you assume nobody will sit down with a tumbler of whiskey and read the thing line by line, which is what i just had to do, and theres SHIT about legal protection for anyone, just waives for plant cultivars in regulatory limbo

youre full of shit.


----------



## Doer (Mar 30, 2013)

Yeah, I had to go to the top of Thomas and search for the bill. H. R. 933. Then get the Text. (down in the chooser boxes about in the middle of the row. I used .pdf to search for 735.

I checked and this is from the certified copy passed into Law.


----------



## Figong (Mar 30, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> and again, instead of citing the evidence for your outrageous claims, you throw out more blogger's claims and eco-loon website assertions as "proof.
> 
> the relevant section does not even appear to be in the link to the entire giant bill dealing with every facet of the government.
> you threw out wild accusations and then bumped a raw bill on our laps as if we should all read the thing, which you havent read, obviously, rather than the relevant portion.
> ...


Agreed, when the same mofo writes articles with subjects like this: "USDA agricultural census program is a covert surveillance operation to compile government database of food and farm assets" I can't help but wonder what the fuck he's smoking - he must have some really really good shit.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Mar 30, 2013)

Doer said:


> Yeah, I had to go to the top of Thomas and search for the bill. H. R. 933. Then get the Text. (down in the chooser boxes about in the middle of the row. I used .pdf to search for 735.
> 
> I checked and this is from the certified copy passed into Law.


since it's such a sweeping and devastating knife in the back of the eco-loon lobby i figured it should be in the index. but it's just a minor procedural change to grant waivers to farmers who wnat to grow a crop not regulated, but not declared Un-Regulated during the "we dont know" period of government deliberation.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 30, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> and again, instead of citing the evidence for your outrageous claims, you throw out more blogger's claims and eco-loon website assertions as "proof.
> 
> the relevant section does not even appear to be in the link to the entire giant bill dealing with every facet of the government.
> you threw out wild accusations and then bumped a raw bill on our laps as if we should all read the thing, which you havent read, obviously, rather than the relevant portion.
> ...


I'm pretty sure I said this in post #2 or #3...

(Of the "Monsanto Protection Act" thread apparently, I must be too baked to distinguish between these two piece of shit threads).


----------



## Doer (Mar 30, 2013)

I realize, as usual, it's the opposite of what the Luddites say it is. The same with DC vs Heller.

The truly stupid among the Earth First types would dearly love to ruin an entire crop season to make a point. And this is what our system is for. It's for WE, not the fringe Henny Pennys that MAKE MONEY from gloom and doom.

This is a new limit on the progressive judiciary to keep them from messing with cropping the food supply.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 30, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I'm pretty sure I said this in post #2 or #3...
> 
> (Of the "Monsanto Protection Act" thread apparently, I must be too baked to distinguish between these two piece of shit threads).


What you using? I'm not a indica guy, but damn this stuff called Granddaddy Purp was awesome. The flavor nice. It didn't couch lock me.

I need to grow me some. But I've no idea what to get. There's a few types, like: original, Bay 11, Candyland, Phantom Cookies and Ken's.

I usually HATE indica.


----------



## Harrekin (Mar 30, 2013)

Canna Sylvan said:


> What you using? I'm not a indica guy, but damn this stuff called Granddaddy Purp was awesome. The flavor nice. It didn't couch lock me.
> 
> I need to grow me some. But I've no idea what to get. There's a few types, like: original, Bay 11, Candyland, Phantom Cookies and Ken's.
> 
> I usually HATE indica.


This is mall dope but it seems sorta 50/50% indica/sativa. 

Iv got total "shampoo effect" going last few days tho, time is somewhat distorted and smaller details are messy. 

So overall, it's doing it job


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Mar 30, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> This is mall dope but it seems sorta 50/50% indica/sativa.
> 
> Iv got total "shampoo effect" going last few days tho, time is somewhat distorted and smaller details are messy.
> 
> So overall, it's doing it job


Wow, welcome to 1960, my brother.


----------



## Callisto (Apr 5, 2013)

that monk woman was kind of trippy but anyone can do that just fill your lungs up with air and you'll float while still breathing ....buoyancy


----------



## d4n (Apr 5, 2013)

Control the food and you control the world. Montsanto can suck my sweaty balls.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 5, 2013)

d4n said:


> Control the food and you control the world. Montsanto can suck my sweaty balls.


monsanto doesnt control food, they sell chemicals fertilizers pesticides and entirely optional GMO cultivars. 

why is this so hard for you guys to understand?


----------



## Doer (Apr 5, 2013)

And exactly how is that suppose to work.....are you standing up or laying down....damn there seems to be another detail I'm missing about how...who? Wha?


----------



## DNAprotection (Apr 19, 2013)

*March against Monsanto May 25th, 2013 *


[video=youtube;LICQCxq1FqU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=LICQCxq1FqU[/video]


----------



## Harrekin (Apr 19, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *March against Monsanto May 25th, 2013 *
> 
> 
> [video=youtube;LICQCxq1FqU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=LICQCxq1FqU[/video]


Oh look, GAYprotection is back...

*sigh*


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 19, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Oh look, GAYprotection is back...
> 
> *sigh*


and that whole retarded video didnt even try to make a single claim, save the entirely ridiculous assertion that protecting farmer's crops in the field = protecting monsanto... 


why bother even making claims now, the Troof is so obvious to all. 

and who wouldnt trust bill maher, danny devito and dave mathews. they got like all kinds of science degrees and real world experience in agriculture and nutritions right?


----------



## Figong (Apr 20, 2013)

Any have a genetics lab handy?


----------



## Harrekin (Apr 20, 2013)

Figong said:


> Any have a genetics lab handy?


Should I ever become rich I'll start one, I'll call it the DNAprotection Institute.


----------



## slade122 (Apr 23, 2013)

Grow any seed, monsanto vs organic, and you will see the difference. Sure, monsanto may provide you more stable genetics, however I find that the qualities on non-monsanto plants are weaker and less productive than other varieties I have grown. Take for example my Jalapenos, most people have a problem finding hot (6,000-8,000 scoville units) jalapenos. It is common for HOT jalapenos to "crack" leaving white marks all over the jalapeno, however I have found that the majority of jalapenos are relatively mild. I believe that you can expect the same from monsanto, stable genetics, but less potent strains. 8 generations are required in order to obtain stable genetics, and monsanto has provided this. However, I get better results from websites such as seeds of change, as so on. Yes, my jalapenos may be smaller, but they pack much for a punch which people have begun to look for. I believe the same would happen to marijuanna, yes the strains would be available and more dependant, however they would lack the strength and productivity when compared to other strains of the same type of plant. Attached an image of a "cracked" jalapeno.
http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss333/organic_dusty/DSCN2139.jpg


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 24, 2013)

slade122 said:


> Grow any seed, monsanto vs organic, and you will see the difference. Sure, monsanto may provide you more stable genetics, however I find that the qualities on non-monsanto plants are weaker and less productive than other varieties I have grown. Take for example my Jalapenos, most people have a problem finding hot (6,000-8,000 scoville units) jalapenos. It is common for HOT jalapenos to "crack" leaving white marks all over the jalapeno, however I have found that the majority of jalapenos are relatively mild. I believe that you can expect the same from monsanto, stable genetics, but less potent strains. 8 generations are required in order to obtain stable genetics, and monsanto has provided this. However, I get better results from websites such as seeds of change, as so on. Yes, my jalapenos may be smaller, but they pack much for a punch which people have begun to look for. I believe the same would happen to marijuanna, yes the strains would be available and more dependant, however they would lack the strength and productivity when compared to other strains of the same type of plant. Attached an image of a "cracked" jalapeno.
> http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss333/organic_dusty/DSCN2139.jpg


yes, poorly cultivated peppers can develop "stretch marks" from irregular watering and excessive heat. 

this is NOT due to genetics. my peppers dont crack, craze split or get stretchmarks, except during the crazy heatwave year before last, with 5 weeks of 110+ heat. 

water more regularly and shade your peppers during the extreme heat waves with sun netting, and those striations wont appear.

as far as monsanto peppers being less spicy, thats nothing new. most pepper cultivars are trending less spicy, by design.

http://dmedia.ucsc.edu/~bsharris/film 170a/proj3/monsanto/monsanto/layout/featured/pr.html

read this and note they are BREEDING new varieties, not genetically modifying them, and they are striving for a milder pepper in general, while looking for some real hot shit to scorch your butt. 

they say they cant find hot ass peppers, but they should hit up my buddy's abuelita. her jalapenos will tear the ass out of you. i grow poblanos, golden bananas, and jalpenos myself, but im not looking for scorchers. 

i grow mild ones that sell good, not the niche market peppers for masochists.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 24, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Should I ever become rich I'll start one, I'll call it the DNAprotection Institute.


all i can see is bill clinton and a stained blue dress...


----------



## streets8r88 (May 3, 2013)

All I can say is if monsanto took over cannabis then you better make sure you stalk up your seed reserves. They'd prob make cannabis worse and start to cause medical problems among users just to keep the penalties as they are federally. Billions of dollars does interesting things.. especially them tax dollars we spend...


----------



## Doer (May 4, 2013)

streets8r88 said:


> All I can say is if monsanto took over cannabis then you better make sure you stalk up your seed reserves. They'd prob make cannabis worse and start to cause medical problems among users just to keep the penalties as they are federally. Billions of dollars does interesting things.. especially them tax dollars we spend...


probably this and probably that and probably you don't know

"took over cannabis........" impossible


----------



## Harrekin (May 4, 2013)

Doer said:


> probably this and probably that and probably you don't know
> 
> "took over cannabis........" impossible


His "stalk up on seeds" pun was good tho, regardless of whether he intended it or not.

The rest is grammatically poor and uninteresting. 

Why won't this thread just die?


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 4, 2013)

streets8r88 said:


> All I can say is if monsanto took over cannabis then you better make sure you stalk up your seed reserves. They'd prob make cannabis worse and start to cause medical problems among users just to keep the penalties as they are federally. Billions of dollars does interesting things.. especially them tax dollars we spend...


???? 

yeah cuz monsanto will destroy the dutch seed collectives, eliminate Herbies seed shoppe, and murder DJ Short in his dope bunker.... 

thats how they roll, assasination squads, and predatory mergers and buyouts, thats why you cant buy any pesticide, herbicide, seed or fertilizer not manufactured by monsanto. 

thats why Dow Chemicals, Garden and Bloom and BASF are all out of business!

ohh wait...


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 4, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> His "stalk up on seeds" pun was good tho, regardless of whether he intended it or not.
> 
> The rest is grammatically poor and uninteresting.
> 
> Why won't this thread just die?


cuz monsanto UC Davis and the CIA genetically engineered this thread making it immune to logic, and common sense. 

and i bet Boooosh is involved too.


----------



## Harrekin (May 4, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> cuz monsanto UC Davis and the CIA genetically engineered this thread making it immune to logic, and common sense.
> 
> and i bet Boooosh is involved too.


Iv decided this thread needs to be preserved for the lulz. 

Iv realised that sverytime GAYprotection posts it's gives me a chuckle, and those are in short supply since Dumbo won the election.


----------



## Doer (May 5, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> ????
> 
> yeah cuz monsanto will destroy the dutch seed collectives, eliminate Herbies seed shoppe, and murder DJ Short in his dope bunker....
> 
> ...


What about killer doom seeds that turn us all into happy zombies....oh wait. We have that!


----------



## streets8r88 (May 5, 2013)

What I referred to is that Monsanto would attempt to dominate cannabis all the same as they have with nearly every other crop in the United States. For example, pollen control is impossible outdoors, and in just a short amount of time can spread genetically modified traits to perfectly healthy and all natural plants. For all you arguers out there, go argue with the farmers that have been sued by Monsanto for having Monsanto's patented genetics in their organic crops which was only caused due to uncontrollable gene spreading. Personally I feel genetic engineering should take place only in completely beneficial circumstances. Such as adding nutrients to specific crops whereas the people in the region are suffering from nutrient deficiencies.


----------



## Doer (May 5, 2013)

OK, I like when you talk adult talk. So, I can converse with you now. In this thread myself, the poet cowboy and some others have totally de-bunked everything you said in this example of a well worded post. Sentence by sentence you are factully incorrect and it's all in this thread.

Let me just say, if you have something I want and I signed a Royalty agreement with you....

if I decide to cheat, YOU will sue me. If stole your music or stole your idea, I owe you.

Get some facts, and not just beat the tom-tom. We have been through this in detail.


----------



## Harrekin (May 5, 2013)

Doer said:


> OK, I like when you talk adult talk. So, I can converse with you now. In this thread myself, the poet cowboy and some others have totally de-bunked everything you said in this example of a well worded post. Sentence by sentence you are factully incorrect and it's all in this thread.
> 
> Let me just say, if you have something I want and I signed a Royalty agreement with you....
> 
> ...


Tl;dr version:

You're wrong, read back through the thread to find out why.


----------



## Doer (May 5, 2013)

Woops, sorry...

Hark, myself, the cowboy and others have.....

My bad...


----------



## streets8r88 (May 5, 2013)

Im not trying to prove anyone wrong about anything. Just throwing out my 2 cents for the record board cause I feel this is something to actually discuss with people. I'm sure there are ways to correctly modify the gene structure, but testing our ability to shouldn't be done on our world food supply, or cannabis for that matter. The people that opt for cannabis eradication don't need any reasons to suddenly spring up concern to completely outlaw cannabis. Some people already believe it's worse than alcohol and that too much can kill a person. Sad but true. In my opinion, making cannabis stronger or accidentally messing up the gene structure in a negative way that can cause cancers or diseases would make all the more reason for concern about cannabis to rise. There is evidence lately of all this genetically modified food we've been eating to be a reason that there have been so many diseases and illnesses discovered in the last 50 years. Also we have been finding that many countries that have been isolated from the world and suddenly introduced to western foods have started to have diseases, cancers, and illnesses that were never previously a problem. I find it very interesting. There is a lot of evidence showing negative feedback about genetically modified food.


----------



## streets8r88 (May 5, 2013)

This all reminded me of Monsanto's latest and greatest idea that they've been working on. If I remember correctly they want to make a genetic modification that eliminates the reproduction of their seeds so that once grown and harvested, the plant will die and not be able to reproduce whatsoever. It just sounds like a disaster from the start..


----------



## Doer (May 5, 2013)

Well, we discuss facts. Those are opinions. Bring beef. From what we can tell the entire thing is....nothing.
No tempest, no tea pot. But, we have seen this.

Hand wringing, fear, doubt, broad claims, broad hate, uncertainty and most weird linking to the earth mother or whatever, interfering with the divine will of the plant species....all opinion. 

Bring something...are we suppose to say, yeah man, right on? That demon monsanto, you can imagine, I can imagine, it is well known, everyone knows, studies show, there have been hints, links, evidence will probably show, without a doubt a cover up.....STOP ME!!!!


----------



## Harrekin (May 6, 2013)

streets8r88 said:


> This all reminded me of Monsanto's latest and greatest idea that they've been working on. If I remember correctly they want to make a genetic modification that eliminates the reproduction of their seeds so that once grown and harvested, the plant will die and not be able to reproduce whatsoever. It just sounds like a disaster from the start..


If they don't produce seeds or pollen, where is the risk of contaminating native species?


----------



## Doer (May 6, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> If they don't produce seeds or pollen, where is the risk of contaminating native species?


It doesn't matter if there is no way to spread the genes. That would be logic. Can't have logic.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 6, 2013)

streets8r88 said:


> What I referred to is that Monsanto would attempt to dominate cannabis all the same as they have with nearly every other crop in the United States. For example, pollen control is impossible outdoors, and in just a short amount of time can spread genetically modified traits to perfectly healthy and all natural plants. For all you arguers out there, go argue with the farmers that have been sued by Monsanto for having Monsanto's patented genetics in their organic crops which was only caused due to uncontrollable gene spreading. Personally I feel genetic engineering should take place only in completely beneficial circumstances. Such as adding nutrients to specific crops whereas the people in the region are suffering from nutrient deficiencies.


point 1 ) the only persons monsanto sued successfully are persons who planted saved seeds from a monsanto crop with the specific intent of selling those seeds to others for a profit, in direct violation of the contract they signed when they first planted the seeds in question. the very very few people who monsanto sued over windblown pollen were exonerated in the courts. monsanto can no longer bring nuisance lolsuits over wind blown pollen. 

point 2 ) monsanto does not "dominate" any crop anywhere. most crops planted in the US are NON-GMO cultivars. most soya is NON GMO, most corn is NON GMO, most rape is NON GMO... you see the point. the fools who make their money by convincing you that youre health is in danger if you dont buy their super expensive "Organic Heirloom Small Batch Artisinal Wheat" are LYING TO YOU FOR PROFIT! 

point 3 ) with VERY few exceptions (blackberry, elderberry, blueberry, cranberry aronia etc...) crop plants do NOT have a wild counterpart with which to exchange pollen. there are no wild carrot groves or great untamed corn and soya savannahs to receive this gmo pollen, and the few crops which do have wild counterparts are not at risk since these crops are grown as a "Monoculture" which successfully separates the crops from the wild plants. 

point 3 ) Organic. you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means... "Organic" farms are not located in proximity to the vast feilds and holdings of ADM IGA and the other large growers who use GMO crops. "Organic" farmers also do not usually save seeds from their previous crop to replant, thus the evils of GMO pollen have no effect on their crops. 

point 4 ) the "diseases" that you have been told are caused by GMO foods are in fact the sorts of illnesses you find when people suddenly have enough food to get fat (diabetes) or fail to die at 30 because they now have clean water, good food and an overall reduction in insect borne pathogens. when populations get older on average they naturally have more diseases. also, those with diseases dont die with good nutrition and proper medical care, thus they can get more diseases or need long term care for the persistent ones. the increase in availability of food and medical care is the source of the "poor health" that you are blaming on GMO foods. if we all went back to a "Natural Organic Lifestyle" we would once again all die around 30-35, from dysentery cholera, malaria and malnutrition, but on the upside, social security would not be bankrupt. 

point 5 ) the crops which were genetically modified to increase nutrition and add vital vitamins and minerals to a staple food (like Golden Rice) have been rejected in many nations due to the fearmongers who gave you your information about GMO's telling the starving people that the GMO foods (like Golden Rice) were POISON, or would sterilize them as part of a madcap eugenics program. stop listening to liars, they only give you lies. 

point 6 ) the american diet is pretty fucked up, and Processed Foods will kill you but it takes like 30 years to do it. these foods will kill you whether your Peperoni Pizza Hotpockets, Ring Dings or Frozen Green Chile Burritos contain GMO components or not. it's the fats, sugars, salt and preservatives that fuck you up. if you eat shit with "Textured Vegetable Protein" (processed soya paste) it doesnt matter a bit if the soya was a GMO before processing or not. ask a nutritionist (a real one, not a dirty hippie) and they will tell you the same thing. eat good food, get good health. eat shit food, get shit health, and GMO products will never figure into it (except maybe the BT products, which are NOT approved for human consumption, or animal feed, research is ongoing...)


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 6, 2013)

streets8r88 said:


> This all reminded me of Monsanto's latest and greatest idea that they've been working on. If I remember correctly they want to make a genetic modification that eliminates the reproduction of their seeds so that once grown and harvested, the plant will die and not be able to reproduce whatsoever. It just sounds like a disaster from the start..


youre talking about "terminator" seeds. 

they produce sterile seeds, but the seeds are present (in most crops the seed is the food...) 
the fearmongers express their fear that "Terminator" pollen will blow from a farm field into the nearby woodlands and national forests, causing the native groves of soybeans to produce sterile seeds and thus die off, or the pollen might destabilize the ecosytem of the verdant meadows of wild carrots and potatoes, resulting in the extinction of the native Bell Pepper forests and Tomato bogs. 

think about it...

plus trerminator seeds arent even available yet, nobody has figured out how to make them work. you still get 30% viable seeds with the most effective versions, and thats not worth the investment, since you could just save 4 seeds and get a new plant. 

and furthermore, some normal Non-GMO hybrid plants (triticale comes to mind) naturally produce sterile seeds. if you want to grow triticale you HAVE to buy seeds from a seed producer every year.


----------



## streets8r88 (May 6, 2013)

Not everything I said is opinion. I know what I typed to be factual information that science has uncovered, I don't throw bs up in the air just to watch some shit hit a fan. I gave up on giving citations to people long ago cause even if I did give you hard factual information you still would try to say I'm wrong. Its all good cause you're entitled an opinion as well. But instead of trying to pick apart my post and trying to be dicks, throw out some facts as evidence to why Monsanto should be allowed to do what they do. Monsanto has become a seed monopoly and at least 70% of agriculture in the U.S. contains a form of their genetic modifications. This isn't just random bullshit. This is hard truth that people don't want to hear. Farmers get harassed by Monsanto everyday. If they aren't using Monsanto's seeds, they are getting harassed. Fact. Not to mention that the farmers that refuse to go with Monsanto aren't allowed to be seen (in public at least) with any of their friends or former farmers that do use Monsanto seeds. Monsanto will and has started up law suits on these farmers with the motive that their customers are breaking their contract and possibly not using Monsanto seeds. As I said, Monsanto is a seed monopoly in the world today. Fact.


----------



## streets8r88 (May 6, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> point 1 ) the only persons monsanto sued successfully are persons who planted saved seeds from a monsanto crop with the specific intent of selling those seeds to others for a profit, in direct violation of the contract they signed when they first planted the seeds in question. the very very few people who monsanto sued over windblown pollen were exonerated in the courts. monsanto can no longer bring nuisance lolsuits over wind blown pollen.


Lol so you're gonna tell me that bringing someone to court and making them pay tens of thousands of dollars that they can't afford is perfectly acceptable? Whether a case has been won or lost, a farmer can't afford legal fees and lawyers. They already struggle as it is from not getting subsidies by just "giving in" and using Monsanto seeds. Monsanto bullies people. Thats just how it is.


----------



## streets8r88 (May 6, 2013)

If I had time to sit around and type out an essay, I would. Everything in your response Dr. Kynes is completely debatable and more just opinionated information that you are using to try and show the world that I'm making up bullshit information. For example, there are actually very many organically grown crops within a very close proximity to Monsanto seed grown crops. I've seen it with my own two eyes. Most farmers will actually grow both organic, as well as non-organic crops within close proximity to each other. I'm not getting organic confused. Organic simply refers to the way the crop is grown. Not the crop itself. But the pollen spreading aspect you are looking at is, as long one plant is X distance from another, they're fine. Not the case. Just pollen from cannabis can travel miles and miles. Wind can take the pollen anywhere. It's uncontrollable. I've only skimmed the surface when it comes to this stuff. There's also tons of anecdotal evidence from farmers that do grow organic and non-organic that genetically modified crops push away nature. Meaning animals stay away from it, bees and insects stay away from it, animals will even actually refuse to eat certain genetically modified crops. And it's been shown in research studies. Before the U.S. knew about radiation, nuclear weapons were perfectly safe. People hanging out on a deserted island watching nukes go off.. Basically you're telling me that you'd rather us go the same route once again with something that we don't know for sure is safe just to see what happens. If there is a correlation between medical problems and genetically modified food at all then there should really be a more thorough investigation and it should be put on hold until proven safe. People aren't test dummies and shouldn't be treated as them. Period.


----------



## GreenSummit (May 6, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> point 2 ) monsanto does not "dominate" any crop anywhere. most crops planted in the US are NON-GMO cultivars. most soya is NON GMO, most corn is NON GMO, most rape is NON GMO... you see the point. the fools who make their money by convincing you that youre health is in danger if you dont buy their super expensive "Organic Heirloom Small Batch Artisinal Wheat" are LYING TO YOU FOR PROFIT!


I hope you dont really believe this. It's fairly common knowledge now that 85% of US soy is GM. Not to mention everything else. Just keep living in your hole and everything will be ok.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 6, 2013)

streets8r88 said:


> Not everything I said is opinion. I know what I typed to be factual information that science has uncovered, I don't throw bs up in the air just to watch some shit hit a fan. I gave up on giving citations to people long ago cause even if I did give you hard factual information you still would try to say I'm wrong. Its all good cause you're entitled an opinion as well. But instead of trying to pick apart my post and trying to be dicks, throw out some facts as evidence to why Monsanto should be allowed to do what they do. Monsanto has become a seed monopoly and at least 70% of agriculture in the U.S. contains a form of their genetic modifications. This isn't just random bullshit. This is hard truth that people don't want to hear. Farmers get harassed by Monsanto everyday. If they aren't using Monsanto's seeds, they are getting harassed. Fact. Not to mention that the farmers that refuse to go with Monsanto aren't allowed to be seen (in public at least) with any of their friends or former farmers that do use Monsanto seeds. Monsanto will and has started up law suits on these farmers with the motive that their customers are breaking their contract and possibly not using Monsanto seeds. As I said, Monsanto is a seed monopoly in the world today. Fact.






streets8r88 said:


> Lol so you're gonna tell me that bringing someone to court and making them pay tens of thousands of dollars that they can't afford is perfectly acceptable? Whether a case has been won or lost, a farmer can't afford legal fees and lawyers. They already struggle as it is from not getting subsidies by just "giving in" and using Monsanto seeds. Monsanto bullies people. Thats just how it is.






streets8r88 said:


> If I had time to sit around and type out an essay, I would. Everything in your response Dr. Kynes is completely debatable and more just opinionated information that you are using to try and show the world that I'm making up bullshit information. For example, there are actually very many organically grown crops within a very close proximity to Monsanto seed grown crops. I've seen it with my own two eyes. Most farmers will actually grow both organic, as well as non-organic crops within close proximity to each other. I'm not getting organic confused. Organic simply refers to the way the crop is grown. Not the crop itself. But the pollen spreading aspect you are looking at is, as long one plant is X distance from another, they're fine. Not the case. Just pollen from cannabis can travel miles and miles. Wind can take the pollen anywhere. It's uncontrollable. I've only skimmed the surface when it comes to this stuff. There's also tons of anecdotal evidence from farmers that do grow organic and non-organic that genetically modified crops push away nature. Meaning animals stay away from it, bees and insects stay away from it, animals will even actually refuse to eat certain genetically modified crops. And it's been shown in research studies. Before the U.S. knew about radiation, nuclear weapons were perfectly safe. People hanging out on a deserted island watching nukes go off.. Basically you're telling me that you'd rather us go the same route once again with something that we don't know for sure is safe just to see what happens. If there is a correlation between medical problems and genetically modified food at all then there should really be a more thorough investigation and it should be put on hold until proven safe. People aren't test dummies and shouldn't be treated as them. Period.


i wasnt trying to be a dick, nor was i "picking apart your post" to prove anything. you make several common remarks which are untrue, but are widely repeated by the anti-GMO crowd. the Anti-GMO crowd has been plastering the interwebs with disinformation and wild claims for years, and what im doin is telling you the truth. the truth may require the dismantling of some preconceptions, but it's still the truth. monsanto sells a lot of seeds, but they dont have the dominant position in any one crop, not even GMO's, which is their wheelhouse. 

saying "it's common knowledge" and "its a known fact" and "FACT" doesnt make opinions into facts, and you have been fed a line of bullshit. 

soya production is a large scale agricultural endeavor, and many large scale growers like ADM and IGA use GMO cultivars, but many others do NOT. many smaller soya growers, contract farmers and some of the middleweight conglomerated dont use GMO's since they dont pay out until you have hundreds of thousands of acres under your plow. 

http://knowledge.allianz.com/environment/food_water/?500/gm-crops-facts-and-figures

according to this site which is fairly balanced and pretty accurate (in my opinion), globally, just 7% of cultivated land is used to grow GMO crops of all sorts. of that 7%, 53% were gmo so we can round the numbers for the math challenged and say 10% of all tillage is GMO (90% being NOT GMO) and half of that GMO tillage is soya... since monsanto does not have the GMO soya market cornered, they only represent about 60-70% of the GMO soya, making a grand total of about 3% of the global tillage as GMO soya. in the eco-naut blog-press,the math doesnt work, and even the 53% of soya being GMO is just an estimate, since GMO cultivars are not used for edemame, or roasted soya nuts, or bean curd production etc... most GMNO soy goes to livestock feed, textured vegetable protien, and biofuels. 

most of the maize grown worldwide is NON-GMO, nearly all of the tomatoes potatoes rice wheat, barley, etc are non-gmo, and NONE of the fresh produce you find in the supermarket is GMO. try and find you some GMO lettuce. youll have to grow it yourself if you can get the seeds. 

listen to farmers if you wanna know more about agriculture, not bloggers. 

.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 6, 2013)

GreenSummit said:


> I hope you dont really believe this. It's fairly common knowledge now that 85% of US soy is GM. Not to mention everything else. Just keep living in your hole and everything will be ok.


common knowlege? like if you ask "are you a cop" the undercover cops have to admit it, or theres a "dark side" to the moon, or justin beiber has some talent?

yeah. "Common Knowledge" is just another word for "Baseless Claims"


----------



## echelon1k1 (May 6, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i wasnt trying to be a dick, nor was i "picking apart your post" to prove anything. listen to farmers if you wanna know more about agriculture, not bloggers.


so true... Just don't listen to has-been farmers with no farm, who have been "out worked" by illegal immigrants...

So in other words, disregard everything israel kynes has to say, you'll be smarter for it...


----------



## chronictre (May 6, 2013)

People argue that we "are nature".

I'd like to argue that if humans weren't a part of this earth, it would be a beautiful, unpolluted, amazing place. The human race and technology wrecked this planet.

So I don't agree that we are nature, because if we were removed from the situation, the planet would flourish. We are a disease on the face of this planet, and you call yourself nature? hahahahah.


----------



## chronictre (May 6, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> common knowlege? like if you ask "are you a cop" the undercover cops have to admit it, or theres a "dark side" to the moon, or justin beiber has some talent?
> 
> yeah. "Common Knowledge" is just another word for "Baseless Claims"


The only reason US citizens don't know the exact contamination, is because Obama signed the Monsanto protection act into law. They don't need to label anything, therefore successfully selling us GM poison without anyones consent.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 6, 2013)

chronictre said:


> The only reason US citizens don't know the exact contamination, is because Obama signed the Monsanto protection act into law. They don't need to label anything, therefore successfully selling us GM poison without anyones consent.


the "monsanto protection act" has nothing top do with labeling, nor monsanto, nor the protection of monsanto.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 6, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> so true... Just don't listen to has-been farmers with no farm, who have been "out worked" by illegal immigrants...
> 
> So in other words, disregard everything israel kynes has to say, you'll be smarter for it...


is that the best you can do? 

calling me a jew, and snickering because my family lost my grandfather's farm because "he didnt build that" when he most demonstrably DID build it?

youre a sad little cane toad.


----------



## echelon1k1 (May 6, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> is that the best you can do?
> 
> calling me a jew, and snickering because my family lost my grandfather's farm because "he didnt build that" when he most demonstrably DID build it?
> 
> youre a sad little cane toad.


No that's called karma, because god doesn't like you either....

Keep acting like the GM lobbies "bought-little-bitch" and parroting what insurance companies, of all people, say.

Here's your cue AJ - go for it....


----------



## Canna Sylvan (May 7, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> No that's called karma, because god doesn't like you either....
> 
> Keep acting like the GM lobbies "bought-little-bitch" and parroting what insurance companies, of all people, say.
> 
> Here's your cue AJ - go for it....


Be nice! All of us need to band together so we can dethrone the King of the Wiggers.


----------



## DNAprotection (May 7, 2013)

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/04/butter-salt-a-side-of-poison-how-to-protect-your-family-from-monsanto-genetically-modified-foods-marylee-fairbanks/

(excerpt from above link)

Here are a few things to do that will keep you and your family safer. Bring this list of GMO products when you are shopping and share it with everyone you can. Stop supporting the companies that put profits ahead of the consumers well being.
*Buy Organic*
Certified organics are not allowed to contain any GMO. Fruits and vegetables have a number code on them organic always starts with the number nine.
Keep GMOs out of your home garden. There are lots of places online that you can order organic seeds and ask at your local nursery where they got their seeds.
Dont be fooled by the deceiving catch phrases: whole grain, all natural, select harvest and real fruit.
*Avoid:*
Soy Lecithin is considered GMO, and sweeteners like aspartame, NutraSweet and Equal are derived from GM microorganisms. These ingredients are found in over 6000 products.
Eat less meat and make sure dairy products are free from antibiotics.
*Never Buy:*
*Aunt Jemima*
*Aurora Foods*
*Balance Bar*
*Banquet*
*Best Foods*
*Betty Crocker*
*Birds Eye*
*Bisquick*
*Boca Burger*
*Cadbury/Sweppes*
*Calumet Baking Powder*
*Campbells*
*Capri Sun*
*Carnation*
*Celeste*
*Cheetos*
*Chef Boyardee*
*Chunky*
*Coca-Cola *
*Colombo*
*Con Agra *
*Country Time*
*Crisco*
*Crystal Light*
*Delicious*
*Del Monte*
*Dinty Moore*
*Dole*
*Doritos*
*Duncan Hines*
*Eggo Waffles*
*Famous Amos*
*Franco-American*
*Frappuccino*
*Frito Lay*
*Fruitopia*
*Gardenburger (unless organic)*
*Gatorade*
*General Mills*
*Ghirardelli Chocolate*
*Graham Crackers*
*Green Giant*
*Hansen Beverage Company *
*Hawaiian Punch*
*Healthy Choice*
*Healthy Request*
*Heinz*
*Hellmans *
*Hersheys *
*HI-C*
*Holsum*
*Honey Maid*
*Hormel*
*Hostess *
*Hungry Jack*
*Hunts*
*Interstate Bakeries*
*Jiffy*
*Kc Masterpiece*
*Keebler *
*Kelloggs: *
*Kids Cuisine*
*Knorr*
*Kraft: ALL condiments and dressings*
*Kool-Aid*
*Land O Lakes*
*Lays Ruffles*
*Lean Cuisine*
*Libbys*
*Life Saver*
*Lipton *
*Loma Lindia*
*Marie Callenders*
*Mazola*
*Minute Maid*
*Morningstar Farms (unless organic line)*
*Ms. Butterworths *
*Nabisco*
*Nature Valley*
*Near East*
*Nestea*
*Nestle*
*Nilla Wafers*
*Nutter Butter*
*Ocean Spray*
*Old El Paso*
*Oreos*
*Ore-Ida*
*Orville Redenbacher*
*Pace*
*Pam*
*Parmalat*
*Pepperidge Farm *
*Pepsi *
*Peter Pan*
*Phillip Morris*
*Pillsbury*
*Pinnacle Foods*
*Pop Secret*
*Post*
*Power Bar*
*Preformed*
*Prego *
*Pringles*
*Procter and Gamble*
*Progresso Soups*
*Quaker *
*Ragu*
*Rice-Roni *
*Ritz*
*Rosetto Frozen Pasta*
*Simply Home*
*Skippy*
*Smart Ones*
*Smuckers: unless labeled Simply 100% Fruit *
*Snack Wells *
*SoBe*
*Sorrento*
*Stagg*
*Stouffers*
*Sunny Delight*
*Swanson*
*Tang*
*Teddy Grahams*
*The Countrys Best Yoghurt*
*Toblerone*
*Tombstone Pizza*
*Tostitos*
*Totinos*
*Triscuit*
*Tropicana*
*Uncle Bens*
*Unilever*
*V8*
*Voila*
*Wheat Thins*
*Baby foods: Beech-nut, Enfamil, Good start, Nestle, Similac, Isomil*
*Bonus: Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
Read more: Why dont we like GMOs?
And more: 5 Myths about Genetically Engineered Foods. {Infographic}*


----------



## Doer (May 7, 2013)

streets8r88 said:


> Not everything I said is opinion. I know what I typed to be factual information that science has uncovered, I don't throw bs up in the air just to watch some shit hit a fan. I gave up on giving citations to people long ago cause even if I did give you hard factual information you still would try to say I'm wrong. Its all good cause you're entitled an opinion as well. But instead of trying to pick apart my post and trying to be dicks, throw out some facts as evidence to why Monsanto should be allowed to do what they do. Monsanto has become a seed monopoly and at least 70% of agriculture in the U.S. contains a form of their genetic modifications. This isn't just random bullshit. This is hard truth that people don't want to hear. Farmers get harassed by Monsanto everyday. If they aren't using Monsanto's seeds, they are getting harassed. Fact. Not to mention that the farmers that refuse to go with Monsanto aren't allowed to be seen (in public at least) with any of their friends or former farmers that do use Monsanto seeds. Monsanto will and has started up law suits on these farmers with the motive that their customers are breaking their contract and possibly not using Monsanto seeds. As I said, Monsanto is a seed monopoly in the world today. Fact.


Should? That is a legal term. You don't know anything about Corp. motives. I told you the suits are about breaking contracts these farmers signed in the USA. You aren't bringing facts. You bring earth first type assumptions. Your entire lingo is slanted. 

Why should you get to talk? Oh right. Constitutional protections same as Monsanto. It is a public company owned and staff by WE the people.

So, stop underlining your ignorance.

Please tell me what a worldwide seed monoply would look like, in detail.....you have no idea, do you? It's bullshit,. that is why.

IMO, in the great Golden State, buying organic is your ticket to salmonellae poisoning.

It is a bunch of dipshits, like we see on this forum, picking their asses while they "wash" the food.


----------



## Doer (May 7, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/04/butter-salt-a-side-of-poison-how-to-protect-your-family-from-monsanto-genetically-modified-foods-marylee-fairbanks/
> 
> (excerpt from above link)


A big FAT LIE. This will not keep your family *safe*. Such fear based shit, you should be ashamed.


----------



## echelon1k1 (May 7, 2013)

Doer said:


> A big FAT LIE. This will not keep your family *safe*. Such fear based shit, you should be ashamed.


Again, da fuck you talking about?
Yeah better get some guns then... Moron


----------



## DNAprotection (May 8, 2013)

*Official version of the Law as of May 6th is Here*
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/pressroom/docs/proposal_aphp_en.pdf

_This article appeared at __OccupyMonsanto360.org_

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_propagation_material/review_eu_rules/index_en.htm

(excerpt)
The Commission is reviewing EU legislation on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material (SPPM) consisting of 12 basic acts.
Many date back to the 60s and 70s. Priorities have changed since as food safety, traceability, new technologies and environmental aspects have become more central. EU enlargement has also required more adequate legal instruments to regulate marketing of SPPM.


http://www.activistpost.com/2013/05/all-about-new-eu-seed-law.html
*Tuesday, May 7, 2013*

*All About The New EU Seed Law*


Fritz Kreiss
*Activist Post*
(excerpt)
Well, what a hectic week. Everyone we know has been lobbying hard, and thanks to the hundreds of thousands of people who have been emailing and writing about this, there were some important last-minute changes to the proposed law, even as late as Sunday night.


http://www.seed-sovereignty.org/EN/

(from linked page)

Campaign for Seed-Sovereignty
*Seeds must remain part of the Commons!

* *Petition in different languages:*
*DE (German - online)  as PDF for signing on paper 
EN (English  online)  as PDF for signing on paper
FR (French  online)   as PDF for signing on paper
DK (Danish  online)  as PDF for signing on paper
SL (Slovenian  online)  as PDF for signing on paper
CZ (Czech  online)  as PDF for signing on paper
HR (Croatian  online)  as PDF for signing on paper
PT (Portuguese  online)  as PDF for signing on paper
IT (Italian  online)  as PDF for signing on paper
PL (Polish  online)  as PDF for signing on paper
NL (Dutch - onine)  as PDF for signing on paper
HU (Hungarian  online)  as PDF for signing on paper
RO (Romanian  online)  as PDF for signing on paper
LV (Latvian  online) (use Character-Set UTF-
BG (Bulgarian  online) (use Character-Set ISO-8859-5)
EL (Greek  online) (use Character-Set ISO-8859-7) *


----------



## Harrekin (May 8, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *Official version of the Law as of May 6th is Here*
> http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/pressroom/docs/proposal_aphp_en.pdf
> 
> _This article appeared at __OccupyMonsanto360.org_
> ...


Have you not figured it out yet bro?

We ain't buying the bullshit you're selling.


----------



## Doer (May 8, 2013)

If seeds could vote, they would be already Sovereign. I know I am. I vote however seeds are not Sovers, and the majority has it. Self Rule! Fuck Yeah!

And I think in the End. The EU will be killing and eating each other, as usual.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 8, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Have you not figured it out yet bro?
> 
> We ain't buying the bullshit you're selling.


ppphhhhttt! 


why bother talking to that turd. he doesnt want to argue his claims, or support his allegations he is selling his agenda, and i doubt he even reads any responses now, being a dimwit. 

he came to sell his story to potheads, couldnt satisfy the potheads requests for proof, and now just spams his claptrap blindly. 

the fuckhead probably doesnt even grow dope.


----------



## Doer (May 8, 2013)

Yeah, a vast supply of sovereign thinkers here.....weird.


----------



## ASMALLVOICE (May 8, 2013)

Back on topic - We know that improper things have been done by many corporations, such as Monsanto, Phisor, Tyson, Chevron, BP, Phillip Morris and many others. 

Even with all the solid proof of the atrocities commited by the aforementioned corporations, Who sits as judges at the table of accountability for said acts, NONE! - They do as they please and suffer only the consequences they are willing to suffer for the sake of showmanship and social acceptance, nothing more. 
Who do you think provides the leadership and guidance for the FDA, the government...lol NOT. It is Monsanto and the likes that control the FDA and numerous other orginizations that cannot exist without accepting "private" funding. 
Until there is actual penalties for real crimes against humanity, it is all just show and tell for the true holders of the trump cards.

Peace

Asmallvoice


----------



## Harrekin (May 8, 2013)

ASMALLVOICE said:


> Back on topic - We know that improper things have been done by many corporations, such as Monsanto, Phisor, Tyson, Chevron, BP, Phillip Morris and many others.
> 
> Even with all the solid proof of the atrocities commited by the aforementioned corporations, Who sits as judges at the table of accountability for said acts, NONE! - They do as they please and suffer only the consequences they are willing to suffer for the sake of showmanship and social acceptance, nothing more.
> Who do you think provides the leadership and guidance for the FDA, the government...lol NOT. It is Monsanto and the likes that control the FDA and numerous other orginizations that cannot exist without accepting "private" funding.
> ...


Improper things are done by companies in lots of other sectors too, ASMALLPENIS.


----------



## ASMALLVOICE (May 8, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Improper things are done by companies in lots of other sectors too, ASMALLPENIS.


is there an echo in here?, I think I covered that. Care to elaborate on what penalties the "other sectors" dish out to those that do as they please, or did you reply just so you could flex for ub...lol

on a side note, one thing is for certain, any penis is small when compared to your gaping backside. Try and come up with an original, as ub has the copyright on that one.

Peace

Asmallvoice


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 8, 2013)

ASMALLVOICE said:


> Back on topic - We know that improper things have been done by many corporations, such as Monsanto, Phisor, Tyson, Chevron, BP, Phillip Morris and many others.
> 
> Even with all the solid proof of the atrocities commited by the aforementioned corporations, Who sits as judges at the table of accountability for said acts, NONE! - They do as they please and suffer only the consequences they are willing to suffer for the sake of showmanship and social acceptance, nothing more.
> Who do you think provides the leadership and guidance for the FDA, the government...lol NOT. It is Monsanto and the likes that control the FDA and numerous other orginizations that cannot exist without accepting "private" funding.
> ...


This is nothing new, and not exclusive to "corporations" or "Big ____________" (fill in the blank with "Pharma", "Tobacco". "Oil", "Agribusiness", "Food Conglomerate" etc... whatever is the whipping boy of the moment). 

in eras past the holders of wealth could do far more than they can now, when was the last time you saw an entire civilization enslaved or a foreign nation being forced to sign trade agreements with the british or american navy in their harbours with cannons loaded? shit is way better now than it ever has been, as far as your personal rights to seek redress against a corporate entity or even the HOA (think venitian doge, or dictatorial overlord) and we are generally free of the domination of the khans and royal decrees. 

While it is true that corporations are greatly insulated from the penalties for their bad/unscrupulous/evil moves by being non-person persons, and thus can only be fined for misdeeds. the fines are usually pretty tiny anyhow (kill 300 indian families in Bhopal, get fined $300,000, but why bother changing anything when the costs of safety compliance are less than the fines.) so what you SHOULD be demanding is stiffer penalties for corporate misdeeds, and making criminal prosecution of CEO's and board members when the misdeed is the result of deliberate choices and lawbreaking. 

Demanding that monsanto never sue t6o enforce a breached contract, or demanding that they do their genetic research and give away thye results for free is ridiculous, but even more ridiculous is the insistence by the loonier moonbats like dnaprotection that they cease all genetic research and let the chinese, indians and russians leave us in the dust in genetic technology, particularly in agriculture. 

See, Dnaprotection is SELLING HIS AGENDA as are all the moonbat ecoloon blogs claiming that "monsanto is going to wreck __________" (fill in the blank with farmers markets, "organic produce" soybeans, farming in general, your health etc...) and they dont mind lying to do it.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 8, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> No that's called karma, because god doesn't like you either....
> 
> Keep acting like the GM lobbies "bought-little-bitch" and parroting what insurance companies, of all people, say.
> 
> Here's your cue AJ - go for it....


i tell you what you keep being a holocaust denying anti-semite jew hating conspiracy fruitcake, and ill keep saving up to buy a farm, and we'll see who is happier in 20 years. 

in the meantime, eat a sack of dicks


----------



## ASMALLVOICE (May 8, 2013)

Thanks Dr. Kynes for the straight answer. I agree that evolvement has, is and will continue in every field under the sun. My discontent stems from the fact that they can do as they please and even when caught, it is all dealt with with a complete disdain for ethics, morals and common decency. The love of money is a strong adversary to all that is good in the world. 
Like daytime drama except with some cheesy insignificant monetary figures thrown in the mix.

Peace

Asmallvoice


----------



## Harrekin (May 8, 2013)

ASMALLVOICE said:


> Thanks Dr. Kynes for the straight answer. I agree that evolvement has, is and will continue in every field under the sun. My discontent stems from the fact that they can do as they please and even when caught, it is all dealt with with a complete disdain for ethics, morals and common decency. The love of money is a strong adversary to all that is good in the world.
> Like daytime drama except with some cheesy insignificant monetary figures thrown in the mix.
> 
> Peace
> ...


*Evolution

Stop trying to use fancy words, ASMALLPENIS.


----------



## ASMALLVOICE (May 8, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> *Evolution
> 
> Stop trying to use fancy words, ASMALLPENIS.


 Forgive me O' great and noble forum warden. I shall work twice as hard to earn your gratitude in my next post, but until then


Peace


Asmallvoice


----------



## Harrekin (May 8, 2013)

ASMALLVOICE said:


> Forgive me O' great and noble forum warden. I shall work twice as hard to earn your gratitude in my next post, but until then
> 
> <pic depicting how stupid I am>
> 
> ...


Good post bro.


----------



## echelon1k1 (May 8, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i tell you what you keep being a holocaust denying anti-semite jew hating conspiracy fruitcake, and ill keep saving up to buy a farm, and we'll see who is happier in 20 years.
> 
> in the meantime, eat a sack of dicks


Go eat some foreskins you failure... 20years to save up? In your case try 40... That would require a job and last time we checked, you were trumped by illegal labour. fucking pathetic....

I do believe you have your tongue placed firmly in the prison planet cesspool while giving netenfuckhoo a reach around. 

Israel FISTERS jimmies are a rustled...


----------



## echelon1k1 (May 8, 2013)

ASMALLVOICE said:


> Back on topic - We know that improper things have been done by many corporations, such as Monsanto, Phisor, Tyson, Chevron, BP, Phillip Morris and many others.
> 
> Even with all the solid proof of the atrocities commited by the aforementioned corporations, Who sits as judges at the table of accountability for said acts, NONE! - They do as they please and suffer only the consequences they are willing to suffer for the sake of showmanship and social acceptance, nothing more.
> Who do you think provides the leadership and guidance for the FDA, the government...lol NOT. It is Monsanto and the likes that control the FDA and numerous other orginizations that cannot exist without accepting "private" funding.
> ...


Is the FDA not the most TRUSTWORTHY agency in the US government? They independently test all GM foods destined for supermarket shelves... They would not lie to or deceive the public.

I have absolute faith in Biotech companies scientific transparency and the fact they would never put profits before safety. They learned from the tobacco industry.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 8, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Go eat some foreskins you failure... 20years to save up? In your case try 40... That would require a job and last time we checked, you were trumped by illegal labour. fucking pathetic....
> 
> I do believe you have your tongue placed firmly in the prison planet cesspool while giving netenfuckhoo a reach around.
> 
> Israel FISTERS jimmies are a rustled...


then i assume it is agreed, you continue being petty bitter anti-semite who blames "The Jews" fo9r all your failures, and ill continue to work hard, save money and buy me that farmstead i been wanting. 



ill check back with you in 20 years and see how your shit worked out for you. provided you havent hung yourself , or blown yourself up with the IED you were planning to use on the local synagogue...

but until then, feel free to cram your comments and replies up your ass. 

PS. my jimmies aint even rustled. you overestimate your importance in my world. my concerns over your comments is somewhere between my interest in repainting that little spot on the living room wall where my nephew laughed and blew a droplet of chocolate milk out his nose, and my desire to get another prostate exam.


----------



## GOD HERE (May 8, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Go eat some foreskins you failure... 20years to save up? In your case try 40... That would require a job and last time we checked, you were trumped by illegal labour. fucking pathetic....
> 
> I do believe you have your tongue placed firmly in the prison planet cesspool while giving netenfuckhoo a reach around.
> 
> Israel FISTERS jimmies are a rustled...


At least Keynes has a respectable job and works hard. You're just a lazy ass who's too stupid to realize what an arrogant little prick you sound like when you open your mouth about shit you know nothing about. I mean I don't agree with a single syllable in any sentence Keynes has ever said. I'm just trying to convey to you what a dumb little prick you are, because I don't think you understand. You're in the nutcase category.


----------



## echelon1k1 (May 8, 2013)

GOD HERE said:


> At least Keynes has a respectable job and works hard. You're just a lazy ass who's too stupid to realize what an arrogant little prick you sound like when you open your mouth about shit you know nothing about. I mean I don't agree with a single syllable in any sentence Keynes has ever said. I'm just trying to convey to you what a dumb little prick you are, because I don't think you understand. You're in the nutcase category.


Socialists LOL... Want what everyone else has for free... Respectable job? Picking vegetables, pumping gas or lighting fires? Try again moron the above is nearly as good as this;



GOD HERE said:


> You get called out for blowing Keynes


----------



## Doer (May 9, 2013)

GOD HERE said:


> At least Keynes has a respectable job and works hard. You're just a lazy ass who's too stupid to realize what an arrogant little prick you sound like when you open your mouth about shit you know nothing about. I mean I don't agree with a single syllable in any sentence Keynes has ever said. I'm just trying to convey to you what a dumb little prick you are, because I don't think you understand. You're in the nutcase category.


It's why we have ignore list...a very few people provide nothing but personal ass ridding....attention seeking, sociopathic yada, yada....


----------



## GOD HERE (May 9, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Socialists LOL... Want what everyone else has for free... Respectable job? Picking vegetables, pumping gas or lighting fires? Try again moron the above is nearly as good as this;


Yeah what do you do for a living? Anything?

I won't even get into the idiotic misunderstanding of socialism..


----------



## Doer (May 9, 2013)

_Bugs Bunny_: Look, Doc. Are you looking for trouble? I'm not a stewing rabbit. I'm a fricasseeing rabbit. 
_
Elmer Fudd_: Fwicasseeing wabbit? 
_
Bugs Bunny_: Have you got a fricasseeing rabbit license? 
_
Elmer Fudd_: Well, no. I... 
_
Bugs Bunny_: Do you happen to know what the penalty is for shooting a fricasseeing rabbit without a fricasseeing rabbit license?

--------------------------
I've seen this bit many times but I'm now seeing another fricasseeing level!

Some real fricasseeing shit, we watched as kids......


----------



## Harrekin (May 9, 2013)

Doer said:


> _Bugs Bunny_: Look, Doc. Are you looking for trouble? I'm not a stewing rabbit. I'm a fricasseeing rabbit.
> _
> Elmer Fudd_: Fwicasseeing wabbit?
> _
> ...


Sometimes I wonder if you even understand half the shit you say.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (May 9, 2013)

That was a great looney tunes episode. Y'all not get those overseas?


----------



## Harrekin (May 10, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> That was a great looney tunes episode. Y'all not get those overseas?


Yeah, bout 35 years ago. 

We have all this new stuff now instead.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (May 10, 2013)

Lol still a hell of a classic.


----------



## Doer (May 10, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Sometimes I wonder if you even understand half the shit you say.


Why stop at half?...I go all the way. "Shhhhh.....there awe't vewy many wabbits awwond hewa anymorw..."


----------



## Doer (May 10, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Yeah, bout 35 years ago.
> 
> We have all this new stuff now instead.


The new stuff I quote when i need just some shit....for this, I reached for the classics.....so shoot me....but don't throw me in the brier patch!!


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 10, 2013)

Doer said:


> The new stuff I quote when i need just some shit....for this, I reached for the classics.....so shoot me....but *don't throw me in the brier patch!!*


in B4 bucky says thats racist. 






















also, Tarbaby.


----------



## Doer (May 11, 2013)

For the Foreign Born and the under-educated...... I'm still looking for the text in the original Pidgin slave language, Gullah.

These, some 168 Uncle Remus stories, were printed in that Atlantic-Monthy, beginning in 1870.

* A translation of Brer Rabbit and the Tar-Baby compiled by Joel Chandler Harris
* _ One day Brer Fox thought of how Brer Rabbit had been cutting up his capers and bouncing around until he'd come to believe that he was the boss of the whole gang. Brer Fox thought of a way to lay some bait for that uppity Brer Rabbit.

_ _He went to work and got some tar and mixed it with some turpentine. He fixed up a contraption that he called a Tar-Baby. When he finished making her, he put a straw hat on her head and sat the little thing in the middle of the road. Brer Fox, he lay off in the bushes to see what would happen.

_ _Well, he didn't have to wait long either, 'cause by and by Brer Rabbit came pacing down the road - lippity-clippity, clippity-lippity - just as sassy as a jay-bird. Brer Fox, he lay low. Brer Rabbit came prancing along until he saw the Tar-Baby and then he sat back on his hind legs like he was astonished. The Tar-Baby just sat there, she did, and Brer Fox, he lay low.

_ _"Good morning!" says Brer Rabbit. "Nice weather we're having this morning."

_ _Tar-Baby didn't say a word, and Brer Fox, he lay low.
_ _"How are you feeling this morning?" says Brer Rabbit.
_ _Brer Fox, he winked his eye real slow and lay low and the Tar-Baby didn't say a thing.

_ _"What is the matter with you then? Are you deaf?" says Brer Rabbit. "Cause if you are, I can holler louder," says he.

_ _The Tar-Baby stayed still and Brer Fox, he lay low.
_ _"You're stuck-up, that's what's wrong with you. You think you're too good to talk to me," says Brer Rabbit. "And I'm going to cure you, that's what I'm going to do."

_ _Brer Fox started to chuckle in his stomach, he did, but Tar-Baby didn't say a word.

_ _"I'm going to teach you how to talk to respectable folks if it's my last act," says Brer Rabbit. "If you don't take off that hat and say howdy, I'm going to bust you wide open," says he.

_ _Tar-Baby stayed still and Brer Fox, he lay low.
_ _Brer Rabbit kept on asking her why she wouldn't talk and the Tar-Baby kept on saying nothing until Brer Rabbit finally drew back his fist, he did, and blip - he hit the Tar-Baby on the jaw. But his fist stuck and he couldn't pull it loose. The tar held him. But Tar-Baby, she stayed still, and Brer Fox, he lay low.

_ _"If you don't let me loose, I'm going to hit you again," says Brer Rabbit, says he, and with that he drew back his other fist and blap - he hit the Tar-Baby with the other hand and that one stuck fast too.

_ _Tar-Baby she stayed still, and Brer Fox, he lay low.
_ _"Turn me loose, before I kick the natural stuffing out of you," says Brer Rabbit, says he, but the Tar-Baby just sat there.

_ _She just held on and then Brer Rabbit jumped her with both his feet. Brer Fox, he lay low. Then Brer Rabbit yelled out that if that Tar-Baby didn't turn him loose, he was going to butt her crank-sided. Then he butted her and his head got stuck.

_ _Brer Fox walked out from behind the bushes and strolled over to Brer Rabbit, looking as innocent as a mockingbird.

_ _"Howdy, Brer Rabbit," says Brer Fox. "You look sort of stuck up this morning," says he. And he rolled on the ground and laughed and laughed until he couldn't laugh anymore.

By and by he said, "Well, I expect I got you this time, Brer Rabbit," says he. "Maybe I don't, but I expect I do. You've been around here sassing after me a mighty long time, but now it's the end.

_ _And then you're always getting into something that's none of your business," says Brer Fox, says he. "Who asked you to come and strike up a conversation with this Tar-Baby? And who stuck you up the way you are? Nobody in this round world. You just jammed yourself into the Tar-Baby without waiting for an invitation," says Brer Fox. "There you are and there you'll stay until I fix up a brush-pile and fire it up, &#8216;cause I'm going to barbecue you today, for sure," says Brer Fox.

_ _Then Brer Rabbit started talking mighty humble.
_ _"I don't care what you do with me, Brer Fox, says he, "Just so you don't fling me in that briar patch. Roast me, Brer Fox," says he, "But don't fling me in that briar patch."

_ _"It's so much trouble to kindle a fire," says Brer Fox, says he, "that I expect I'd better hang you," says he.
_ _"Hang me just as high as you please, Brer Fox, says Brer Rabbit, "but for the Lord's sake, don't fling me in that briar patch," says he.

_ _"I don't have any string, " says Brer Fox, "Now I expect I had better drown you, " says he.
_ _"Drown me just as deep as you please, Brer Fox," says Brer Rabbit, "But please do not fling me in that briar patch, " says he.

_ _"There's no water near here," says Brer Fox, says he, "And now I reckon I'd better skin you."

_ _"Skin me Brer Fox," says he. "Snatch out my eyeballs, tear out my ears by the roots," says he, "But please, Brer Fox, don't fling me in that briar patch, " says he.

_ _Of course, Brer Fox wanted to get Brer Rabbit as bad as he could, so he caught him by the behind legs and slung him right in the middle of the briar patch. There was a considerable flutter when Brer Rabbit struck the bushes, and Brer Fox hung around to see what was going to happen.

_ _By and by he heard someone call his name and &#8216;way up on the hill he saw Brer Rabbit sitting cross-legged on a chinquapin log combing the tar pitch out of his hair with a chip. Then Brer Fox knew he had been tricked.

_ _Brer Rabbit hollered out, "Born and bred in the briar patch. I was born and bred in the briar patch!" And with that he skipped out just as lively as a cricket in the embers of a fire._
*The End.*​


----------



## Doer (May 11, 2013)

Ah here is some Gullah...all kinds of root languages and accents. Preserved for WE by WE.

-------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS DDDlDlflD4S4 

'Yaas, suh,' dem say. 'Eb'n so we tek dem fowl off de roos'!' " " 'Berry well,' maussuh say. 'Ef you tek all dem got, uh haffuh study 'pun uh plan full git mo', en" V tell de fo' man 1 fun gone. Wen dem gone, maussuh study. 'E pit 'e head one side sukkuh blue jay. 'E blow smoke, en' 'e study. 

Maussuh too schemy ! Bimeby, 'e say to 'eself : 'Wuh me en' de Prezzvdent gwine do? Us done ketch all de money wuh de buck- ruh got, en' us yent lef urn nutt'n' 'cep' de railroad. Niffsruh' ent got nutt'n' but dem han' en' dem foot'. Nigguh' ent fuh hab no money. Nigguh' fuh w'uk. Leh we see,' 'e say. 'Fus' t'ing, me en' de Prezzydent haffuh wu'k! Alltwo uh we duh juntlemun, en' jun- tlemun ent fuh wu'k.' Maussuh pit on 'e hat. 'E gone deepo' een Cuhlumbia. 'E ride de westyblue strain, en' 'e nebbuh git off 'tell 'e git spang New Yawk ! 'E gone to de Prezzydent' house. De Prezzydent mek'um uh bow. 'E ax'um, 'How you lef yo' fambly en' yo' crap?' Maussuh treat'um berry mannussubble.


----------



## DNAprotection (May 14, 2013)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/05/13/183729491/Supreme-Court-Sides-With-Monsanto-In-Seed-Patent-Case

(Excerpt)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that when farmers use patented seed for more than one planting in violation of their licensing agreements, they are liable for damages.
Billed as David vs. Goliath, the case pitted an Indiana farmer against the agribusiness behemoth Monsanto.
Almost all the soybean farmers in the U.S. use seed that is genetically altered to be resistant to weed killers like Roundup. That allows farmers to spray for weeds without killing the soybeans. But the seed is three times more expensive than regular unpatented seed, so some farmers have tried to use regenerated seed to save money.
Case in point, 75-year-old farmer Hugh Bowman, who regularly bought Monsanto's Roundup-resistant soybean seed for his first growth and signed a licensing agreement promising to use all the seed and not to use any regenerated seed for future use. But Bowman also had other riskier, lower-yield plantings, and for those, he wanted "a cheap source of seed."
So he went to the local grain elevator where farmers drop off their harvested soybeans, and he bought and planted some of those, knowing that those beans would likely also be Roundup-resistant.
He eventually produced eight separate crop yields using the second and third generations of the grain elevator seed, and he was quite open about what he was doing.
"I couldn't imagine that they'd give a rat's behind," he said.
But they  namely, Monsanto  did. The company sued Bowman, as it has sued other farmers. Bowman lost in the lower courts and was ordered to pay $84,000 in damages to Monsanto. He appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.


----------



## Harrekin (May 14, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/05/13/183729491/Supreme-Court-Sides-With-Monsanto-In-Seed-Patent-Case
> 
> (Excerpt)
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that when farmers use patented seed for more than one planting in violation of their licensing agreements, they are liable for damages.
> ...


That's patent law, it's entirely distinct from everything you say. 

If Microsoft enforces a patent are they evil?


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (May 14, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> That's patent law, it's entirely distinct from everything you say.
> 
> If Microsoft enforces a patent are they evil?


Did he even read that? We have agreed they will sue you when you break your licensing agreement. Which they should do. 

He totally made the case against himself right there.


----------



## Harrekin (May 14, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Did he even read that? We have agreed they will sue you when you break your licensing agreement. Which they should do.
> 
> He totally made the case against himself right there.


It's like selling copied DVDs and then crying because you're in court over it. 

The farmer knew he was doing wrong but did it anyways, then tries to cry foul about it?

If I point a loaded 92f at my head and start interfering with the trigger is it Berettas fault if I shoot myself in the mush?


----------



## Doer (May 14, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> It's like selling copied DVDs and then crying because you're in court over it.
> 
> The farmer knew he was doing wrong but did it anyways, then tries to cry foul about it?
> 
> If I point a loaded 92f at my head and start interfering with the trigger is it Berettas fault if I shoot myself in the mush?


I like that.

The farmers not only had a contract, they had help, instructions, the Co. Ag Dept is helping. And there was only one real instruction the farmer had to follow.

This thing is loaded (you just signed) Do NOT point it at your head. We will be FORCED to sue if you blow your law brains out.


----------



## Harrekin (May 14, 2013)

Doer said:


> I like that.
> 
> The farmers not only had a contract, they had help, instructions, the Co. Ag Dept is helping. And there was only one real instruction the farmer had to follow.
> 
> This thing is loaded (you just signed) Do NOT point it at your head. We will be FORCED to sue if you blow your law brains out.


Well my point was more a company can only provide a product/service and enforce contracts. 

If someone willingly chooses to use an unlicensed product/service it's their fault, not the company's and it is the company's legal duty to make money for the shareholders (which involves protecting patents). 

Monsanto is just a company, they sell seeds on contract, if someone breaks the contract that's their doing its not the company's fault for "being evil" as RETARDprotection keeps trying to say.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 14, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Well my point was more a company can only provide a product/service and enforce contracts.
> 
> If someone willingly chooses to use an unlicensed product/service it's their fault, not the company's and it is the company's legal duty to make money for the shareholders (which involves protecting patents).
> 
> Monsanto is just a company, they sell seeds on contract, if someone breaks the contract that's their doing its not the company's fault for "being evil" as RETARDprotection keeps trying to say.


NUH UHH!! 

this copy/paste proves that Monsanto sues farmers over windblown pollen and makes deadly GMO's that will poison your family and destroy the planet! 

heres more proof!

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/chinese/confucius/analects.htm

_*entirely specious excerpt from 100% irrelevant link: *_

The Master "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance
and application?
"Is it not delightful to have friends coming from distant quarters?
"Is he not a man of complete virtue, who feels no discomposure
though men may take no note of him?"
The philosopher Yu said, "They are few who, being filial and
fraternal, are fond of offending against their superiors. There have
been none, who, not liking to offend against their superiors, have
been fond of stirring up confusion.
"The superior man bends his attention to what is radical. That being
established, all practical courses naturally grow up. Filial piety and
fraternal submission,-are they not the root of all benevolent
actions?"
The Master said, "Fine words and an insinuating appearance are
seldom associated with true virtue."
The philosopher Tsang said, "I daily examine myself on three
points:-whether, in transacting business for others, I may have been
not faithful;-whether, in intercourse with friends, I may have been
not sincere;-whether I may have not mastered and practiced the
instructions of my teacher."
The Master said, "To rule a country of a thousand chariots, there
must be reverent attention to business, and sincerity; economy in
expenditure, and love for men; and the employment of the people at the
proper seasons."
The Master said, "A youth, when at home, should be filial, and,
abroad, respectful to his elders. He should be earnest and truthful.
He should overflow in love to all, and cultivate the friendship of the
good. When he has time and opportunity, after the performance of these
things, he should employ them in polite studies."
Tsze-hsia said, "If a man withdraws his mind from the love of
beauty, and applies it as sincerely to the love of the virtuous; if,
in serving his parents, he can exert his utmost strength; if, in
serving his prince, he can devote his life; if, in his intercourse
with his friends, his words are sincere:-although men say that he
has not learned, I will certainly say that he has.
The Master said, "If the scholar be not grave, he will not call
forth any veneration, and his learning will not be solid.
"Hold faithfulness and sincerity as first principles.
"Have no friends not equal to yourself.
"When you have faults, do not fear to abandon them."
The philosopher Tsang said, "Let there be a careful attention to
perform the funeral rites to parents, and let them be followed when
long gone with the ceremonies of sacrifice;-then the virtue of the
people will resume its proper excellence."
Tsze-ch'in asked Tsze-kung saying, "When our master comes to any
country, he does not fail to learn all about its government. Does he
ask his information? or is it given to him?"
Tsze-kung said, "Our master is benign, upright, courteous,
temperate, and complaisant and thus he gets his information. The
master's mode of asking information,-is it not different from that
of other men?"
The Master said, "While a man's father is alive, look at the bent of
his will; when his father is dead, look at his conduct. If for three
years he does not alter from the way of his father, he may be called
filial."
The philosopher Yu said, "In practicing the rules of propriety, a
natural ease is to be prized. In the ways prescribed by the ancient
kings, this is the excellent quality, and in things small and great we
follow them.
"Yet it is not to be observed in all cases. If one, knowing how such
ease should be prized, manifests it, without regulating it by the
rules of propriety, this likewise is not to be done."
The philosopher Yu said, "When agreements are made according to what
is right, what is spoken can be made good. When respect is shown
according to what is proper, one keeps far from shame and disgrace.
When the parties upon whom a man leans are proper persons to be
intimate with, he can make them his guides and masters."
The Master said, "He who aims to be a man of complete virtue in
his food does not seek to gratify his appetite, nor in his dwelling
place does he seek the appliances of ease; he is earnest in what he is
doing, and careful in his speech; he frequents the company of men of
principle that he may be rectified:-such a person may be said indeed
to love to learn."
Tsze-kung said, "What do you pronounce concerning the poor man who
yet does not flatter, and the rich man who is not proud?" The Master
replied, "They will do; but they are not equal to him, who, though
poor, is yet cheerful, and to him, who, though rich, loves the rules
of propriety."
Tsze-kung replied, "It is said in the Book of Poetry, 'As you cut
and then file, as you carve and then polish.'-The meaning is the same,
I apprehend, as that which you have just expressed."
The Master said, "With one like Ts'ze, I can begin to talk about the
odes. I told him one point, and he knew its proper sequence."
The Master said, "I will not be afflicted at men's not knowing me; I
will be afflicted that I do not know men."


----------



## DNAprotection (May 14, 2013)

(better headline...lol)
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/05/13-3

Published on Monday, May 13, 2013 by Common Dreams *Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'*


*Indiana farmer must pay agribusiness giant $84,000 for patent infringement*

(excerpt)
The Center for Food Safety released a report in February which shows three corporations control more than half of the global commercial seed market.
As a result, from 1995-2011 the average cost to plant 1 acre of soybeans rose 325%.
As _AP_ reports, more than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds, which first came on the market in 1996.
Vandana Shiva, an expert on seed patents and their effects on farmers around the world, wrote recently:Monsantos concentrated control over the seed sector in India as well as across the world is very worrying. This is what connects farmers suicides in India to Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser in Canada, to Monsanto vs Bowman in the US, and to farmers in Brazil suing Monsanto for $2.2 billion for unfair collection of royalty.​Through patents on seed, Monsanto has become the Life Lord of our planet, collecting rents for lifes renewal from farmers, the original breeders.​


----------



## desert dude (May 14, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> (better headline...lol)
> https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/05/13-3
> 
> Published on Monday, May 13, 2013 by Common Dreams *Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'*
> ...


Why do you want to deprive American farmers (indeed, the world's farmers) of a product that they overwhelmingly want?


----------



## Harrekin (May 14, 2013)

desert dude said:


> Why do you want to deprive American farmers (indeed, the world's farmers) of a product that they overwhelmingly want?


Everyone seems to miss that point.


----------



## desert dude (May 14, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Everyone seems to miss that point.


The greenies know what we need. Our wants are irrelevant.


----------



## Harrekin (May 14, 2013)

desert dude said:


> The greenies know what we need. Our wants are irrelevant.


I wonder if you could live entirely on weed...


----------



## DNAprotection (May 15, 2013)

desert dude said:


> Why do you want to deprive American farmers (indeed, the world's farmers) of a product that they overwhelmingly want?


OK dd I will respond this time, but don't get a bigger head over it because it most likely wont happen again 
Wanting something isnt always enough dd...the world would be a very different place if everyone just got what they wanted...in fact I'm fairly certain we would all be dead if everyone got what they wanted.
Further, your wants should always be weighed against the needs of others...in this case to satisfy the wants of some we by design effect the abilities of all others.
Its not about stopping what some want, its more about stopping the want'ers from forcing the rest of us into a monoculture against our will etc...
Its not me forcing you dd, its you forcing me because at the end of the day you will chew and swallow what you want but I will have no choice but to chew and swallow that which I dont want...tis you and yours that are clearly the oppressors here, not the other way around


----------



## tokeprep (May 15, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> OK dd I will respond this time, but don't get a bigger head over it because it most likely wont happen again
> Wanting something isnt always enough dd...the world would be a very different place if everyone just got what they wanted...in fact I'm fairly certain we would all be dead if everyone got what they wanted.
> Further, your wants should always be weighed against the needs of others...in this case to satisfy the wants of some we by design effect the abilities of all others.
> Its not about stopping what some want, its more about stopping the want'ers from forcing the rest of us into a monoculture against our will etc...
> Its not me forcing you dd, its you forcing me because at the end of the day you will chew and swallow what you want but I will have no choice but to chew and swallow that which I dont want...tis you and yours that are clearly the oppressors here, not the other way around


The patent on the seed expires in 2014. Then no one will be subject to Monsanto's will.


----------



## DNAprotection (May 15, 2013)

tokeprep said:


> The patent on the seed expires in 2014. Then no one will be subject to Monsanto's will.


lol its not about the patent...its all about the genetics


----------



## tokeprep (May 15, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> lol its not about the patent...its all about the genetics


What about the genetics?


----------



## Harrekin (May 15, 2013)

tokeprep said:


> What about the genetics?


For context, GAYprotection is involved in the "organic" business. 

Now you understand why he debates so hard against GM. 

You can thank me later.


----------



## Doer (May 15, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> For context, GAYprotection is involved in the "organic" business.
> 
> Now you understand why he debates so hard against GM.
> 
> You can thank me later.


I would be very suprised if someone with this banner and with these views and with this commitment, was not involved in the Organic business. I never thought he was only concerned citizen.

But, it doesn't make him right or wrong....that in itself doesn't.

Oh, Hark about living on cannabis...I don't think you mean the medical pun. But, it's true. Many of us are living entirely on ganga.

I was looking for breakfast, lunch and dinner ganga food....we have snacks covered, obviously. I thought of Martha Steward and came up with this.

[h=1]Meet the Martha Stewart of Marijuana[/h] Cheryl Shuman was told she wouldn't live past her birthday when she battled Stage Four ovarian cancer. After a friend suggested she leave the hospital and use cannabis products for treatment, her cancer went into remission and she relied less on Western medicine.

Shuman's experience led her to become a medical marijuana advocate. Today, she shows Ricki Lake the latest cannabis products available for consumption by cancer patients. 


.


----------



## Harrekin (May 15, 2013)

Doer said:


> I would be very suprised if someone with this banner and with these views and with this commitment, was not involved in the Organic business. I never thought he was only concerned citizen.
> 
> But, it doesn't make him right or wrong....that in itself doesn't.
> 
> ...


It explains his balls against the wall, yet, factless arguments pretty accurately. 

And Doer I definately live on cannabis, it's just the sustinence part I wondered about. 

I made one batch of butter that was AWESOME ("make you stare at the trippy sun through the blinds until you realise you're doing it" sort of strong), but regardless afterwards I just couldn't match it so I gave up. 

Ill have to get some pointers and try again. 

If you wanna talk full melt bubble, I can make that easily


----------



## Doer (May 15, 2013)

Oh, I see....Maybe with some fish bits for protein? I am not aware of any natural mono-food. 

The basics for life seem to be rice and protein....beans, even.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 15, 2013)

Doer said:


> Oh, I see....Maybe with some fish bits for protein? I am not aware of any natural mono-food.
> 
> The basics for life seem to be rice and protein....beans, even.


hemp seeds do contain a fair amount of protein, carbs fats amino acids, etc... 

nearly as much protein as soya, nearly as much carbohydrate energy as wheat, and nearly as much fatty oil as rape as well as the widest array of amino acids available outside a butcher's shop but trying to survive in the long term eating only cannabis would result in beri beri, scurvy rickets, and pretty much every disease resulting from a vitamin or mineral deficiency. 

cannabis seeds as your sole food source would not work, and you would need lots of land to grow enough cannabis seed to fill your caloric needs, and still come up short on the nutrients. cannabis seeds are not a primary crop, they are a byproduct of fiber production. theres plenty of plants that make MUCH more seed/grain with much less plant, using much less land, and with much faster turnaround. if you really wanted a staple grain, quinoa is a better choice than cannabis. you could grow 4-5 crops of quinoa in a single spring-autumn cycle. 

but quinoa is nasty.


----------



## Harrekin (May 15, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> hemp seeds do contain a fair amount of protein, carbs fats amino acids, etc...
> 
> nearly as much protein as soya, nearly as much carbohydrate energy as wheat, and nearly as much fatty oil as rape as well as the widest array of amino acids available outside a butcher's shop but trying to survive in the long term eating only cannabis would result in beri beri, scurvy rickets, and pretty much every disease resulting from a vitamin or mineral deficiency.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but weed...


----------



## desert dude (May 15, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> OK dd I will respond this time, but don't get a bigger head over it because it most likely wont happen again
> Wanting something isnt always enough dd...the world would be a very different place if everyone just got what they wanted...in fact I'm fairly certain we would all be dead if everyone got what they wanted.
> Further, your wants should always be weighed against the needs of others...in this case to satisfy the wants of some we by design effect the abilities of all others.
> Its not about stopping what some want, its more about stopping the want'ers from forcing the rest of us into a monoculture against our will etc...
> Its not me forcing you dd, its you forcing me because at the end of the day you will chew and swallow what you want but I will have no choice but to chew and swallow that which I dont want...tis you and yours that are clearly the oppressors here, not the other way around


Don't worry, my head won't swell from your reply.

Speaking of your reply, that is the dumbest thinking I have been exposed to in a while.

Your "don't wants" are supposed to trump everybody else's "wants", and it is for their own good because they would all die if they got what they wanted. Sounds like you have a serious mental problem, my friend. Megalomania, God complex, something. 

Carry on with this retarded topic, though.


----------



## desert dude (May 15, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> For context, GAYprotection is involved in the "organic" business.
> 
> Now you understand why he debates so hard against GM.
> 
> You can thank me later.


That explains a lot. Like most leaches, what he really needs is a job.


----------



## Doer (May 15, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I made one batch of butter that was AWESOME ("make you stare at the trippy sun through the blinds until you realise you're doing it" sort of strong), but regardless afterwards I just couldn't match it so I gave up.
> 
> Ill have to get some pointers and try again.
> 
> If you wanna talk full melt bubble, I can make that easily


Noru yu speaka me rlangrig...


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 17, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Yeah, but weed...


yeah man... weed. 

but i would have to have a vegetable patch some chickens, some wabbits and a couple goats

man does not live by Lambsbread alone.


----------



## Harrekin (May 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yeah man... weed.
> 
> but i would have to have a vegetable patch some chickens, some wabbits and a couple goats
> 
> man does not live by Lambsbread alone.


How about we use this thread to compile a list of Ganga foods you can live off for say 7 solid days (given the OP, preferably containing GM ingredients  )


----------



## Doer (May 17, 2013)

I watch a couple of episodes of Naked Castaway. A former British Army Capt. dropped off inside the reef, no clothes, no knife, no nothing. (gps emergency armband, and a small case of cameras and batteries.)

I was a little surprised and he was too, it seems. That is not so easy. In fact, I'm not sure he made the test. I haven't seen any more episodes. Here is 40 acre Island off Bora Bora, way off. Has goats, even. He barely found his little water rivlet in time.

38 hrs with no water. And he ate mostly raw snails, though he finally made a friction fire after day 8. He never had enough energy to chase goats, swim for fish, or explore for food was dog sick within 5 days.

He ate taro leaves, instead of digging up and pounding and then cooking the tuber, he was so hungry and lacked water. He knew he said, that was a bad thing, but before he was really aware, of anything past FOOD!!!, he was swallowing green taro leaf. Then he was really sick. 

I can live quite well on occasional curry and occasional steak, but, I don't think I could live on Ganga. Damn.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 17, 2013)

Doer said:


> I watch a couple of episodes of Naked Castaway. A former British Army Capt. dropped off inside the reef, no clothes, no knife, no nothing. (gps emergency armband, and a small case of cameras and batteries.)
> 
> I was a little surprised and he was too, it seems. That is not so easy. In fact, I'm not sure he made the test. I haven't seen any more episodes. Here is 40 acre Island off Bora Bora, way off. Has goats, even. He barely found his little water rivlet in time.
> 
> ...


naked castaway was one of the few tv shows worth watching in the past couple years. 

despite it's abnormally high dude-ass content

im totally tuned in for the inevitable spinoff *Naked America's Next Top Model Castaway *imma watch that shit like im writing my doctoral thesis on it.


----------



## Doer (May 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> naked castaway was one of the few tv shows worth watching in the past couple years.
> 
> despite it's abnormally high dude-ass content
> 
> im totally tuned in for the inevitable spinoff *Naked America's Next Top Model Castaway *imma watch that shit like im writing my doctoral thesis on it.


I just had a major Xfinity melt down, bad X1 box. (nice box) But, now I need to see if I can get back to it.

I like Suvivorman. Cody?...I'm sure, first thing, I'd trod on his toe, "accidentally." 

Yeah he is nekid, so what?

I'm sorry it pricked your attention....


----------



## DNAprotection (May 18, 2013)

(excerpt)
Much of the cheap meat and dairy produce sold in supermarkets across Europe is arriving as a result of serious human rights abuses and environmental damage in one of Latin America's most impoverished countries.

In this film, produced by the Ecologist Film Unit in conjunction with coalition of pressure groups including Friends of the Earth, Food and Water Watch and Via Campesina, documents the experiences of some of those caught up in Paraguay's growing conflict over soy farming.

It also reveals, for the first time, how intensive animal farming across the EU, including the UK, is fuelling the problem. To read the article that goes with this video go to: http://bit.ly/13iZfA
[video=youtube;McX2pgSFtzs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McX2pgSFtzs&amp;feature=player_embedded[/video]

*Why Eating NON-GMO Foods is Absolutely Important*



Posted by Dr. Paul Haider on May 17, 2013 at 8:00am 

(excerpt)
We have heard people talking about None GMO products and the hype... but what about the facts... what about the long term impact of GMO foods. 
Here are a few things people should know about GMO foods.
Even during studies that were approved male rats feed GMO foods gained 11% in body fat and triglycerides went up 40% and had pathology of the liver and the kidneys.
And studies show that GMO foods contain pesticide residues that can cause problems later in life. Its a question of chronic toxicity... not short term toxicity that was approved by the FDA. Some of these pesticide residues have been shown to disrupt hormonal balance and create chronic problems at levels 1000 times less than found GMO crops.

Results of multiple studies have shown that long term intake of these foods could result in reproductive, pancreas, kidney, and liver disease. Also DNA from GMO foods dont always break down in the gut, thus these crops may create antibiotic resistance to every antibiotic that we have on the planet... thus creating super bugs that could rage out of control.
Even in the rats studied with GMO foods more than 1/3rd had necrotic lesions of their gut lining causing bleeding... thus causing a huge health risk to elderly people and the public in general. 1/6th of the animals used in studies with GMO tomatoes died... and these deaths were never studied at all.
Mice feed GMO potatoes had the cells of their gut disrupted, mitochondrial damage _(cellular damage)_ and a significant increase in crypt paneth cells which are cells that try to protect the lining of the gut. In other studies animals given GMO potatoes had increased thickening of the lining of the stomach.
Like DDT and Alar which decades later became powerful health risks... GMO foods too stand as a powerful health risk if not studied deeply over long periods of time. 
Rabbits given GMO soy had heart and kidney enzyme problems, and other studies show markers for long term chronic disease problems later in life. Yet there are no requirements for long term studies of GMO products. 
Rats feed GMO corn were very slow growing, became fat, and had damage to their kidneys, liver, and blood chemistries were not normal, and they had high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and more... and both young mice and old mice all had immune system dysfunctions. 
Also sheep feed GMO foods for 3 generations had cellular damage of their livers and pancreas. Rats feed GMO rice starting drinking lots of water, much more than normal and at the same time had changes in immune response, changes in their blood chemistries, and the bacteria in their gut were different with an over growth of coliform bacteria... plus all these rats had large adrenal glands, uterus, and testicles... and none of this happened with Non-GMO rice. 
Also when studies where conducted looking for traces of GMO foods in honey, almost all of the containers contained traces of pollen from GMO crops. And mice feed GMO peas had powerful allergic reactions to egg white protein... and the control groups had no reactions at all.
Many scientists say the genetic engineering foods is not precise... that we cannot predicted what the long term health risks of GMO foods will be. 
Also there are powerful effects on the land, soil, and the environment. Plus biodiversity is important, when one genetic strain of a particular food has a problem... biodiversity will sustain our planet. 


_Dr. Paul Haider - Master Herbalist and Spiritual Teacher for over 20 years, helping people to recover and feel healthy. You can also find Dr. Haider on FB under Dr. Paul Haider, Healing Herbs, Shambala Spiritual Transformation Institute, Meditation for the Soul, and Relax Into Success, Punjab teas, and at_ _www.paulhaider.com_ - _feel free to contact him any time. Also check out Dr. Haiders radio show at_ http://www.thesourcecenterradio.com/The-Relaxed-Soul.html


----------



## Doer (May 18, 2013)

Not only did you make the thread, you make the thread boring.


----------



## echelon1k1 (May 18, 2013)

Doer said:


> Not only did you make the thread, you make the thread boring.


at least we can read it unlike your dog's breakfasts...


----------



## Harrekin (May 18, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> (excerpt)
> Much of the cheap meat and dairy produce sold in supermarkets across Europe is arriving as a result of serious human rights abuses and environmental damage in one of Latin America's most impoverished countries.
> 
> In this film, produced by the Ecologist Film Unit in conjunction with coalition of pressure groups including Friends of the Earth, Food and Water Watch and Via Campesina, documents the experiences of some of those caught up in Paraguay's growing conflict over soy farming.
> ...


So your argument is based around GM crops "making" farmers use pesticides on crops?

Pro-tip, genius: Farmers use pesticides ANYWAY, just with GM crops less of the crops die with the weeds. 

Ill start the slow clap now....clap......clap......clap.


----------



## Doer (May 18, 2013)

Mommie? What does Round-Up Ready mean?

Shut up kid, and kick Monsanto.


----------



## KendeFyah (May 18, 2013)

possible solution to over-population which is causing the need (if i am not mistaken) for GM foods & roundup ready genetics:

- free birth control & education

& free weed, eh, eh eh? eh ?    eh? 

 fucking, learning & smoking all you want kende for world president yey 


& btw, ill even throw in the solution to lack of work, boredom, & things like that:
- manual labour equally split up amongst people. those who cannot work can cook for the working people. good food at the end of the workday yummy.


oh yeah, and for lack of respect, violence etc, 
the cure:
(bassdrum-roll)
-tending for the old & sick.

come to think of it, this is the description of a tribe. plus prevantives, so we`ll be like super tribe.


----------



## Harrekin (May 18, 2013)

KendeFyah said:


> possible solution to over-population which is causing the need (if i am not mistaken) for GM foods & roundup ready genetics:
> 
> - free birth control & education
> 
> ...


Free weed isn't extreme enough, vapourise that shit on the whole public...I couldn't even imagine fighting with someone if I was baked...except here...


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 18, 2013)

KendeFyah said:


> possible solution to over-population which is causing the need (if i am not mistaken) for GM foods & roundup ready genetics:
> 
> - free birth control & education
> 
> ...


so we all move to collective farms? 

or do we all just join your drum circle? 

if everybody is busting their ass trying to hand craft every tool for every tiny garden patch, agriculture will once again take up 70-80% of our national labour pool, so who will do the tribal tattoos and install our ear guages? who will make the skinny jeans and ironically hip cardigans? who will make the clunky 1950's style plastic frames with no lenses in them? who will make the underground SceneZines? who will operate the turntables and sell the E? who will host the raves and who will produce the roofies that lets you get a leg over on the dumbass chicks who attend the raves? 

but at least in the grim hardscrabble future you propose, there will be no Dubstep.


----------



## KendeFyah (May 18, 2013)

ye man. thats the point. where is the need for that shit? there isnt. its marketing. somebody has hade you believe that you need that.
but you dont.

you make your own point 

edit: 
i will elaborate, because of the drumcircle argument.

one question man, what does humanity need?

from what i have understood it is:
- water
-food 
- shelter
- a sense of meaning/safety.
- companionship (?)

working together towards our common goal --> to be fed, sheltered & safe etc., we acheive all this. aint no need for the drumcircle bullshit man. if i go dig in the dirt to plant plants, its because i know i will be hungry. not because i am some hippie believing in faries and all that.

just between me & you, we are living under the same needs & principals. fuck the drums, bring the water air & food sustainability programs together, and we can begin to cooporate, and there will be developement as life, not as individuals.
i believe that is the problems, the arguement that there is individuality, not one world as synergy (again, if you have read nothing about microbiology & the interconnectedness of life, ok, maybe you should, and we can talk later). because we really are one. not as a drumcircle, but as a food-chain, as life,feeding each other in that wonderful loop that aint stopping any minute. bam bam bam bam bam motherfucker


----------



## cannabineer (May 19, 2013)

KendeFyah said:


> ye man. thats the point. where is the need for that shit? there isnt. its marketing. somebody has hade you believe that you need that.
> but you dont.
> 
> you make your own point
> ...


I would submit to you that you've omitted one essential nutrient for human health:
the hope for technical progress.
Your vision smacks of stasis.
I reject Luddite solutions. cn


----------



## echelon1k1 (May 19, 2013)

KendeFyah said:


> ye man. thats the point. where is the need for that shit? there isnt. its marketing. somebody has hade you believe that you need that.
> but you dont.
> 
> you make your own point
> ...


Did you lift that from bear?...................................................................................................grylls.


----------



## KendeFyah (May 19, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Did you lift that from bear?...................................................................................................grylls.


as a matter of fact, i did watch the "naked castaway" minutes prior to posting that post 

edit:
and cannabineer: i agree, my vision is saturated with backwardness-juice. they have tried a variety of this vision in north korea i believe, and it aint working so well. hehe. although there are other factors contributiong to that country being so messed up i believe


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 19, 2013)

KendeFyah said:


> ye man. thats the point. where is the need for that shit? there isnt. its marketing. somebody has hade you believe that you need that.
> but you dont.
> 
> you make your own point
> ...



in order for your vision to become reality,, anywhere from 33% (greenpeace) to 66% (earth first) of all the humans on earth have to die, and all population growth must halt, just to be "sustainable" and allow primitive surplus-free agriculture to feed the population without "clearcutting" more "natural habitat" so we can respect the "biodiversity" of the "living earth" and honor the "genetic sovereignty of all life" 

let me guess, YOU get to decide who lives and who dies right?


----------



## KendeFyah (May 19, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> in order for your vision to become reality,, anywhere from 33% (greenpeace) to 66% (earth first) of all the humans on earth have to die, and all population growth must halt, just to be "sustainable" and allow primitive surplus-free agriculture to feed the population without "clearcutting" more "natural habitat" so we can respect the "biodiversity" of the "living earth" and honor the "genetic sovereignty of all life"
> 
> let me guess, YOU get to decide who lives and who dies right?


no man. i get to pick up the shovel and dig the earth


----------



## cannabineer (May 19, 2013)

KendeFyah said:


> as a matter of fact, i did watch the "naked castaway" minutes prior to posting that post
> 
> edit:
> and cannabineer: i agree, my vision is saturated with backwardness-juice. they have tried a variety of this vision in north korea i believe, and it aint working so well. hehe. although there are other factors contributiong to that country being so messed up i believe


Thank you for the gracious response, Kende. Doubly remarkable in this corner of the forum.

I don't think stasis is in our long-term interest. Old Egypt provides an interesting example. For a long time they were the big dog in the whole Fertile Crescent. Younger, more vigorous societies found a venerable giant hollowed to paper-thinness. There is a balance between "progress at any cost" and "stay the course". I wish i knew what it was, and I sure hope that it won't be our lot to continually have to rebuild new societies, states, empires upon the hallowed bleached bones of the progenitors. cn


----------



## KendeFyah (May 19, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Thank you for the gracious response, Kende. Doubly remarkable in this corner of the forum.
> 
> I don't think stasis is in our long-term interest. Old Egypt provides an interesting example. For a long time they were the big dog in the whole Fertile Crescent. Younger, more vigorous societies found a venerable giant hollowed to paper-thinness. There is a balance between "progress at any cost" and "stay the course". I wish i knew what it was, and I sure hope that it won't be our lot to continually have to rebuild new societies, states, empires upon the hallowed bleached bones of the progenitors. cn


You are both respectable and wise, i bow to you sir 


...yet i still get a funny feeling in my tummy when i hear the word monsanto. progress? or profit? 
i highly doubt progress in the name of profit is beneficial to the human race, only shareholders


----------



## cannabineer (May 19, 2013)

KendeFyah said:


> You are both respectable and wise, i bow to you sir
> 
> 
> ...yet i still get a funny feeling in my tummy when i hear the word monsanto. progress? or profit?
> i highly doubt progress in the name of profit is beneficial to the human race, only shareholders


I know. Monsanto has been involved in simply too much brigandage. It's like invoking the N-word (the one from central Europe in the first half of the previous century. THAT N-word.) to smear technologies that they brought us, such as the ones that enabled Apollo. (We imported the core team in a case of office supplies!!) AND who gave the previous "genetic engineering", eugenics, the stigma that persists to this day, deserved and otherwise.
It's a very effective tactic in order to thoroughly besmirch the very idea of genetic manipulation. I think it would be wise to consider the technology and the corporation as separable. cn


----------



## Harrekin (May 20, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I know. Monsanto has been involved in simply too much brigandage. It's like invoking the N-word (the one from central Europe in the first half of the previous century. THAT N-word.) to smear technologies that they brought us, such as the ones that enabled Apollo. (We imported the core team in a case of office supplies!!) AND who gave the previous "genetic engineering", eugenics, the stigma that persists to this day, deserved and otherwise.
> It's a very effective tactic in order to thoroughly besmirch the very idea of genetic manipulation. I think it would be wise to consider the technology and the corporation as separable. cn


Niggas be hatin' on Monsanto cos they pushin' the boat out, homey.


----------



## Sir.Ganga (May 20, 2013)

Everybody is hatin on Monsanto when it was actually Bayer Cropsciences that had the first altered genes in canola and produced Liberty and other desiccant's. Now Monsanto isn't far behind but if your gonna hate you might as well get it right! The way I see altering genetics is we have 2 choices either kill off half the earth's population or go down the gene road. My preference is a smaller population but I'm not in charge, so they took the easy way out.


----------



## Doer (May 20, 2013)

KendeFyah said:


> You are both respectable and wise, i bow to you sir
> 
> 
> ...yet i still get a funny feeling in my tummy when i hear the word monsanto. progress? or profit?
> i highly doubt progress in the name of profit is beneficial to the human race, only shareholders


When did benefiting the human race become the name of the game? That is a religious concept, imo. And what is brigandage for a Corporation? And are those brigands they hired still there? No, they are dead. You are hating ghosts they didn't deserve it when they were alive.

And Hate Bayer? For invention? That is even more silly. I mean, some folks want to be well rounded and open minded, yet, some don't. 

I used to think those that cannot see both sides were inferior people. No longer. I see now it is simply struggle. Are the invisible People in the Emerald Forest, inferior?

Yet, if you think they are or not, does that make you somehow inferior?

Is the group of come and go, the workers of Monsanto, are they inferior, somehow?

Only profit and so called "greed" has benefited mankind, at all. Only when each citizen can have PROFIT, are we free, like now, somewhat.

Monsanto has become the Devil of the Hippy. Just plain superstition. Inferior? No. Still under educated. Still think Viet Nam was somehow caused by the Devil.

It is OK, but temporary. I was a hippy and I have yelled and scream, carried dumb signs, and marched around against Monsanto. Have you? No. You sit and rest on the stupidity, I and other have caused for you.

I apologize. Forget this stuff and get a life you will need, one day. No pressure.


----------



## DNAprotection (May 21, 2013)

*Monsanto Protection Act May Soon Be Repealed Thanks to Activism*

http://www.infowars.com/monsanto-protection-act-may-soon-be-repealed-thanks-to-activism/
*
Anthony Gucciardi*
Infowars.com
May 19, 2013

The so-called Monsanto Protection Act signed into law earlier this year caused such an outrage that people around the world are planning to protest the biotech company later this month. Now a United States Senator is *expected to try and repeal that law after mounting pressure*.
The notorious Monsanto Protection Act rider stuffed into the non-related Senate spending bill may soon be repealed thanks to the massive amounts of activism and outrage that have now amounted into a legislative charge towards action. Action that has turned into legislation progress through Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who has announced an amendment that would remove Section 735 (the Monsanto Protection Act as its known) from the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 Senate spending bill.
The rider, which almost managed to slip incognito and pass by the alarm system of the alternative media, grants GMO juggernaut Monsanto full immunity from federal courts in the event that one of its genetically modified creations is found to be causing damage to health or the environment. Essentially, it grants Monsanto power _over_ the United States federal government. Thankfully, I was able to get on the subject through news tips and covered the Monsanto Protection Act all the way up until the bill containing it was signed into law by Obama.
Ultimately, as the Monsanto Protection Act became more a hot issue, we had an increasing amount of publicity  but the Senate vote came just too quickly for the attention to put a halt on the rider. But even after its passing, sources like Russia Today, NaturalNews, Infowars, and myself here at NaturalSociety were sounding the alarm big time. Enough so that it even led to an apology from the top Senator who actually ended up approving the bill containing the rider.
Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland actually went and released a statement apologizing for allowing the Monsanto Protection Act through and vowing to fight against GMOs and Monsanto. Ultimately, multiple Senators had entered damage control after the jig was up. That is besides Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri, who actually worked with Monsanto (as in he let them write it while he received funding) on the Monsanto Protection Act rider. A rider he says is perfectly reasonable. After all, why not give Monsanto full immunity from the legal system the rest of us are subject to?

Even Obama was getting blasted on his Facebook page following the approval of the Monsanto Protection Act, with the majority of comments coming into his page criticizing his signature on the bill that contained the rider.
Thanks to this activism, it looks like the Monsanto Protection Act may soon be repealed after this new bill hits Washington. This time, we will have plenty of time to let the Senators know that they are voting against the public if they choose to side with Monsanto. And with such a specific agenda for this bill, I see it doing well in the Senate.
Originally appeared at Natural Society.


----------



## Harrekin (May 21, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *Monsanto Protection Act May Soon Be Repealed Thanks to Activism*
> 
> http://www.infowars.com/monsanto-protection-act-may-soon-be-repealed-thanks-to-activism/
> *
> ...


Yeah, cos politicians always vote against campaign contributions...

Derp Derp Derp.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (May 21, 2013)

I'm still waiting to see where the hell the name Monsanto is in section 735. 

I know it says FARMERS and talks about not fucking over FARMERS. 

I don't see Monsanto anywhere.

edit: What's even funnier is the farmers assurance provision(what its really called, section 735) expires in September. Of this year lmao.


----------



## Harrekin (May 21, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> I'm still waiting to see where the hell the name Monsanto is in section 735.
> 
> I know it says FARMERS and talks about not fucking over FARMERS.
> 
> ...


Don't try argue facts with these enviro-terrorist people bro.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (May 21, 2013)

Section 735:
SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary&#8217;s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary&#8217;s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.


Nope. No Monsanto there.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (May 21, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Don't try argue facts with these enviro-terrorist people bro.


i try and be logical, but fuck!

im not a violent person but they sure make me want to smack em around.


----------



## Harrekin (May 21, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Section 735:
> SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary&#8217;s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary&#8217;s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.
> 
> 
> Nope. No Monsanto there.


It also only gives farmers temporary reprieve if they're non-regulated crops. 

They still can't grow these (imaginary) terminator plants that cause AIDs and cancer, because they'd be banned.


----------



## Doer (May 21, 2013)

This provision is the Anti-Nut Case provision of a farm bill.

If nut cases think they could talk so old fool Federal or State Judge into placing an injunction on the entire planting season of food crops...

Well, now that old judge can't do that. He can't stop planting the planting season over the claims of idiots.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> This provision is the Anti-Nut Case provision of a farm bill.
> 
> If nut cases think they could talk so old fool Federal or State Judge into placing an injunction on the entire planting season of food crops...
> 
> Well, now that old judge can't do that. He can't stop planting the planting season over the claims of idiots.


actually it's to prevent the nutbars from forcing farmers to harrow their fields with a crop half-way to harvest just because some asshole declares a particular previously unregulated cultivar to be "under review". 

if a cultivar is already "under review" you cant plant it, but without this provision, any farmer who already had planted would have to till it up, and if the review comes up with a ruling of "unregulated" he is fucked. 

under this provision, a corporate contractor who hires a farmer to grow a crop still has to take delivery of the crop even if the FDA or ag dept have ruled it to be useless, and they still have to pay the farmer because he delivered as agreed. 

section 735 is the opposite of Monsanto Protection. it's farmer protection.

Example: 

SuperMega Beefaroni Enterprises Intl. contracts me to grow their new GMO soya cultivar which produces beefaroni flavoured soya beans so they can eliminate the expense of vacuum dessicated beef stock in their delicious products. 

the deal is i plant 1500 acres of the new Beefaroni Soy cultivar, and upon delivery of the 25000 bushels +/- 10% they expect,, and i get paid $50k. if i dont deliver, due to fire flood locust or drought i can collect from my crop insurance (but not nearly as much as i would otherwise get) 

if a judge declares that GMO Befaroni Soya is suspected of causing cancer in Unicorns or giving Djinns the Green Apple Splatters before i planted my fields, the contract cannot go forward, and i lose nothing, since i can plant something else
if the judge makes the ruling AFTER i planted, well i accepted the seeds, panted em, and have a crop in the field... 

*Without sec 735:* i have to cut down the GMO Beefaroni Soya and harrow the field, losing the contract, the seeds, the time and effort of cultivation, and i must now hope that there is another crop i can get in the ground before the season is over, or i lost the whole season, and most likely my farm, since crop insurance will not pay out for loss to regulations. 

*With sec 735: *the crop is ion the ground, i can grow it. tend it, harvest it and deliver on my contract, even if the Beefaroni Corp cannot use the soya i deliver, they still have to pay me. woot woot.


----------



## Harrekin (May 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> actually it's to prevent the nutbars from forcing farmers to harrow their fields with a crop half-way to harvest just because some asshole declares a particular previously unregulated cultivar to be "under review".
> 
> if a cultivar is already "under review" you cant plant it, but without this provision, any farmer who already had planted would have to till it up, and if the review comes up with a ruling of "unregulated" he is fucked.
> 
> ...


Buy more guns to keep the Eco-loons away, they'll get desperate and try pull that shit out of the ground themselves...

They're fanatics, and fanatics are fucking dangerous.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 21, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Buy more guns to keep the Eco-loons away, they'll get desperate and try pull that shit out of the ground themselves...
> 
> They're fanatics, and fanatics are fucking dangerous.


but they are also almost 100% coastal urbanites who wouldnt know a soya plant from a sunflower. 

they wouldnt even know where to find a fucking farm except "someplace in flyover country" and even if they did see a soya crop they would only be able to uproot a couple plants before their delicate hands were blistered and ruined by unaccustomed labours. 

they are all dilettantes, and dilettantes are fucking useless.


----------



## Doer (May 21, 2013)

That's easy, soya is the giant stalk one, with the the big flower. You see, the flower has a bunch of seeds, arranged in the middle, but they call them beans. Soya bean seeds....weird name..

Whereas, the Sumflower is where arithmetic comes from.


----------



## DNAprotection (May 25, 2013)

Event and Media Resources for 5/25/13. Find Local Info and Content and Add Info and Content Here: 
 Posted: 25 May 2013 12:41 AM PDT
​
We have created an official spreadsheet for us all to upload and share pictures and streams from our events to! It is an open source spreadsheet, so we will all be able to add content at will!

It is important that we archive content from each event all together. It will make getting out the news and stories from each march much more efficient. Documentation is essential to recording this day in history. Thanks for all your hard work everyone, and have a fantastic march against Monsanto!

Links:

Send Pictures to the main Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto

Local Live streams:
https://www.rebelmouse.com/MarchAgainstMonsanto/Live/

MAM Live-Sheet Pictures and U-Stream List:WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THIS LINK. IT WILL BE READY SHORTLY


Join the Online March Event tomorrow !!!
https://www.facebook.com/events/147274678766425/

Global Event List:
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/p/blog-page.html

Twitter Hash Tags: #MAM #MarchAgainstMonsanto #OpMonsanto

Twitter Group:
https://twitter.com/MarchAgainstM/march-against-monsanto

Anonymous Event #OpMonsanto | Call to all Anons
http://www.facebook.com/events/633170403365142/648755291806653/?notif_t=plan_mall_activity


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 25, 2013)

Lol a March!!! Now your really getting serious I hope there's bongos


----------



## DNAprotection (May 25, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Lol a March!!! Now your really getting serious I hope there's bongos


Yes TW even mutant turtle warriors are welcome, and if you end up on your back, as you so often do here, someone will certainly stop bongoing and flip you right side up, maybe even administer some of the kind to ease your troubled turtle mind 


(NaturalNews) The global March Against Monsanto happens tomorrow! Nearly three hundred cities will host what's sure to be hundreds of thousands of protesters and activists around the globe who are taking a stand against Monsanto and GMOs.

YOU can join in the activities, too! Check this site to see if there's a march planned near you:
http://occupy-monsanto.com/march-against-monsanto-may-25-2013/

And learn more about the event at this FB page:
https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto

Here are my top 10 reasons to attend the March Against Monsanto!


*#1) There will be tons of press coverage, so your voice will be heard
*

It's hard to get your voice heard these days. But now's your chance! Bring your protest sign, wear a shirt with a message, speak to news crews or even give a speech to the audience. This is your chance to have your voice heard on an issue of crucial importance to the future of life on our planet.


*#2) Send a powerful message to Monsanto that their corporate evil will not be tolerated by the people of the world*

Beyond the media watching this event, Monsanto will also be very closely monitoring what happens. (Look out for "Monsanto spies" at every event!)

When you show up and march with determination and passion, you help send a message to Monsanto that they will never stop the resistance against GMOs. We want to tell them they should find a way to transition out of the market while they still have time. Let Monsanto know that We the People won't tolerate their genetic poisoning of the planet and the food supply!


*#3) Learn more about GMOs and why they're so dangerous for life on our planet*

By attending these rallies, you'll also learn a huge amount of valuable information about GMOs and why they're so dangerous to us all. You might even learn something so powerful you feel compelled to share it with others.

And that's how this works: Gathering knowledge and sharing it with the people around you so that they, too, can learn to avoid GMOs. Let knowledge be open-source!


*#4) Listen to great speakers who share a message of inspiration and solidarity*

At every city, speakers will be sharing their wisdom and rallying the crowd with inspiring, informative live speeches. Listen to these speakers and you'll learn a lot!


*#5) Meet and interact with like-minded people*

Want to meet informed, intelligent, health-conscious people who aren't dumbed-down like everyone else? Meet them at the March Against Monsanto!

Think about it: What kind of people come to these marches? The top 1% of the most informed, "awake" and environmentally-aware individuals on the planet. That's my kind of crowd!


*#6) Send a global message to food retailers that they should drop GMOs*

Food retailers will also be watching this event, and as more and more people protest GMOs, more pressure will be placed on retailers to either label GMOs or drop them altogether.

And that's what we want! At minimum, we want mandatory GMO labeling across the board. That way, shoppers can make an informed choice of what they're buying at the grocery store.


*#7) Get some outdoor exercise while joining a noble cause*

Joining the march will give you a fantastic opportunity to get some healthy exercise while marching for a worthy cause. It's not every day that you get to march with a group of fun, intelligent, informed people who truly represent the future of humankind (because they care about genetic integrity).

If for no other reason than this, join the March Against Monsanto and enjoy the stroll!


*# Raise your spiritual karma score by standing up for universal justice*

Need a little help in the karma realm? Marching against evil is always a good thing; especially when you're taking a stand for universal justice: food freedom, farm freedom and the integrity of seeds on our planet.

The time to do something good is now!


*#9) Show off your cool protest sign!*

Bring an awesome protest sign and show it off to the crowd! I'll be marching with my own sign, and I can't wait to see what everybody else comes up with, too.

Make your sign large enough to be easily read in photos and news cameras. If your sign is awesome enough, it will get major play on the 'net!


*#10) Be part of a truly grassroots, non-hierarchical, non-centralized global protest*

This entire event has come into existence organically, with no central planning or coordination. I don't even know who put this together in the first place. And it doesn't matter, you see, because as long as we each continue to do our part on this, we can feel hugely rewarded in knowing that millions of other people are also doing their part for the same common goal: the global outlawing or labeling of GMOs.

Join us in this march for the sole reason that it is the right thing to do. Become part of a peer-to-peer, decentralized movement of justice against a terrible evil that threatens our planet. *Feel the power of the People* as you join in this meaningful, grassroots effort to banish corporate evil from our food and farms.

*Learn more:*

http://occupy-monsanto.com/march-against-monsanto-may-25-2013/

https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040467_March_Against_Monsanto_GMO_rally....


----------



## Doer (May 25, 2013)

BTW, I just notice the Commie buzz word. Non-heirachaical. That's a joke a right? I think you guys just don't understand. That is not possible.

Curious, is someone going to say the Occupy Movement is non-hieracrchical? 

Can somebody give me an example we can work with. What has ever been no hierarchy? Show me and I will show you the secret.

I await, most replies.


----------



## DNAprotection (May 25, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Event and Media Resources for 5/25/13. Find Local Info and Content and Add Info and Content Here:
> Posted: 25 May 2013 12:41 AM PDT
> ​
> We have created an official spreadsheet for us all to upload and share pictures and streams from our events to! It is an open source spreadsheet, so we will all be able to add content at will!
> ...


running for the money?
come on people now learn how to run by heaven, the stars, the moon and the sun
come on people
your end is the means
don't trade your love and goodness
for the golden machine
get up off your knees and stand up for the bees if you please...feels good and tastes like pure wild mountain honey...

_http://www.pacc-news.com/5-2-12/heart_ingram5_2_12.html
(excerpt)
The Illinois Ag Dept. illegally seized privately owned bees from renowned naturalist, Terrence Ingram, without providing him with a search warrant and before the court hearing on the matter, reports Prairie Advocate News._
_Behind the obvious violations of his Constitutional rights is Monsanto. Ingram was researching Roundups effects on bees, which hes raised for 58 years. They ruined 15 years of my research, he told Prairie Advocate, by stealing most of his stock._
A certified letter from the Ag Dept.s Apiary Inspection Supervisor, Steven D. Chard, stated:During a routine inspection of your honeybee colonies by  Inspectors Susan Kivikko and Eleanor Balson on October 23, 2011, the bacterial disease American Foulbrood was detected in a number of colonies located behind your house. Presence of the disease in some of your colonies was confirmed via test results from the USDA Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland that analyzed samples collected from your apiary.​Ingram can prove his bees did not have foulbrood, and planned to do so at a hearing set in April, but the state seized his bees at the end of March. They have not returned them and no one at the Ag Dept. seems to know where his bees are.
The bees could have been destroyed, or they could have been turned over to Monsanto to ascertain why some of his bees are resistant to Roundup. Without the bees as evidence, Ingram simply cannot defend against the phony charges of foulbrood.
Worse, all his queens died after Kivikko and Balson inspected his property, outside of his presence and without a warrant.
Of note, Illinois beekeepers are going underground after Ingrams experience and refuse to register their hives, in case the state tries to steal their private property on phony claims.
[video=youtube;gqXCboEL-7k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=gqXCboEL-7k[/video]


----------



## Doer (May 25, 2013)

You left out the end [/QUOTE]

But, if you are saying there is always hierarchy even if the low level Tinker Bells think there isn't....

I agree.


----------



## burgertime2010 (May 25, 2013)

Doer said:


> BTW, I just notice the Commie buzz word. Non-heirachaical. That's a joke a right? I think you guys just don't understand. That is not possible. Curious, is someone going to say the Occupy Movement is non-hieracrchical? Can somebody give me an example we can work with. What has ever been no hierarchy? Show me and I will show you the secret. I await, most replies.


 The first rule of Fight Club. The Blue Man Group, Trench coat mafia?......I am kidding, don't be mad.


----------



## Doer (May 25, 2013)

Hey DNA. If you want to save the bees, that is very worthy. Don't call it Dow Chem to Action Commitee or whatever and you will be fine.

How about starting as CDBs thread. There I can say, OIC they are QTBs.


----------



## burgertime2010 (May 25, 2013)

A school of fish? Ospreys? bacteria? Send over a secret or an answer....it's a curious thing.


----------



## Doer (May 25, 2013)

Well you have not given a no-hierarchy example in Humans. Bacteria? Come on. 
But, you already know the secret. It is not possible.


----------



## burgertime2010 (May 25, 2013)

Perhaps in solitude, or maybe as an infant, you are right.....but only because of this hierarchy. Will I become an Uncle Ben?


----------



## Doer (May 25, 2013)

Now, sit here and say that an infant has no hierarchy. Tell me when alone, you have no hierarchy of mind, intent, will, focus....

I'm an Uncle Ben. I love converted rice.


----------



## cannabineer (May 25, 2013)

Doer said:


> Well you have not given a no-hierarchy example in Humans. Bacteria? Come on.
> But, you already know the secret. It is not possible.


Even among the flies a Lord always floats to the top. cn


----------



## cannabineer (May 25, 2013)

Doer said:


> Now, sit here and say that an infant has no hierarchy. Tell me when alone, you have no hierarchy of mind, intent, will, focus....
> 
> I'm an Uncle Ben. I love *converted rice*.


so very _à propos_ to this thread. cn


----------



## Doer (May 25, 2013)

"My God!" the Destroyer Captain, exclaimed, as he slowly lowered his binoculars..."they are worshiping a pig's head!"


----------



## burgertime2010 (May 25, 2013)

Doer said:


> Now, sit here and say that an infant has no hierarchy. Tell me when alone, you have no hierarchy of mind, intent, will, focus.... I'm an Uncle Ben. I love converted rice.


 A hierarchy seems as though it must be recognized or constructed at least. I am alone now, my mind is a sum of intention, cognition, emotion, creation, focus etc. but a singularity nonetheless. I need another singularity to have a hierarchy that is valid to my own self-perception. I think that a group of can observe a heirarchy....I am one.


----------



## cannabineer (May 25, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> A hierarchy seems as though it must be recognized or constructed at least. I am alone now, my mind is a sum of intention, cognition, emotion, creation, focus etc. but a singularity nonetheless. *I need another singularity to have a hierarchy that is valid to my own self-perception.* I think that a group of can observe a heirarchy....I am one.


That problem was solved more than fifty thousand years ago. First guy to land knotted stick on cranium wins. Failure to self-perceive leads to more percussive persuasion, resulting in either sudden insight or failure to perceive anything at all. Hierarchy. ~grin~ cn


----------



## burgertime2010 (May 25, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> That problem was solved more than fifty thousand years ago. First guy to land knotted stick on cranium wins. Failure to self-perceive leads to more percussive persuasion, resulting in either sudden insight or failure to perceive anything at all. Hierarchy. ~grin~ cn


 In solitude that would not have been possible right?


----------



## burgertime2010 (May 25, 2013)

I wont hi-jack this thread any longer, thanks for the sudden insight.


----------



## Doer (May 25, 2013)

Well, don't victimize yourself. You are not hi-jacking. You simply don't understand the hierarchy of self.

Little self. Mind cloud, petty second guessing, reliving and re-writing the past so when we speak we suddenly don't know what the fuck. 

You cannot control your thoughts, and that can only come from the very serious practice of not thinking.

When we think we are being bullied by our hopes and fears, doubts, mis-persecutions, exaggerations and lies to ourself, on going. You think you are solitary, but even within that is hierarchy.

A glimpse of no-thought is bliss. Bombing a downhill ski run, really nailing that high speed turn on my bike, a bullseye from 25 yards with a pistol, all that is no-thought. 

We will die to get it in sheer thills, we sit and watch entertainment so relax from the Tyrant of thought. We have to spend 1/3 of our life actually un-conscious.

All the Big Self, our humanity is there when we stop criticizing and shut up in our mind, for example.

Know Self. We don't or we would not have to be admonished.

Know Self beyond the raging thoughts, and there is the Hierarchy. 

When I slip back out, into self doubt and the second guessing natter mind, that tends to ignore Reality for Fantasy, after a few seconds (after years of practice)...there is the Hierarchy again.

But, that few seconds is the next jewel in my collection of Reality for me. Very real and very persistent; the jewel of great worth.


----------



## cannabineer (May 25, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> In solitude that would not have been possible right?


Without multiple personality disorder and some gnarly ambidexterity, ... no.  



burgertime2010 said:


> I wont hi-jack this thread any longer, thanks for the sudden insight.


Relax. This is Politics. We don't jack threads ... we embroider them. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (May 25, 2013)

*Photos from the March Against Monsanto protest, Parliament Square, ...*

BY EDITOR 
 SATURDAY, MAY 25, 2013*POSTED IN: *LONDON, PHOTOS, PLACES





There was a lively turnout in central London today as part of a global March Against Monsanto protest.
The main protest was outside Parliament, where there was a fine turnout of banners on display, along with a mobile band,which the police didnt seem too keen on. Heres some photos from the protest:





Drum kit and PA system on a bicycle trailer. They played a lot of Clash covers.

































































The band goes mobile and heads off into Parliament Square.

























Cops try to push the protesters back.





Into Parliament Square.




















Background info from the event page:


 Comment by rose 27 minutes ago 
NO GMO South Africa
March against Monsanto, May 25, 2013, South Africa - Durban

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350817#ixzz2UMMCcaiY




People carry signs during a protest against agribusiness giant Monsanto in Los Angeles on May 25, 2013. (AFP Photo / Robin Beck)
NO GMO South Africa
March against Monsanto, May 25, 2013, South Africa - Cape Town

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350817#ixzz2UMM0kJK5




A protester wearing a protective suit and mask holds up a bottle of Monsantos Roundup herbicide during a protest against Monsanto in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Saturday, May 25, 2013. Marches and rallies against seed giant Monsanto were held across the U.S. and in dozens of other countries Saturday. March Against Monsanto protesters say they want to call attention to the dangers posed by genetically modified food and the food giants that produce. (Credit: AP)





A child holds a poster reading No to Natures Privatization during a demonstration against anti-genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and US seed giant Monsanto in Bucharest, Romania, May 25, 2013. (Credit: AFP/Getty Images) 









Demonstrators hold banners during a rally against U.S.-based Monsanto Co. and genetically modified organisms (GMO), in Valparaiso city May 25, 2013. (Reuters / Eliseo Fernandez)




The March Against Monsanto, Dallas. (Image from twitter [email protected])




The March Against Monsanto, San Diego. (Image from facebook.com)




The March Against Monsanto, Buenos Aires, Argentina. (Image from twitter [email protected]_RT)










EUGENE, Ore. -- Protesters took to the streets of Eugene this afternoon and joined the millions in a worldwide protest of agricultural bio-tech giant Monsanto, the leading producer of genetically engineered seeds.




Garden of Remembrance on Parnell Square in Dublin



 Comment by rose 39 minutes ago Stockholm, #Sweden by Iwan van Hoogmoed &#9829;






Stockholm, #Sweden by Iwan van Hoogmoed &#9829;
YouTube
March against Monsanto, May 25, 2013 - Tokyo, Japan



Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350817#ixzz2UML6XZ3Z

also an estimated over 2500 people, second largest protest in Las Vegas History. 








KAHULUI, HAWAII  The May 25th March Against Monsanto was a success not only in Maui, but worldwide, as over 2 million people were reported to be in attendance.





YouTube
March against Monsanto, May 25, 2013 - Melbourne, Australia (above)

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350817#ixzz2UMJYXcDo




Credit: Ron Sanford / KING
Protesters march against Monsanto in Seattle, May 25, 2013.

YouTube
A cute mini protest for the March against Monsanto - Melbourne, Australia

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350817#ixzz2UMJo6Oi7

YouTube
March against Monsanto May 25, 2013, Sydney, Australia

YouTube
March against Monsanto, May 25, 2013 - Whangerei, New Zealand



Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350817#ixzz2UMKHa7qi 











 Comment by rose 48 minutes ago March Against Monsanto - Justin Herman Plaza 19






Knoxville, TN











A protester wearing a protective suit and mask holds up a sign toward passing cars that reads in Portuguese "A better world according to Monsanto is a world with more cancer" in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Saturday, May 25, 2013. (AP Photo/Nelson Antoine) http://www.komonews.com/news/national/Protesters-to-march-vs-Monsan...
Las Vegas






March Against Monsanto - Union Square, SF 31






MAM Philadelphia







Phenomenal turn out in Beautiful Vancouver BC, Canada! I have a video on the page as well if you are interested. What an exhilarating day!!












Salt Lake City representing!!!


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (May 26, 2013)

The world is full of idiots.


----------



## DNAprotection (May 26, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> The world is full of idiots.


No doubt...lol...

Here's one who doesn't even play bongo's...claims to be some kind of tea dumping patriot...

"I deal with very serious subjects every day. It just comes with the 
territory when you're preparing. BUT making this video _really _got 
to me. 

https://www.uncensoredsurvival.com/TruthAboutGMOs

Because genetically modified foods are legal, many people assume 
that they're also safe. That's why the current GMO crisis is so 
disturbing. Hundreds of doctors and scientists are speaking out 
against GMOs...



_In fact, I show the horrific result of these GMOs at 3 minutes _
_and 59 seconds into my shocking video presentation._

...But greedy biotech companies have Congress in their pocket. 
When it comes down to it, campaign contributions come first. YOUR 
family's safety is a distant second...

Click the link below to see the video that Monsanto, Dow Agroscience
and their friends in Congress don't want you to see:

https://www.uncensoredsurvival.com/TruthAboutGMOs

Yours in Liberty,
Oli Fischer"

[video]https://www.uncensoredsurvival.com/front51/[/video]


----------



## Harrekin (May 26, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *Photos from the March Against Monsanto protest, Parliament Square, ...*
> 
> BY EDITOR
>  SATURDAY, MAY 25, 2013*POSTED IN: *LONDON, PHOTOS, PLACES
> ...


Wow, Im completely filled with a mixed feeling of both "meh" and "they should get a job".

Oh and reported as spam for the photo-dump


----------



## Bigtacofarmer (May 26, 2013)

Yeah, most of them eat GMO shit and don't even know!




Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> The world is full of idiots.


----------



## DNAprotection (May 26, 2013)

Jon Stewart explains the Monsanto Protection Act 

[video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-3-2013/you-stuck-what-where-now-[/video]

[video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-3-2013/you-stuck-what-where-now----the-monsanto-protection-act[/video]


----------



## Harrekin (May 26, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Jon Stewart explains the &#8216;Monsanto Protection Act&#8217;
> 
> [video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-3-2013/you-stuck-what-where-now-[/video]
> 
> [video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-3-2013/you-stuck-what-where-now----the-monsanto-protection-act[/video]


I see no mention of Monsanto in the Act, only farmers...interesting. 

Why do farmers keep electing to steal Monsanto seed even tho they keep getting sued for it?

Is it so bad people are risking penalties to grow it? Does it produce methamphetamine like effects for the farmer and they literally can't get off it?

Or are you "organic hippies" just full of shit?


----------



## Doer (May 26, 2013)

I think the alliteration has always been the problem for Monsanto. The name is just too cool for this.

I mean. March against Monsanto!

Much better than ......

Die against Dow!
Barf on Bayer!
Deal out DuPont!
Over arch Arkema!
Dsgusted with Degusa!
Don't Brag Braskem!
Re-Mold Monstrous Mitusbishi!
Stupefy Shell!
Gag me Givaudan!
Eat me Exxon!
Feed LyondelBasell to Lions!
Piss on PPG!
No No INEOS!
Easy there Eastman!
Wash out Wanhau!
Bash BASF! (that one could be useful, not too bad)

Did I tell you I was a sign writer and tract hack for the Cause?

The only thing against Monsanto is the name. I'm not kidding. I have always thought this. Even when marching around their plant in the next town over, I'd be thinking things to say with that name. The Che-ist dream that name.

We said a lot worse, than the "March Against.... "we hear from the Pollyanna Hippies in the Good New Days.


----------



## Doer (May 26, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Jon Stewart explains the Monsanto Protection Act
> 
> [video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-3-2013/you-stuck-what-where-now-[/video]
> 
> [video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-3-2013/you-stuck-what-where-now----the-monsanto-protection-act[/video]


John Stewert is a Lefty comic...got to like that. Balances the Cobert Report....got to like that.

But, the real diffrence between me and John Stewart, besides the money and the fame and the women.....?

I read it. He has not. DNA has not. If he has he is the ultimate Falsie of the Forum.

I should go Community access, channel 9 for a public service spot. I'll call it the March Against Monsanto Supidity.

Everyone will love that name and tune in. I'll have a short witty monologe to open, then I will read the Paragraph of the continuation of the Farm bill, after I do the pony show about searching Thomas for Monsanto.....what a hoot! I'll finally look it up by number and this routine will change every week as I bring in Special guests. But, no one will come in at first, so I need a cohort, like in Wayne's World.

Garth will read the paragraph outloud, and we will act confused and then laugh our asses off. Then a couple of call in questions, 27 min. OUT.

March on Monsanto Stupidity.....coming this fall on PBS.


----------



## Harrekin (May 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> I think the alliteration has always been the problem for Monsanto. The name is just too cool for this.
> 
> I mean. March against Monsanto!
> 
> ...


Damn man, you missed the pun entirely.


----------



## Doer (May 26, 2013)

What pun? Do I have to watch a video? No.


----------



## DNAprotection (May 26, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Jon Stewart explains the &#8216;Monsanto Protection Act&#8217;
> 
> [video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-3-2013/you-stuck-what-where-now-[/video]
> 
> [video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-3-2013/you-stuck-what-where-now----the-monsanto-protection-act[/video]


(excerpt)
The Monsanto Protection Act shows that the laws of the most powerful nation on Earth are written with the same level of accountability as Internet comments.


----------



## Harrekin (May 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> What pun? Do I have to watch a video? No.


Organic..."full of shit". 

Come on man, engage your brain. 

*facepalm*


----------



## cannabineer (May 26, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Organic..."full of shit".
> 
> Come on man, engage your brain.
> 
> *facepalm*


 Sorry; not seeing it either. Where in the last few posts is that phrase? cn


----------



## Harrekin (May 26, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I see no mention of Monsanto in the Act, only farmers...interesting.
> 
> Why do farmers keep electing to steal Monsanto seed even tho they keep getting sued for it?
> 
> ...


The funny has long left it sadly...


----------



## Doer (May 26, 2013)

Oh, ICURAQT!

Shit, organic, me dense...yes? You funny? Yes. Speed reading is catching up on me. It has served me well.

Where's that guy that killed my horse?  This dog, don't hunt no more neither...

Please bold and underline *all puns.*


----------



## Harrekin (May 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> Oh, ICURAQT!
> 
> Shit, organic, me dense...yes? You funny? Yes. Speed reading is catching up on me. It has served me well.
> 
> ...


Nah, challenge denied. 

I face the world on my terms and only exist in this thread to counter GAYprotections mindless bullshit.


----------



## Doer (May 26, 2013)

Well see, that was a conundrum, technically speaking. 

It's not possible to underline all puns....most of the best ones are not intentional.


----------



## cannabineer (May 26, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> The funny has long left it sadly...


Zing! I must have skimmed it. Guess I am _non compost mentis_. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (May 26, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Nah, challenge denied.
> 
> I face the world on my terms and only exist in this thread to counter GAYprotections mindless bullshit.


lol...actually frank I suspect this thread owes it's ain'tdeadyet life 2u...oh and maybe to the other 36 folks in your SHDT......maybe it also owes some breath to the 195 folks with enough sense to come in out of the rain...

"The world's leading Scientists, Physicians, Attorneys, Politicians and Environmental Activists expose the corruption and dangers surrounding the widespread use of Genetically Modified Organisms in the new feature length documentary, "Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs".

[video=youtube;a6OxbpLwEjQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=a6OxbpLwEjQ[/video]


----------



## Doer (May 26, 2013)

Hey this sounds like the same list of August Persons (tm) that endorsed climate change. Safe bet. Lie about lies and then lie about that.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 26, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> lol...actually frank I suspect this thread owes it's ain'tdeadyet life 2u...oh and maybe to the other 36 folks in your SHDT......maybe it also owes some breath to the 195 folks with enough sense to come in out of the rain...
> 
> "The world's leading Scientists, Physicians, Attorneys, Politicians and Environmental Activists expose the corruption and dangers surrounding the widespread use of Genetically Modified Organisms in the new feature length documentary, "Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs".
> 
> [video=youtube;a6OxbpLwEjQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=a6OxbpLwEjQ[/video]





> first line of the video:
> "Genetic Engineering is a process where scientists take genes from one species and FORCE it into the DNA of other species"


first line is ignorant bullshit. stopped listening there.


----------



## Harrekin (May 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> first line is ignorant bullshit. stopped listening there.


Can't believe you watched anything GAYprotection posted. 

I bet the second line was something about them gang-fucking retarded dolphin babies and then went on about how it was Monsanto that killed Jesus.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Can't believe you watched anything GAYprotection posted.
> 
> I bet the second line was something about them gang-fucking retarded dolphin babies and then went on about how it was Monsanto that killed Jesus.


i was hoping he had finally posted something which could be called evidence for his claim, but the miracle didnt happen. 

one of these days though he will accidentally stumble over a fact, and the odds are pretty good that over a long enough timeline at least one of those facts will support his position to some degree. 

i have seen some shit that gives me concerns over SOME GMO's but ill keep that to myself, let the putz do his own reading


----------



## Harrekin (May 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i was hoping he had finally posted something which could be called evidence for his claim, but the miracle didnt happen.
> 
> one of these days though he will accidentally stumble over a fact, and the odds are pretty good that over a long enough timeline at least one of those facts will support his position to some degree.
> 
> i have seen some shit that gives me concerns over SOME GMO's but ill keep that to myself, let the putz do his own reading


I have some concerns over you know that beer you just opened that tastes flat from the start?

I don't call for the banning of beer tho.


----------



## cannabineer (May 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i was hoping he had finally posted something which could be called evidence for his claim, but the miracle didnt happen.
> 
> one of these days though he will accidentally stumble over a fact, and the odds are pretty good that over a long enough timeline at least one of those facts will support his position to some degree.
> 
> i have seen some shit that gives me concerns over SOME GMO's but ill keep that to myself, let the putz do his own reading


Trouble with that is, reasoned debate is graded like some car shows ... they look for the flaws/mistakes. Best score's a zero. cn


----------



## purpsmaster (May 27, 2013)

The fact that many countries have banned the use of GMO crops raises a few concerns to me, I wouldn't advocate GMO cannabis...besides what for? higher THC content? try a dab.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 27, 2013)

purpsmaster said:


> The fact that many countries have banned the use of GMO crops raises a few concerns to me, I wouldn't advocate GMO cannabis...besides what for? higher THC content? try a dab.


i find that many countries banning cannabis raises a few concerns for me.....

oh wait no it doesnt


----------



## purpsmaster (May 27, 2013)

hmmm.....well considering you reach that conclusion from actually smoking the herb, and the fact it has been around for thousands of years....when did GMO come around? oh that's right the early 1980's......yeah i bet we know of all the long term externalities that can come from it.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 27, 2013)

purpsmaster said:


> The fact that many countries have banned the use of GMO crops raises a few concerns to me, I wouldn't advocate GMO cannabis...besides what for? higher THC content? try a dab.





ginjawarrior said:


> i find that many countries banning cannabis raises a few concerns for me.....
> 
> oh wait no it doesnt





purpsmaster said:


> hmmm.....well considering you reach that conclusion from actually smoking the herb, and the fact it has been around for thousands of years....when did GMO come around? oh that's right the early 1980's......yeah i bet we know of all the long term externalities that can come from it.


LOL some mental gymnastics performed for that


----------



## cannabineer (May 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> LOL some mental gymnastics performed for that


 Weed was probably involved.  cn


----------



## purpsmaster (May 27, 2013)

Oh, I apologize for putting you through the stress of reading my post, your probably not used to valid information. I would have thought you would respond with a clever rebuttal involving a pro of GMO, but appears you chose the path of least resistance and threw in a little smart remark with an attempt to criticize me. Reveals your simple mind.


----------



## cannabineer (May 27, 2013)

purpsmaster said:


> Oh, I apologize for putting you through the stress of reading my post, your probably not used to valid information. I would have thought you would respond with a clever rebuttal involving a pro of GMO, but appears you chose the path of least resistance and threw in a little smart remark with an attempt to criticize me. Reveals your simple mind.


 The trouble with bringing up how many nations are banning GMOs is that it doesn't inform about their reasons, and it could be an _argumentum ad populum_, "everybody's doing it so it must be the thing to do". Jmo. 
Also, national bans are politics, and politicians are notoriously lazy about checking the science. What if one respected pol in one nation pushed a ban for her own reasons and many others are playing a reflex game, follow-the-leader? i'm not saying that is what's happening, but from this remove, how to show that it is not? cn


----------



## Doer (May 27, 2013)

"The hardest thing is to stay right, when everyone thinks you are not." doer's mom


----------



## cannabineer (May 27, 2013)

Doer said:


> "The hardest thing is to stay right, when everyone thinks you are not." *doer's mom*


Forgive me, but i had to do a double take. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 27, 2013)

purpsmaster said:


> Oh, I apologize for putting you through the stress of reading my post, your probably not used to valid information. I would have thought you would respond with a clever rebuttal involving a pro of GMO, but appears you chose the path of least resistance and threw in a little smart remark with an attempt to criticize me. Reveals your simple mind.


what valid information do you refer? 

that many countries are banning GMO's ? 

thats not really information, nor is it particularly valid. 

many nations banned witchcraft, that didnt mean hags with warts on their noses really were making milk go sour or causing the birth of two headed lambs. 

many nations still ban citizens owning firearms. this does not make my firearms more dangerous, no matter how many other nation's governments fear them. 

most of the arab world STILL has laws prohibiting communication with Djinns, and the practice of sorcery. since about half the world has banned magic, does that mean I Dream of Jeannie, and Harry Potter are like 50% real? 

almost the entire world prohibits cannabis, does this mean the DEA and Ainslinger were right all along?


----------



## lowcash (May 27, 2013)

Some of these kids need to educate themselves on the practices of Monsanto...


----------



## cannabineer (May 27, 2013)

lowcash said:


> Some of these kids need to educate themselves on the practices of Monsanto...


Where would you go for reliable information? cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 27, 2013)

lowcash said:


> Some of these kids need to educate themselves on the practices of Monsanto...


did you see monsanto cavorting with demons? does monsanto have a Hex Mark on it's inner thigh proving it is a Bride of Satan? 

tell us more about how monsanto practices it's evil craft. 

did monsanto turn you into a newt?


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (May 27, 2013)

He got better.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 27, 2013)

It's only a fleshwound


----------



## Doer (May 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Where would you go for reliable information? cn


We can say anything as if it is bad. This mirrors the history of Monsanto as I know it from the Monsanto website. But, that is hardly a reliable source, I guess. Gee, go ask a public Company their History?
OutRageous!

And of course the dickheads among us will also say, Avalon!! are you crazy, don't you know....blah blah
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?25949-The-real-truth-about-monsanto

Monsanto was founded in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1901, by John Francis Queeny, a 30-year veteran of the pharmaceutical industry. He funded the start-up with his own money and capital from a soft drink distributor, and gave the company his wife's maiden name. His father in law was Emmanuel Mendes de Monsanto, wealthy financier of a sugar company active in Vieques, Puerto Rico and based in St. Thomas in the Danish West Indies. The company's first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin, which it sold to the Coca-Cola Company. It also introduced caffeine and vanillin to Coca-Cola, and became one of that company's main suppliers.[citation needed]

In 1919, Monsanto established its presence in Europe by entering into a partnership with Graesser's Chemical Works at Cefn Mawr near Ruabon, Wales to produce vanillin, salicylic acid, aspirin and later rubber.

In its third decade, the 1920s, Monsanto expanded into basic industrial chemicals like sulfuric acid, and the decade ended with Queeny's son Edgar Monsanto Queeny taking over the company in 1928.

The 1940s saw Monsanto become a leading manufacturer of plastics, including polystyrene, and synthetic fibers. Since then, it has remained one of the top 10 US chemical companies. Other major products have included the herbicides 2,4,5-T, DDT, and Agent Orange used primarily during the Vietnam War as a defoliant agent (later found to be contaminated during manufacture with highly carcinogenic dioxin), the artificial sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet), bovine somatotropin (bovine growth hormone (BST)), and PCBs.[6] Also in this decade, Monsanto operated the Dayton Project, and later Mound Laboratories in Miamisburg, Ohio, for the Manhattan Project, the development of the first nuclear weapons and, after 1947, the Atomic Energy Commission.

Monsanto began manufacturing DDT in 1944, along with some 15 other companies.[7] This insecticide was much-welcomed in the fight against malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. The use of DDT in the U.S. was banned by Congress in 1972, due in large part to efforts by environmentalists, who persisted in the challenge put forth by Rachel Carson and her book Silent Spring in 1962, which sought to inform the public of the side effects associated with DDT. As the decade ended, Monsanto acquired American Viscose from England's Courtauld family in 1949.

In 1954, Monsanto partnered with German chemical giant Bayer to form Mobay and market polyurethanes in the US.

Monsanto was a pioneer of optoelectronics in the 1970s. In 1968 they became the first company to start mass production of (visible) Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), using gallium arsenide phosphide. This ushered in the era of solid-state lights. From 1968 to 1970 sales doubled every few months. Their products (discrete LEDs and seven-segment numeric displays) became the standards of industry. The primary markets then were electronic calculators, digital watches, and digital clocks.[8]

In the 1960s and 1970s, Monsanto became one of the most important producers of Agent Orange for US Military operations in Vietnam. Agent Orange caused an immense damage to health, also for US-soldiers, not at least by genetic modification.[9][10]

In 1980, Monsanto established the Edgar Monsanto Queeny safety award[citation needed] in honor of its former CEO (19281960), to encourage accident prevention.

Monsanto scientists became the first to genetically modify a plant cell in 1982. Five years later, Monsanto conducted the first field tests of genetically engineered crops.

Through a process of mergers and spin-offs between 1997 and 2002, Monsanto made a transition from chemical giant to biotech giant. Part of this process involved the 1999 sale by Monsanto of their phenylalanine facilities to Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLC) for $125 million. In 2000, GLC sued Monsanto because of a $71 million dollar shortfall in expected sales.

In 2001, retired Monsanto chemist William S. Knowles was named a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his research on catalytic asymmetric hydrogenation, which was carried out at Monsanto beginning in the 1960s until his 1986 retirement.

Throughout 2004 and 2005, Monsanto filed lawsuits against many farmers in Canada and the U.S. on the grounds of patent infringement, specifically the farmers' sale of seed containing Monsanto's patented genes. In some cases, farmers claimed the seed was unknowingly sown by wind carrying the seeds from neighboring crops, a claim rejected in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser.[11] These instances began in the mid to late 1990s, with one of the most significant cases being decided in Monsanto's favor by the Canadian Supreme Court. By a 54 vote in late May 2004, that court ruled that "by cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants (canola farmer Percy Schmeiser) deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the patent." With this ruling, the Canadian courts followed the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision on patent issues involving plants and genes.

As of February 2005, Monsanto has patent claims on breeding techniques for pigs which would grant them ownership of any pigs born of such techniques and their related herds. Greenpeace claims Monsanto is trying to claim ownership on ordinary breeding techniques.[12] Monsanto claims that the patent is a defensive measure to track animals from its system. They furthermore claim their patented method uses a specialized insemination device that requires less sperm than is typically needed.[13]

In 2006, the Public Patent Foundation filed requests with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to revoke four patents that Monsanto has used in patent lawsuits against farmers. In the first round of reexamination, claims in all four patents were rejected by the Patent Office in four separate rulings dating from February through July 2007.[14] Monsanto has since filed responses in the reexaminations.

In October 2008, the company's Canadian division, Monsanto Canada Inc., was named one of Canada's Top 100 Employers by Mediacorp Canada Inc., and was featured in Maclean's newsmagazine. Later that month, Monsanto Canada Inc. was also named one of Manitoba's Top Employers, which was announced by the Winnipeg Free Press newspaper.[15]

In January 2010, Monsanto was named company of the year by Forbes.
[edit] Spin-offs and mergers

Through a series of transactions, the Monsanto that existed from 1901 to 2000 and the current Monsanto are legally two distinct corporations. Although they share the same name and corporate headquarters, many of the same executives and other employees, and responsibility for liabilities arising out of activities in the industrial chemical business, the agricultural chemicals business is the only segment carried forward from the pre-1997 Monsanto Company to the current Monsanto Company. This was accomplished beginning in the 1980s:

 1985: Monsanto purchases G. D. Searle & Company. In this merger, Searle's aspartame business becomes a separate Monsanto subsidiary, the NutraSweet Company. CEO of NutraSweet, Robert B. Shapiro, goes on to become CEO of Monsanto from 1995 to 2000.
1996: Acquires 49.9% of Calgene, creators of the Flavr Savr tomato in April and another ~5% in November.
1997: Monsanto spins off its industrial chemical and fiber divisions into Solutia Inc. This transfers the financial liability related to the production and contamination with PCBs at the Illinois and Alabama plants. In January, Monsanto announces the purchase of Holden's Foundations Seeds, a privately held seed business owned by the Holden family, along with its sister sales organization, Corn States Hybrid Service, of Williamsburg and Des Moines, Iowa, respectively. The combined purchase price totals $925 million. Also, in April, Monsanto purchases the remaining shares of Calgene.
1999: Monsanto sells off NutraSweet Co. and two other companies.
2000: Monsanto merges with Pharmacia and Upjohn, and ceases to exist. Later in the year, Pharmacia forms a new subsidiary, also named Monsanto, for the agricultural divisions, and retains the medical research divisions, which includes products such as Celebrex.
2002: Pharmacia spins off its Monsanto subsidiary into a new company, the "new Monsanto." As part of the deal, Monsanto agrees to indemnify Pharmacia against any liabilities that might be incurred from judgments against Solutia. As a result, the new Monsanto continues to be a party to numerous lawsuits that relate to operations of the old Monsanto.
2005: Monsanto purchases Seminis, a leading global vegetable and fruit seed company, for $1.4 billion.[16]
2007: In June, Monsanto completes its purchase of Delta and Pine Land Company, a major cotton seed breeder, for $1.5 billion.[17] Monsanto exits the pig breeding business by selling Monsanto Choice Genetics to Newsham Genetics LC in November, divesting itself of "any and all swine-related patents, patent applications, and all other intellectual property."[18][19]
2008: Monsanto purchases the Dutch seed company De Ruiter Seeds for 546 million,[20] and sells its POSILAC bovine somatotropin brand and related business to Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company in August for $300 million plus "additional contingent consideration".[21]

[edit] Sponsorships

Monsanto has been the corporate sponsor of many attractions at Disneyland and Walt Disney World.

At Disneyland they include:

Hall of Chemistry (until 1967)
Fashions and Fabrics through the Years (from 1965 to 1966)
Monsanto House of the Future (from 1957 to 1967)
Adventure Thru Inner Space (from 1967 to 1985)

And at Walt Disney World they include:

Magic Eye Theatre at Epcot
Circle Vision 360

All attractions that the company has ever sponsored (except for the Magic Eye Theatre, in the Future World section of Epcot) were located in Tomorrowland.

Monsanto is cited as one of the major sponsors behind the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in many web sites but not in the home page of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.[22] Monsanto does share technology and patents with following companies mentioned in the referred document: The Australia based Grains Research & Development Corporation (GRDC)[23] and the Swiss based company Syngenta AG[24]
[edit] Corporate governance

Current members of the board of directors of Monsanto are: Frank V. AtLee III, the former President of American Cyanamid and former chairman of Cynamid International, John W. Bachmann, Hugh Grant, the chairman of Monsanto, Arthur H. Harper, Gwendolyn S. King, president of McDonalds USA, Sharon R. Long, C. Steven McMillan, the former chairman and CEO of Sara Lee Corporation, William U. Parfet, George H. Poste, Robert J. Stevens, the current chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation.[25]

Former Monsanto employees currently hold positions in US government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Environmental Protection Agency&#8206; (EPA) and the Supreme Court. These include Clarence Thomas, Michael R. Taylor, Ann Veneman, Linda Fisher, Michael Friedman, William D. Ruckelshaus, and Mickey Kantor.[26] Linda Fisher has been back and forth between positions at Monsanto and the EPA.[26]
[edit] Environmental and health record

According to an anonymous 2001 document[27] obtained by the Center for Public Integrity, Monsanto has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being a "potentially responsible party" for 56 contaminated sites (Superfund sites) in the United States. Monsanto has been sued, and has settled, multiple times for damaging the health of its employees or residents near its Superfund sites through pollution and poisoning.[6][28][29] In 2004 The Wildlife Habitat Council and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Environmental Performance Track presented a special certificate of recognition to Monsanto Company during WHC's 16th Annual Symposium.

Monsanto is the largest producer of glyphosate herbicides through its popular brand, Roundup. A report released in June 2011 linked glyphosate to birth defects in frog and chicken embryos at dilutions much lower than those used in agricultural and garden spraying. http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/R...BirthDefectsv5

Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications (referring to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) explained the company's regulatory philosophy to Michael Pollan in 1998: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job."[30]
[edit] Genetically modified organisms


Many of Monsanto's seed products are specifically genetically modified, to make them resistant to Monsanto produced agricultural chemicals, such as "Round Up" herbicide. In a study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences, researchers applied a different statistical analysis on raw data obtained from Monsanto and concluded that these GM corn (maize) varieties induced a state of hepatorenal toxicity.[31] They suggested that the presence of the new pesticides associated with the inserted genes were responsible, although the possibility that this could be due to a mutation during the transformation process was not excluded.[31]

Monsanto was drawn into the Genetically modified food controversies over the Pusztai affair.[32] Dr. Arpad Pusztai's experiments suggested that it was the process of genetic engineering, not the presence of the inserted lectin gene that altered the thickness of the gut epithelium in rats when fed genetically modified potatoes.[33] In other words it was the process of genetic engineering itself, not the presence of pesticides caused by the engineering which caused the damage to rats. The publication of this study has resulted in much controversy.[34]
[edit] Terminator seed controversy


In June 2007,[35] Monsanto acquired Delta & Pine Land Company, a company that had patented a seed technology nicknamed Terminators. This technology, which was never known to have been used commercially, produces plants that have sterile seeds so they do not flower or grow fruit after the initial planting. This prevents the spread of those seeds into the wild, however it also requires customers to repurchase seed for every planting in which they use Terminator seed varieties. In recent years, widespread opposition from environmental organizations and farmer associations has grown, mainly out of the concerns that hypothetical seeds using this technology could increase farmers' dependency on seed suppliers.

Despite the fact that in 1999, Monsanto pledged not to commercialize Terminator technology,[36] Delta Vice President, Harry Collins, declared at the time in a press interview in the Agra/Industrial Biotechnology Legal Letter, Weve continued right on with work on the Technology Protection System (TPS or Terminator). We never really slowed down. Were on target, moving ahead to commercialize it. We never really backed off.[37]
[edit] rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone)
Main article: Bovine somatotropin

Monsanto sparked controversy nationwide with the introduction of Bovine somatotropin, abbreviated as rBST and commonly known as rBGH. It is a synthetic hormone that is injected into cows to increase milk production. IGF-1 is a hormone stimulated by rBGH in the cow's blood stream, which is directly responsible for the increase in milk production. IGF-1 is a natural hormone found in the milk of both humans and cows causing the quick growth of infants.

Though this IGF-1 occurs naturally in mothers' milk to be fed to their infants it produces adverse effects in non-infants, behaving as a cancer accelerator in adults and non-infants; this biologically active hormone is associated with breast cancer (correlation shown in premenopausal women),[38] prostate cancer,[39] lung cancer[40] and colon cancers.[40][41]

A Monsanto-sponsored survey of milk showed no significant difference in rBST levels in milk labeled as "rBST-Free" or "organic milk" vs milk not labeled as such.[42]

According to The New York Times[43] Monsanto's brand of rBST, Posilac, has recently (March 200 been the focus for a pro-rBST advocacy group called AFACT, made up of large dairy business conglomerates and closely affiliated with Monsanto itself. This group has engaged in large-scale lobbying efforts at the state level to prevent milk which is rBST-free from being labeled as such. As milk labeled as hormone-free has proved enormously popular with consumers, the primary justification by AFACT for their efforts has been that rBST is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that the popularity of milk sold without it is damaging what they claim to be the right of dairy producers to use a technology that maximizes their profits.

Thus far, a large-scale negative consumer response to AFACT's legislative and regulatory efforts has kept state regulators from pushing through restrictions that would ban hormone-free milk labels, though several politicians have tried, including Pennsylvania's agriculture secretary Dennis Wolff, who tried to ban rBST-free milk labeling on the grounds that "consumers are confused". The statement by Agriculture Secretary Wolff was reported by pro-biotech site Earth Friendly-Farm Friendly which elaborated on the issues of rBGH/rBST labelling:

"Consumers are getting confused with the extra labels," said Pennsylvania Ag Secretary Dennis Wolff. "They deserve a choice, and so do producers. But from the standpoint of safety, all milk is healthy milk. Our milk is a safe product. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is not in a position to say use rBST or not. The key word is: choice. I used rBST from day one of its approval to the last day that I milked cows. It was an important management tool on my dairy farm. What we oppose is the negative advertising or the selling of fear. If producers are asked to give up a production efficiency, and if that efficiency nets them $3000 or $10,000 a year for their dairy farm That's a lot of money.[44]

Proposed labeling changes have been floated by AFACT lobbyists in New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, Missouri and Vermont thus far.[citation needed]

In October 2008, Monsanto sold this business, in full, to Eli Lilly for a price of $300 million plus additional considerations.[


----------



## Doer (May 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Forgive me, but i had to do a double take. cn


Yes, I know. But, you promised not to mention my Alien status. Don't blow my cover, Dude!
Self regenisis is not easy.......gosh


----------



## cannabineer (May 27, 2013)

Doer said:


> Yes, I know. But, you promised not to mention my Alien status. Don't blow my cover, Dude!
> Self regenisis is not easy.......gosh


You missed it. Say "doer's mom" a few times fast. cn


----------



## Doer (May 27, 2013)

wha????

DOERSMOM DOERSMOM DOERSMOM DOERSMOM....huh? Oh I get ....no. With a Jamaican accent, mon?
Is it dirty? Does it insult my mother? 

Must have been funny at the time. At least I didn't tell my secret to the world. <sigh> so there is that.


----------



## cannabineer (May 27, 2013)

It could be one of those things that makes perfect sense only to me. No insult intended. cn


----------



## Doer (May 27, 2013)

Oh, of course, I know that.  Is is a palindrome? Alliterates with? Is it funny?....well. maybe....never mind.


----------



## AliCakes (May 31, 2013)

Lets look at this issue with an eye on history. The history of GMO crops is short but it is there. Along with Monsanto's history of behavior toward said crops.

First of all a GMO crop is very different than a hybrid. In hybrids we take genes that are already in cannabis strains and cross them. The genes already were in cannabis and had developed over millenia.....we aren't working against nature in any way. Shanti once said that we were simply doing the work of a bumble bee.....only the bumble bee can't pollinate plants thousands of miles away from each other. I like the analogy.

GMOs use viruses that attack DNA sequences and add artificial DNA into the plant. This is a whole new ball game and can work AGAINST what nature has put into the plant. GMO crops have not even been on the market for a decade. Yet we are already seeing enough health issues with these products to scare many scientists and cause bans on entire continents. 

Many may say, so what - make GMOs available to those who want them. This does not work. GMO plants produce pollen just like other plants do. These modified genes are then spread to any plant in the vicinity. Already, non-genetically modified soy is impossible to find in the United States. The newer product may be ok for some, but I personally have violent reactions to it. Also, if a company like Monsanto makes a GMO product and it cross pollinates with another persons product, what is going to happen. Historically, nature finds a way. Historically, the patented GMO genes are now in the seed of the neighboring product, and historically, you are now unwittingly in violation of patent laws.

Monsanto is making surfs out of our American farmers. There is no way in hell that I am okay with them or any of their counterparts sinking their teeth into my Cannabis seeds. Cannabis is not a cheap high for me. It is a strong neuro-protectant and ocular pressure regulator. At 19 I was diagnosed with a degenerative neurological disorder, and by 25 my ocular pressure was high enough for my doctors to begin suspecting glaucoma (a very common issue in my family). Cannabis makes one condition livable and helps to prevent the other by keeping the pressure that would otherwise cause damage to my sight at bay. It is the only thing that has worked well and not caused additional issues for me. I don't want it messed with - nor do I want it controlled by big businesses like Monsanto.

Those of you who smoke purely for pleasure may not care about the likes of Monsanto, but I urge you to think about the other users and the long term repercussions of the decision. Once GMOs are released, nature finds away. There is no recall. We Americans need to think less about enterprise and more about personal protection. My plants are important to me. One day, I would like to be able to grow them outside and not have Monsanto's goons searching my field for their genetics so that they could sue me for everything I own. If you don't think they would do that with cannabis - think again....they already do that with their other crops.


----------



## Harrekin (May 31, 2013)

AliCakes said:


> Lets look at this issue with an eye on history. The history of GMO crops is short but it is there. Along with Monsanto's history of behavior toward said crops.
> 
> First of all a GMO crop is very different than a hybrid. In hybrids we take genes that are already in cannabis strains and cross them. The genes already were in cannabis and had developed over millenia.....we aren't working against nature in any way. Shanti once said that we were simply doing the work of a bumble bee.....only the bumble bee can't pollinate plants thousands of miles away from each other. I like the analogy.
> 
> ...


Populations with strong, varied, useful genes survive...

Populations without either stagnate and slowly decline or just never take hold in an area to being with. 

If you place so much faith in nature you should believe it'll right itself...no?


----------



## Doer (May 31, 2013)

To say nothing of the fact that nature" attacks" the same dna randomly with virus. And the human race was molded by virus. 

And when you are crossing hybrids or marrying a blond, you are attacking the dna for undesirable traits.

He doesn't enough, yet, but hopefully, no longer too lazy to find out.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 9, 2013)

Gmo discussion is a daily thing here..has been for years

You wanna know what's up? Do the leg work and get on it


----------



## erocla (Jun 10, 2013)

That's because you dont know a fucking thing about the consequences of skipping steps in evolution.


----------



## erocla (Jun 10, 2013)

learn the difference between genetically modified and genetically engineered


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2013)

erocla said:


> That's because you dont know a fucking thing about the consequences of skipping steps in evolution.


Let us hear your exulted expertise. What do you know about evolution if you think there are steps to skip?

You are talking Gods design, not science. Ya see, Science knows evolution is not going "anywhere" no steps in the process, no ultimate goal.

So, when we get to the very idea of "proper" consequence of which the outcome is jacked by "skipping steps?".....that means you are so lost as to not make any sense, at all.


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2013)

erocla said:


> learn the difference between genetically modified and genetically engineered


You are bringing nothing. Its the Confucius parable. "It is when we open our mouths we can be thought of as the fool."

Let's here your distinction. In technical detail please.

I'm talking but you are not reading....already you have convenced me.

----------
*To say nothing of the fact that nature" attacks" the same dna randomly with virus. And the human race was molded by virus. 

And when you are crossing hybrids or marrying a blond, you are attacking the dna for undesirable traits.

He doesn't enough, yet, but hopefully, no longer too lazy to find out. *


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 10, 2013)

erocla said:


> That's because you dont know a fucking thing about the consequences of skipping steps in evolution.


And the missing steps would be?


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 10, 2013)

erocla said:


> learn the difference between genetically modified and genetically engineered


Provide an authoritative link. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 10, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> And the missing steps would be?


 "Man bad. Nature good." cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jun 10, 2013)

if you cant find non-GMO soya you didnt look very hard. 

it's easy to grow, if you want organic edemame, or even if you wist to make your own non-gmo bean curd you can process the beans from your own garden quite handily. 

another specious claim laid to rest. 

thanks google


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 10, 2013)

Adding to discussion


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 10, 2013)

One more for discussion. ...articles to be found in the hawaii tribune

Sorry for the upside down, hard to read image,..but ya, articles in hawaii tribune all week


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 10, 2013)

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

on a side note, this clip may provide an explanation and a solution for FF 

[video=youtube;lZ2gCx3WFSo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=lZ2gCx3WFSo[/video]


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 10, 2013)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> View attachment 2694252One more for discussion. ...articles to be found in the hawaii tribune


yo doc.. did you guys get hit with the zombie wheat or was that shit just isolated in the mid-west??


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 10, 2013)

cannawizard said:


> yo doc.. did you guys get hit with the zombie wheat or was that shit just isolated in the mid-west??


grains!! cn


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2013)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> Adding to discussionView attachment 2694251


Well, not really adding anything, I can get. What do they mean by released?


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 10, 2013)

Do the leg work bro..you're intelligent enough, right? I'm adding to discussion.it's all there on the net to read..pro's and con's of GMO... straight from the people who deal with this situation on a daily basis....don't like doing leg work? Then don't..i said where to look, the hawaii tribune


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jun 10, 2013)

Doer said:


> Well, not really adding anything, I can get. What do they mean by released?


a crop "release" is a permit to grow a particular cultivar which had been subject to injunction or prohibition for any reason.

example: 

Red Currants are forbidden to be grown in many regions, and the Black Currant was completely illegal in the US as these plants are a host for Pine Blister Rust disease, but the Black Currant cultivar named "Consort" was "released" since it cannot host pine blister rust, while all other cultivars of Black Currant are still banned, and most regions still prohibit Red Currant. 

the same holds true for new GMO and hybrid cultivars, they are generally prohibited except for clinical trials, and if they are deemed worthy, they are "released" for cultivation by farmers and home gardeners. 
but discussing GMO CROP RELEASES sounds scary, like they were enraged by flash photography, broke their chains and are rampaging through the countryside. 

if the GMO-nazis have to explain themselves, the shit wont sound terrifying to those with no understanding of agriculture.

you should have done the legwork yourself. they dont have to explain themselves to you, they are on the side of gaia!


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 10, 2013)

Ummm keep posting and make yourself sound more retard with every post. ..the articles are neutral, they talk of both sides..i entered this thread as a neutral, but it just goes to show where your agenda is at talking the way you do...


----------



## TheSnake (Jun 10, 2013)

Fuck monsanto. They can go jump off a bridge.


----------



## TheSnake (Jun 10, 2013)

under there stupid ass laws and shit, if a monsanto seeded plant, where to somehow become planted on a farmers land that was not a monsanto farmer, the corporation could take them to court (win by crazy money, there the walmart of the growing world) and take the fuckers farm/garden... NO WAY! Just google there damn name, they are nothing but bad news for farmers, world wide.


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 11, 2013)

Monsanto GMO clinical trials are as valid as DEA sanctioned clinical trials for the medical validity of cannabis~

--fapping to the future responses of pro-Monsanto nazis (GMO is an excellent science under the RIGHT hands.. lol ., too bad its ran by a bunch of supreme douches)


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2013)

TheSnake said:


> under there stupid ass laws and shit, if a monsanto seeded plant, where to somehow become planted on a farmers land that was not a monsanto farmer, the corporation could take them to court (win by crazy money, there the walmart of the growing world) and take the fuckers farm/garden... NO WAY! Just google there damn name, they are nothing but bad news for farmers, world wide.


Oh bullshit. You have no idea. You are following crazy woo-woo Shamanism and just believe the daily prayer.

That is not happening in the way you describle.

And google it?? The Shaman crowd has pushed the truth to page 3 for google, in any can be found.

What happens is this a royalty. Now BeBop Smith the DJ can play stuff he stole on the internet and make money doing it but he is breaking the law. And, if he gets pushy about Free Music, No Royalty!!!, he can become a target.

So, you go out into your field and find corn you didn't plant. Hey, you didn't buy or plant that corn. You know this.

It not a landrace maze corn or a thistle weed. You know what it is. So, that is not illegal and no body gets sued for raising that corn and eating it or feeding your own pigs.

But, you can't cultivated that to save the seed corn. You can't suddenly show a big acreage of Monstanto cash crop.

It is so uniform, it sticks out to the Monsanto field guys that are working with the other farmers.

You are now stealing seed corn. Get a lawyer. You will need it.


----------



## Trousers (Jun 11, 2013)

Can anyone find a study that shows that GMO crops are not safe to consume?


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2013)

My Man. It is not even very successful as a cash crop, so far.


----------



## Trousers (Jun 11, 2013)

GMO cotton yields at least 6% more.
Pretty much every papaya from Hawaii is GMO. 

How is that not successful?


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 11, 2013)

Every papaya from HI is gmo? ...false


Money talks in this world we live in..


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 11, 2013)

If you don't get my last sentence, then y'all will never get it...


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2013)

Well, true about cotton. But, Roundup Ready corn and soya is a bust.

Don't know the papaya story. I cannot provide any evidence +/- on heath factors.


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2013)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> If you don't get my last sentence, then y'all will never get it...


Money talks and shit walks. It is a good thing. Skin in the game vs lip spittle.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 11, 2013)

[email protected] ..this is a discussion..am i supposed to beat my chest and sling insults like the lot of you?? I'm spitting facts, not insults..so go figure..do the legwork instead of playing armchair quarterback...


This goes out to no one in particular but just the thread itself iN General..can't have a decent conversation in politics without all the bs


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 11, 2013)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> [email protected] ..this is a discussion..am i supposed to beat my chest and sling insults like the lot of you?? I'm spitting facts, not insults..so go figure..do the legwork instead of playing armchair quarterback...
> 
> 
> This goes out to no one in particular but just the thread itself i. General


i'am insulted that you are not insulting others, how Fn dare you-- Sir!


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2013)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> [email protected] ..this is a discussion..am i supposed to beat my chest and sling insults like the lot of you?? I'm spitting facts, not insults..so go figure..do the legwork instead of playing armchair quarterback...
> 
> 
> This goes out to no one in particular but just the thread itself iN General..can't have a decent conversation in politics without all the bs


But, you said it like it was a bad thing and now you are being a cry baby. So, don't a drop flat statement of fettered non-content in a drive by post, and then come back and act almighty like we don't understand your last toss off sentence.

See, I agreed with you but not that it is bad. But, it is a good thing to me.

You don't like disagreement. Shit walks. Go walk around?


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 11, 2013)

like i said [email protected]


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2013)

Hey, just more passive aggression to me.  I understood your tone and intent quite well I think.


----------



## Trousers (Jun 11, 2013)

What are the cons of GMO crops?
All I can find is hippies screaming that they are bad.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jun 11, 2013)

How is this thread still going?? Im no hippy by any means, but i know that food that i grow or get down the block at the farmers market tastes alot better than the crap the grocery store puts on its shelves. Id figure that would be nuff said. But look at all the countries baning gmos. Is the whole world run by sencless hippies or is there actually an impact on our global food chain being caused by fiddleing with nature? I dont think this thread will uncover the truth anytime soon lol


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 11, 2013)

If you paid attention. You wouldn't be asking


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jun 11, 2013)

I just read back a couple pages and its the same argument as one hundred pages back......GMOs arent safe for the planets ecosystem vs. show me one study that says that! This is a joke, theres plenty of studies, they all just get swept under the carpet by multibillion dollar corporations....thats right, i said multibillion. Have you ever tried to fight with a billionair? I bet i know where the safe moneys at. OMG, i cant believe im arguing on this thread again, its like a black hole that sucks you in.


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 11, 2013)

Trousers said:


> What are the cons of GMO crops?
> All I can find is hippies screaming that they are bad.


well one thing I can say about the gm corn around here is it has been modified to resist root rot. This sounds great if you have a wet spring where seedlings would get drowned out but an unintended side effect is the entire plant itself resists rot. 

What is the downside to this you might ask? Well, one major thing is that the stalks,leaves and shit do not biodegrade as quickly as traditional corn so the nutrients and minerals that might otherwise go back into the soil do not. This afterharvest debris ends up blowing around in highwinds plugging up ditches, culverts and ending up in the rivers and creeks. 

Since this material isn't contributing back to the field's nutritional diversity and also since corn itself is such a high consumer of nutrients next year even more fertilizer needs to be used. Usually synthetic, sometimes organic like from pig/cattle farms and such. 

Either way these fertilizers end up running off into the watershed and causing more problems.

Google fertilizer runoff and algal blooms if you are interested. 

So as far as I am concerned gm corn like this only makes the manufacturers rich twofold, first from the initial purchase of seed then from increased fertilizer purchase next year. All the while damaging local ecosystems. 

This is not just my opinion. I have a good friend who is a fairly large farmer and most of this info comes from him. 

Can these facts be linked to harmful effects in humans? Maybe not directly at this time. The unintended effects are obvious though. 

I might add that it often takes years to discover how harmful products are to environment and ecosystems. Look how long ddt was used.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 11, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> well one thing I can say about the gm corn around here is it has been modified to resist root rot. This sounds great if you have a wet spring where seedlings would get drowned out but an unintended side effect is the entire plant itself resists rot.
> 
> What is the downside to this you might ask? Well, one major thing is that the stalks,leaves and shit do not biodegrade like traditional corn so the nutrients and minerals that might otherwise go back into the soil do not. This afterharvest debris ends up blowing around in highwinds plugging up ditches, culverts and ending up in the rivers and creeks.
> 
> ...


you make a well reasoned argument, but nonetheless we should throw all of our eggs into this unknown basket.

after all, it's just a complete upheaval of our food supply system as we know it, what's the worst that could happen?


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2013)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> If you paid attention. You wouldn't be asking


If you would type more ideas you would make more sense.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 11, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> well one thing I can say about the gm corn around here is it has been modified to resist root rot. This sounds great if you have a wet spring where seedlings would get drowned out but an unintended side effect is the entire plant itself resists rot.
> 
> What is the downside to this you might ask? Well, one major thing is that the stalks,leaves and shit do not biodegrade like traditional corn so the nutrients and minerals that might otherwise go back into the soil do not. This afterharvest debris ends up blowing around in highwinds plugging up ditches, culverts and ending up in the rivers and creeks.
> 
> ...


Non rot gmo corn? really?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 11, 2013)

Doer said:


> If you would type more ideas you would make more sense.


better than some members here, who seem to make less sense as they type more.


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 11, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> you make a well reasoned argument, but nonetheless we should throw all of our eggs into this unknown basket.
> 
> after all, it's just a complete upheaval of our food supply system as we know it, what's the worst that could happen?


The problem is we do not have a choice. Corn for instance is such a high input crop to grow if the farmers did not plant gm corn they would loose money. Therefore they have no choice. 

Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly difficult to purchase non gm corn in the first place and if you have a field of non gm corn and it gets pollinated by say your neighbors gm corn the seed companies can and have came in and sued farmers successfully for patent infringement. Even though the defendants have done no wrong. 

This whole scenario is really frightening. When you have a handful of companies controlling virtually the entire worlds food supply we as average citizens are in trouble. 

I believe this documentary covers this subject very well. It has been awhile since I watched it though so it may have been another.


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 11, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Non rot gmo corn? really?


really............


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2013)

Trousers said:


> What are the cons of GMO crops?
> All I can find is hippies screaming that they are bad.


We just don't know. It sounds bad. So blame the the 4th Amendment. 

Good thing, said hippies can no longer get an injunction to stop an entire US planting season so our foreign aid commitments can't be met. 

All that Aid would have to go to beef production since it can't be diverted from E-(nightmare) fuel production, by law.

It is a tangled web we weave messing with the Constitution in the heart and minds of youth.

For example, I am now convinced MacCarthy was very corrected, indeed, to raise the alarm of the Commie threat. It lives here, now. It lives in the hippies and Hollywood of certain types.

It is breathing fire, in the colleges of America spewed by those I thought were so cool at the time.

Live and learn, or not.


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 11, 2013)

Doer said:


> We just don't know. It sounds bad. So blame the the 4th Amendment.
> 
> Good thing, said hippies can no longer get an injunction to stop an entire US planting season so our foreign aid commitments can't be met.
> 
> ...



I lost my decoder ring.

WHAT?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 11, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> better than some members here, who seem to make less sense as they type more.





Doer said:


> We just don't know. It sounds bad. So blame the the 4th Amendment.
> 
> Good thing, said hippies can no longer get an injunction to stop an entire US planting season so our foreign aid commitments can't be met.
> 
> ...


i rest my case.


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2013)

You guys are not stoned enough or too stoned.

- they can't just break into the place and search it...is it bad. what are the secrets they hide?

- thread point, hippies cannot stop a planting season. Para 700 somethingsomgthing of this said, farm bill

- hippies would shoot foot, if they did. Don't see consequences. Feed cows, not world staving masses..corn is fuel by law

- many hearts and mind co-opted hippie shit, it is from what MacCarthy warned of

- hippy shit alive and well, says old hippy, sadly

- old hippy woke up

- no one has to wake up...9th Amendment

Next, big color letters, bucky? Read with less constipation?>  IAC, it is dark mind influence. It is not for your conscious mind. Please include me in your ignore list if you don't want to be treated to this.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 11, 2013)

And with each post, you're credibility is more and more shot....


[email protected]


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2013)

And of course, it has only taken a very few of your posts for me to find that all your ideas of credibility and right fight point to simple ineptitude of thought. You think I care. How dumb of you.


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 11, 2013)

Doer said:


> You think I care. How dumb of you.



If you don't care than why are you here? 

I fail to see what you have contributed here.


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> If you don't care than why are you here?
> 
> I fail to see what you have contributed here.


Again it doesn't matter nor do I have any need to explain anything or justify myself in any way.
You now suggest I want your understanding of contribution. Funny. You said it. You fail. 

Dark mind influence...you see, there are various levels or corridors....never mind.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 11, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> How is this thread still going?? Im no hippy by any means, but i know that food that i grow or get down the block at the farmers market tastes alot better than the crap the grocery store puts on its shelves. Id figure that would be nuff said. But look at all the countries baning gmos. Is the whole world run by sencless hippies or is there actually an impact on our global food chain being caused by fiddleing with nature? I dont think this thread will uncover the truth anytime soon lol


Is this about GM, or is that about the difference between industrialized culture, harvest and distribution vs. the handbasket approach? cn


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 11, 2013)

Doer said:


> Again it doesn't matter nor do I have any need to explain anything or justify myself in any way.


yet you keep coming back? 

When was the last time you got laid?


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> yet you keep coming back?
> 
> When was the last time you got laid?


I live here, i lost my dick in Angola along with both legs and left nut. The right nut, I accidently reverse swallowed in the explosion and it is a partial, hanging from my navel next to the....ahem....tubes. My diaphragm was "lost" and I work, writing drivel from an iron lung to support my grow. And you can see my grow in my journal.

I take donations by paypal. I admire you for the guts to ask. Why are you here?


----------



## Trousers (Jun 11, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> well one thing I can say about the gm corn around here is it has been modified to resist root rot. This sounds great if you have a wet spring where seedlings would get drowned out but an unintended side effect is the entire plant itself resists rot.
> 
> What is the downside to this you might ask? Well, one major thing is that the stalks,leaves and shit do not biodegrade like traditional corn so the nutrients and minerals that might otherwise go back into the soil do not. This afterharvest debris ends up blowing around in highwinds plugging up ditches, culverts and ending up in the rivers and creeks.


This is not the case on my farms. Is this your farm or could I read about it some where?



joe macclennan said:


> Since this material isn't contributing back to the field's nutritional diversity and also since corn itself is such a high consumer of nutrients next year even more fertilizer needs to be used. Usually synthetic, sometimes organic like from pig/cattle farms and such.


That is more of a monoculture problem than a GMO problem. I am working to converting to no till farming.



joe macclennan said:


> Either way these fertilizers end up running off into the watershed and causing more problems.
> 
> Google fertilizer runoff and algal blooms if you are interested.


That is not a GMO issue. 



joe macclennan said:


> So as far as I am concerned gm corn like this only makes the manufacturers rich twofold, first from the initial purchase of seed then from increased fertilizer purchase next year. All the while damaging local ecosystems.


That is not really a gmo issue. 



joe macclennan said:


> This is not just my opinion. I have a good friend who is a fairly large farmer and most of this info comes from him.
> 
> Can these facts be linked to harmful effects in humans? Maybe not directly at this time. The unintended effects are obvious though.


What are they and where can I read about them? All I have read is people freaking out about GMO. They are exactly like people that do not think we have had an impact on our planet's climate. They ignore science when it does not agree with them. 



joe macclennan said:


> I might add that it often takes years to discover how harmful products are to environment and ecosystems. Look how long ddt was used.



DDT is a man made chemical. GMO corn is a plant. You are comparing apples and battery acid.


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 11, 2013)

Trousers said:


> This is not the case on my farms. Is this your farm or could I read about it some where?
> 
> 
> No as I stated in my post it is not my farm and as far as reading about it. Google rot resistant corn.
> ...


Oh my! REALLY? my comparison had nothing to do with gmo's there. It was only meant to demonstrate how previously accepted practices were later found to be quite harmful. 
Apparently in your narrow minded focus of defending gmo's you over looked that. 

If you are happy planting gmo's by all means knock yourself out. I could care less.

If you are looking for definitive answers on how these things affect the ecosystem or humans. I doubt you will find them here. 

If you're intent is just to argue that your dick is bigger. I'm out.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 11, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> really............


Well no as far as I can tell it's utter bullshit.

And with that the whole of your post ends up being bullshit

But at least you wrote it well if utterly wrong


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 11, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Well no as far as I can tell it's utter bullshit.
> 
> And with that the whole of your post ends up being bullshit
> 
> But at least you wrote it well if utterly wrong


wow, really? Okie dokie then. from a two second search of google. Bullshit huh?

http://ohioline.osu.edu/ac-fact/0022.html

*http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/ppa/ppa26/ppa26.htm
Disease-Resistant Hybrids*

Corn growers should select high yield potential hybrids that also have stalk rot resistance, leaf disease resistance, and good standability. Full-season hybrids are generally more resistant than those that mature early in a given area. Resistance to the fungi that cause stalk rots helps prevent losses from premature plant death and lodging.
Many resistant hybrids are available. Most hybrids, however, are only resistant to the organisms causing Diplodia, Gibberella and Fusarium stalk rots. Hybrids that are resistant to these fungi may be highly susceptible to anthracnose stalk rot. Hybrids resistant to anthracnose may be somewhat susceptible to other stalk rot fungi. Thus, it is important to know which organisms are causing major stalk rot damage in an area and to which stalk rot fungi a hybrid is resistant.
In addition to stalk rot resistance, growers should select hybrids resistant to foliar diseases important in their area. Resistance to leaf diseases is important since loss of leaf area can predispose the corn to stalk rot problems.
Hybrid standability is another factor that should be considered. Hybrids with thick rind or other characteristics that increase standability often remain standing even though the interior of the stalk is thoroughly decayed. Corn producers should check out such characteristics before selecting a particular hybrid.
It is often worthwhile to tour local hybrid strip plots to check on the susceptibility of various hybrids to stalk rot. Up-to-date information on the yield performance and lodging of many hybrids is also available in the latest issue of the U.K. publication "Kentucky Hybrid Corn Performance Test."


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 11, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> wow, really? Okie dokie then.
> 
> http://ohioline.osu.edu/ac-fact/0022.html
> 
> ...


Hybrid right?


[h=2]hybrid corn[/h] _noun_





[h=2]Definition of _HYBRID CORN_[/h]*1*
*:* a corn resulting from *crossbreeding*; _specif_ *:* the grain of Indian corn developed by hybridizing two or more inbred strains

*2*
*:* the plant that is grown from the grain of hybrid corn and that conforms to a standard of desirable characteristics including increased size, yield, or disease resistance but whose own grain produces an inferior progeny


So gmo rot resistant corn?


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 11, 2013)

I understand that. Also gmo


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 11, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> I understand that. Also gmo


Gmo rot ressistant corn? Really?

If you did understand that why did you bring a piece about hybrids to a gmo thread and blame gmo for the hybrids problems?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Jun 11, 2013)

the corn is GM'ed to resist .. .not hybridized . . isnt that what hes saying . . . . .

the choices we make today can not unequivocally be said to not have negative reactions like a ripple effect . . .although the opposite is truw as well . . but when you put the human factor into it . . . .we fuck everything up when we try to engineer it . . .. . sad truth . . . .dream is always more vivid then reality . . . . .and i dont need to have GMO produce to be healthy so i see it as a unnecessary action as well as dangerous . . . . . .


dont fix what aint broken is not a saying cuase its catchy its a saying cause some things do not need to be improved upon in order to be effective and effcient . . .. .and money is no excuse . . .in a argument that effects not just the US but every country we ship to


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 11, 2013)

Yes, really. Can you prove that said corn is not gmo? 

No you cannot as the seed companies are not compelled to disclose such information.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 11, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> the corn is GMO to resist .. .not hrbrydized . . isnt that what hes saying . . . . .


I know what he's saying and as far as I can tell it's false there is no gmo corn that is so resistant to rot that the whole plant doesn't biodegrade

hybrid =/= gmo


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Jun 12, 2013)

well maybe preasure Joe to be more forth coming with his actual assertions . . . .what you say Joe is it possible to prove that the GMO corn is not decomposing correctly in order to replenish the soil?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 12, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> Yes, really. Can you prove that said corn is not gmo?
> 
> No you cannot as the seed companies are not compelled to disclose such information.


you show me something that says it's "hybrid" and then ask me to prove its not "gmo"?

cute


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 12, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> I know what he's saying and as far as I can tell it's false there is no gmo corn that is so resistant to rot that the whole plant doesn't biodegrade
> 
> hybrid =/= gmo


I never said the plant doesn't biodegrade. It does at a much slower rate. Keep misquoting me douche.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 12, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> I never said the plant doesn't biodegrade. It does at a much slower rate. Keep misquoting me douche.


You've ended up saying a few things in this thread now and they're all adding up to you lying

But feel free to call me names if you think that'll distract from your lying


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 12, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> well maybe preasure Joe to be more forth coming with his actual assertions . . . .what you say Joe is it possible to prove that the GMO corn is not decomposing correctly in order to replenish the soil?


I thought that's what I was doing asking for evidence of this mythical gmo corn

He hasn't even shown they are using gmo instead of the hybrid trial he posted


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 12, 2013)

feel free to misquote me if it makes it seem as if you are correct. Almost all corn is gmo anymore. This is a fact. 

But feel free to bury your head in the sand.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 12, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> feel free to misquote me if it makes it seem as if you are correct. Almost all corn is gmo anymore. This is a fact.
> 
> But feel free to bury your head in the sand.


lol buthurt over a perceived slight to try and cover up your lies

You know what would "make it seem as if you were correct"??

Some evidence of rot resistant GMO corn


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 12, 2013)

You really are a fool. Didn't like the last link I put up? Here is one that is ALL about gmo corn and it's effects on different types of rot.

http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/InsectResistantCorn.aspx


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 12, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> You really are a fool. Didn't like the last link I put up? Here is one that is ALL about gmo corn and it's effects on different types of rot.
> 
> http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/InsectResistantCorn.aspx


That study is all about the Bt TOXIN (PESTICIDE) and goes into how less insect damage leaves fewer vectors for fungal damage to occur
From the limitations section


> Although fumonisin and aflatoxin concentrations are typically lower in Bt hybrids compared with conventional hybrids, this might not be enough when conditions are very favorable for disease. In the southeastern United states in years favorable for severe ear rot, Bt hybrids can have levels of ear rot and mycotoxins similar to those in non-Bt hybrids. Both of these diseases and their associated mycotoxins can occur in kernels in the absence of insect damage because they have other pathways for infection.




So while it's better than your "hybrid" link by the fact it's talking about "gmo" it still isn't saying what you think it says


----------



## burgertime2010 (Jun 12, 2013)

all this splitting hairs......It is Monsanto for Christs sake. Any profit motivated benefit will be pursued aggressively and without consequence. Poor tasting food!!!


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 12, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> That study is all about the Bt TOXIN (PESTICIDE) and goes into how less insect damage leaves fewer vectors for fungal damage to occur
> From the limitations section
> 
> 
> So while it's better than your "hybrid" link by the fact it's talking about "gmo" it still isn't saying what you think it says[/FONT][/COLOR]


You are correct. So in essence it is preventing rot by deterring pest/pathogens. 

This on the other hand is exactly what I posted about initially. 

Testing performed by pioneer/dupont.

http://www.ipmcenters.org/ipmsymposiumv/posters/037.pdf


----------



## joe macclennan (Jun 12, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Gmo rot ressistant corn? Really?
> 
> If you did understand that why did you bring a piece about hybrids to a gmo thread and blame gmo for the hybrids problems?


If you don't get it. I'll spell it out for you. 

Yes it is talking about hybrids. 

Of several gmo plants. 

Therefore the problems of the hybrid are derived from the contributions of both genetically modified parent plants.

The end result is a plant that is specifically engineered to resist pests, pathogens and different types of rot.


----------



## Doer (Jun 12, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> the corn is GM'ed to resist .. .not hybridized . . isnt that what hes saying . . . . .
> 
> the choices we make today can not unequivocally be said to not have negative reactions like a ripple effect . . .although the opposite is truw as well . . but when you put the human factor into it . . . .we fuck everything up when we try to engineer it . . .. . sad truth . . . .dream is always more vivid then reality . . . . .and i dont need to have GMO produce to be healthy so i see it as a unnecessary action as well as dangerous . . . . . .


Sam if the world was only about you..... We are not trying to make the world healthy, they have to not starve first. We cannot keep them from starving without losing 90% of the grains in the corrupt process.

Yield increase in the worlds arable lands is our only choice.

We can sit around and whine like we are Noah's wife with small world problems. But, that was over when the flood drained back.

Now there are big world problems and plenty of food if there was no corruption. Can't cure corruption, so grow more food.

This is a crop YIELD effort. It has big reasons in a big world and the little hand wringing what if have never stopped us.

We don't have the luxury to wait and see. We have never had that, never practiced that.

Wait and see, is what the deer does in the headlights. You are sounding like pre-road kill.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jun 12, 2013)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> Ummm keep posting and make yourself sound more retard with every post. ..the articles are neutral, they talk of both sides..i entered this thread as a neutral, but it just goes to show where your agenda is at talking the way you do...


of course you think the articles were "neutral", they are written to sound like dispassionate discussion of the facts, when in fact they are carefully designed to give the implication that the crops in question were simply "released into the wild" rather than the truth, which is the "release" is a legal removal of injunction, not a terrifying abrogation of regulatory responsibility. 

"adding to the discussion" by regurgitating images from a press story with no background info, and no commentary beyond "its in the local paper in hawaii, look it up" doesnt really add to shit. 

i dont give a squirt of piss if you want to pretend youre just an observer, YOU entered the discussion armed with a few graphs from a poorly sourced poorly written piece of yellow journalism and smugly demanded everybody else "look it up" instead of simply posting the article in question. 

http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/local-news/gmo-hard-avoid.html

ohh look, heres the last article in the series. posting that URL was so difficult i nearly broke my wrist getting it done, and if this is what you think is "neutral" then your car's transmission must be seriously fucked.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jun 12, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> The problem is we do not have a choice. Corn for instance is such a high input crop to grow if the farmers did not plant gm corn they would loose money. Therefore they have no choice.
> 
> Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly difficult to purchase non gm corn in the first place and if you have a field of non gm corn and it gets pollinated by say your neighbors gm corn the seed companies can and have came in and sued farmers successfully for patent infringement. Even though the defendants have done no wrong.
> 
> ...


that myth has already been dispelled on previous pages of this very thread. 

the wind blown pollen lolsuits were summarily dismissed, and the only success in court monsanto has had is against a few dinks who were directly violating their contract in an attempt to produce knockoffs of their GMO cultivars for profit.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jun 12, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> Yes, really. Can you prove that said corn is not gmo?
> 
> No you cannot as the seed companies are not compelled to disclose such information.


financial incentive encourages companies to inform growers that a crop is GMO, since hybrids cant be patented, and gmo's can. 

also "resit root and stalk rot" (corn diseases) does not equate to indestructible noncoposting corn stalks. 

your rubella vaccination makes you immune to whooping cough, but a whooping crane can still peck you, and it will still hurt. 

pure silliness on your part.


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 12, 2013)

Doer said:


> Now there are big world problems and plenty of food if there was no corruption. Can't cure corruption, so grow more food.


True.. Corruption has been with us since we crawled out the caves-- I guess we can't change that part about us (well not at this current junction), human nature is a bitch~

I get the whole GMO crops to increase yield hence more food (even "if" it is not completely 100% healthy) to feed the ever increasing world populace --but I really doubt that is why corporations like Monsanto is in the business~

Simply put, wealth and power, their not creating GMO crops to feed the starving-- come on, lets get real, we can actually accomplish that without GMOs~

I'll put myself in their shoes-- I drive to work in a lambo, I make millions a day, my life revolves around luxury... why the fuck would I give two shits above anyone else other than me? My life is good, your life blows, deal with it~ ..starving people around the world can do me a big favor, and just die off --wasting space & resources, isn't that the law of the jungle-- survival of the fittest?


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 12, 2013)

cannawizard said:


> True.. Corruption has been with us since we crawled out the caves-- I guess we can't change that part about us (well not at this current junction), human nature is a bitch~
> 
> I get the whole GMO crops to increase yield hence more food (even "if" it is not completely 100% healthy) to feed the ever increasing world populace --but I really doubt that is why corporations like Monsanto is in the business~
> 
> ...


Yeah, profit making food companies release foods that kill their consumers...

Even big tobacco makes sure to only kill you slowly so they can extract MOAR cash from you.

Monsanto might be hard liners on things like patents, etc but you would too if you invested 250+ million dollars on a self replicating product. 

Jesus fucking Christ, if they are so bad, why do farmers continually get sued for using their products unlicensed?

Why don't they just use non-GM varieties?

Why do people keep ragging on Monsanto? Because they're ridiculously popular with farmers?

If farmers actually hated them they'd vote with their wallets and Monsanto would be no more.


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 12, 2013)

I don't even give a shit about Monsanto, but Genetic Modification =/= just Monsanto and they're just a company, just like all the others.


----------



## Trousers (Jun 12, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> No as I stated in my post it is not my farm and as far as reading about it. Google rot resistant corn.


I did. You do not know what you are talking about. 



joe macclennan said:


> I am a fan of no till but it only contributes to the problem of post harvest byproducts going into rivers,streams and ditches.


You really do not know what you are talking about. 




joe macclennan said:


> Oh my! REALLY? my comparison had nothing to do with gmo's there. It was only meant to demonstrate how previously accepted practices were later found to be quite harmful.
> Apparently in your narrow minded focus of defending gmo's you over looked that.


It was stupid and irrelevant.
Your example was DDT. Comparing DDT to GMO crops is really dumb. 



joe macclennan said:


> If you are happy planting gmo's by all means knock yourself out. I could care less.
> 
> If you are looking for definitive answers on how these things affect the ecosystem or humans. I doubt you will find them here.


What I find here is terrible opinions about GMO crops and farming not backed up with anything.



joe macclennan said:


> If you're intent is just to argue that your dick is bigger. I'm out.




"your" 

Bye bye. 




Samwell Seed Well said:


> the corn is GM'ed to resist .. .not hybridized . . isnt that what hes saying . . . . .
> 
> the choices we make today can not unequivocally be said to not have negative reactions like a ripple effect . . .although the opposite is truw as well . . but when you put the human factor into it . . . .we fuck everything up when we try to engineer it . . .. . sad truth . . . .dream is always more vivid then reality . . . . .and i dont need to have GMO produce to be healthy so i see it as a unnecessary action as well as dangerous . . . . . .
> 
> ...



You do not understand the point of GMO crops yet you know enough to think they are dangerous? lol


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 12, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> of course you think the articles were "neutral", they are written to sound like dispassionate discussion of the facts, when in fact they are carefully designed to give the implication that the crops in question were simply "released into the wild" rather than the truth, which is the "release" is a legal removal of injunction, not a terrifying abrogation of regulatory responsibility.
> 
> "adding to the discussion" by regurgitating images from a press story with no background info, and no commentary beyond "its in the local paper in hawaii, look it up" doesnt really add to shit.
> 
> ...


You're totally clueless that I'm laughing my ass off here 
Another dude who is losing credibility with every post


U mad bro? Cause you sure act like it lmao


----------



## Doer (Jun 12, 2013)

cannawizard said:


> True.. Corruption has been with us since we crawled out the caves-- I guess we can't change that part about us (well not at this current junction), human nature is a bitch~
> 
> I get the whole GMO crops to increase yield hence more food _*(even "if" it is not completely 100% healthy*_) to feed the ever increasing world populace --but I really doubt that is why corporations like Monsanto is in the business~
> 
> ...


No. Don't try to back door a straw dog " ...even if it is not healthy"....oh come on. It is 100% healthy and no evidence to the contrary.

No. Don't try to back door a straw dog. There is no evidence we can maintain our position against the world's insects and produce the required yield. All the evidence says that we cannot.

No. Don't try to back door a straw dog. (very dry hole)  Survival of the fittest is all we have ever had.


----------



## Doer (Jun 12, 2013)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> You're totally clueless that I'm laughing my ass off here
> Another dude who is losing credibility with every post
> 
> 
> U mad bro? Cause you sure act like it lmao


And you sir, seem to present a content free mind only useful for supplying punk-ass scorn.

Mental age = 12.


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 12, 2013)

Doer said:


> No. Don't try to back door a straw dog " ...even if it is not healthy"....oh come on. It is 100% healthy and no evidence to the contrary.
> 
> No. Don't try to back door a straw dog. There is no evidence we can maintain our position against the world's insects and produce the required yield. All the evidence says that we cannot.
> 
> No. Don't try to back door a straw dog. (very dry hole)  Survival of the fittest is all we have ever had.


lets at least agree to disagree.. maybe 99% --gotta give me that 1%, come on!!!

fuck insects, let's just setup massive indoor hydroponic grows (come on---we can spend 500million to 1bil on tall useless artsy buildings in the middle of deserts-- but we can't setup up simple indoor hydro systems?)


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 12, 2013)

cannawizard said:


> lets at least agree to disagree.. maybe 99% --gotta give me that 1%, come on!!!
> 
> fuck insects, let's just setup massive indoor hydroponic grows (come on---we can spend 500million to 1bil on tall useless artsy buildings in the middle of deserts-- but we can't setup up simple indoor hydro systems?)


And if you wanted to be a dirty socialist, you could pass a law insisting metal processing factories and the like "donate" their useful waste for the nutes. 

Win win (if you're a dirty socialist).


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 12, 2013)

Doer said:


> And you sir, seem to present a content free mind only useful for supplying punk-ass scorn.
> 
> Mental age = 12.


U mad too bro? lmao 


I like how y'all throw insults instead of discussion.


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 12, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> And if you wanted to be a dirty socialist, you could pass a law insisting metal processing factories and the like "donate" their useful waste for the nutes.
> 
> Win win (if you're a dirty socialist).


Hhmm.. plausible, but that ain't happening~ (dirty capitalist)


----------



## Doer (Jun 12, 2013)

cannawizard said:


> lets at least agree to disagree.. maybe 99% --gotta give me that 1%, come on!!!
> 
> fuck insects, let's just setup massive indoor hydroponic grows (come on---we can spend 500million to 1bil on tall useless artsy buildings in the middle of deserts-- but we can't setup up simple indoor hydro systems?)


Can we? No. We can't. We don't. If we could we would. 

What is stopping us? That is simply beyond your economic understanding, of course. So, no 1% even.

We are taking mega tons of corn yield. What are you talking indoor hydro for?

Buildings provide rents and taxes and last for 100s of years. So, we totally disagree here. 

We need YIELD. GM research is only about YIELD per acre.

BTW, there is this S.American mosquito now that is over 1 inch long, here in the US.

That might be a good insect to fuck. But, you realize, it is the insects that are fucking us?


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 12, 2013)

Doer said:


> What is stopping us? That is simply beyond OUR economic understanding, of course. So, no 1% even.


fixed it for ya 

and i'm sad you couldn't even give me the 1%.. sigh


----------



## Doer (Jun 12, 2013)

cannawizard said:


> fixed it for ya
> 
> and i'm sad you couldn't even give me the 1%.. sigh


No, it isn't beyond my expert understanding. It is beyond your understand. I have been schooled in depth in Economics and have studied for the MBA.

And in the sense of sharing I can give....uhmm....how about .3%. 

You are suggesting a wealth equivalence between Capital improvement of land and increasing YIELD with hydroponics.

You are suggesting somehow if the money for buildings can be found it can easily be converted to a pie in the sky Hydroponic idea.

And you want to fuck insects.  So, not much to agree with so far. Give more beef?


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 12, 2013)

Doer said:


> No, it isn't beyond my expert understanding. It is beyond your understand. I have been schooled in depth in Economics and have studied for the MBA.
> 
> And in the sense of sharing I can give....uhmm....how about .3%.
> 
> ...


See.. you can be a nice guy, thanx for the .3% --it is better than nothing 

My bad, I stand corrected.. I didn't know you had a MBA in Economics.. You know everything, so uber smart and stuff.. So tell me all knowing one, why is this planet in such a miserable state of fail? Oh wait.. your not part of the problem, your contributing your vast intellect on RIU to solve mankind's dilemmas-- I feel safer knowing your online measuring your ego's penis~


----------



## Doer (Jun 12, 2013)

No, you don't get an MBA in Economics. I have a degree in Physics. I work as a Computer Scientist and am a Senior Manager at one of the Big Three. I have been schooled on the company dime, in Economics, in depth. I run a budget of slightly over $1M...used to be more. <sigh> An MBA is a masters in business admin. It is only case studies of the big guys. I did extensive research into ConAgra and price fixing, as a project.

And I'm a very nice guy. Maybe check your reading filters.

I'm trying explain some things is all. My friend, just because you are weak on a subject, I am strong in, doesn't matter. It is not an ego thing. I really don't care. It is dark mind influence. If you read it and you did, that's all.

Not that I even care if you read it or not.  So, educate me on something you are strong in. I have very wide interests.

I come here seeking knowledge, not opinions. I have plenty of those. 

No dick wagging, just the beef.


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 12, 2013)

Doer said:


> No, you don't get an MBA in Economics. I have a degree in Physics. I work as a Computer Scientist and am a Senior Manager at one of the Big Three. I have been schooled on the company dime, in Economics, in depth. I run a budget of slightly over $1M...used to be more. <sigh> An MBA is a masters in business admin. It is only case studies of the big guys. I did extensive research into ConAgra and price fixing, as a project.
> 
> And I'm a very nice guy. Maybe check your reading filters.
> 
> ...


You sir, got cool points in my book  Just straight no BS opinions, thanks for being a scholar & gentleman~

(troll bait unsuccessful, damnit)


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 12, 2013)

(never mind) back to the GMO debate~


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jun 13, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Yeah, profit making food companies release foods that kill their consumers...
> 
> Even big tobacco makes sure to only kill you slowly so they can extract MOAR cash from you.


The following two statements indicate how terribly you have thought through your position.

Who says GMOs necessarily kill you quickly?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 13, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> You are correct. So in essence it is preventing rot by deterring pest/pathogens.
> 
> This on the other hand is exactly what I posted about initially.
> 
> ...


Living plant resistance due to less mechanical damage from insects doesn't apply to decomposition of the dead plants?

What mechanism does the bt TOXIN use to protect the plant from mechanical damage during harvesting?

This study shows by corn decomposes at same rate as non by corn
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/14708/PDF&sa=U&ei=2IO5UZigKIWyOd2QgNAL&ved=0CCEQFjAC&sig2=Z8hu810T5gvFucLruiuQ9A&usg=AFQjCNHVDwbJXPdVApSTsq05Uf2R-rOtDA

Your link is about testing hybrid plants again (not transgenic) which commercially available cultivar does it apply to?


These problems you attributed to gmo are not unique to gmo, gmo doesn't have monopoly on problems, some are not even the problems you make them out to be


oh and if we could ever grow crops where the bits we didn't want rotted away amazingly slowly we might just have the answer to CO2 and the greenhouse effect


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 13, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> .It is Monsanto for Christs sake!!


It's this exact sentiment that keeps me arguing in these threads

people keep turning up with "evil Monsanto" stories and every single time those stories are examined its quickly shown that it wasn't exactly true or completely made up

"But it's Monsanto" is always the cry as if that makes up for their "story" being wrong


Monsanto has reached a mythical state similar to ghosts or Bigfoot where believers are willing to suspend any skepticism even when time and time again what they base their beliefs on is false.

But "it's Monsanto for Christ sake."


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jun 13, 2013)

do you work for them?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> do you work for them?


No I do not

Do you work at all?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jun 13, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> No I do not
> 
> Do you work at all?


Then you'd know as much as the next person, regarding Monsanto's inner workings - fuck all... And even if you did, an NDA would prohibit you from discussing anything...

As for work, I draw lighting designs for live events, theatre, TV etc... When not doing that I'm working towards an unrestricted electrical licence...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Then you'd know as much as the next person, regarding Monsanto's inner workings - fuck all... And even if you did, an NDA would prohibit you from discussing anything...


Laughing my fucking area off

No evidence no nothing 

BUT"ITS MONSANTO FOR CHRIST SAKE"!!!!!!!!!!!

You couldn't have done it better if I'd paid you to do it


> As for work, I draw lighting designs for live events, theatre, TV etc... When not doing that I'm working towards an unrestricted electrical licence...


Oh so then you'd know as much as the next guy when it comes to Monsanto (according to the rule you just made)

Thank you for clearing that up


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jun 13, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Laughing my fucking area off
> 
> No evidence no nothing
> 
> ...


Enough has come out for a fair few people to realise they're a horrible company with an even worse track record. You don't have to work for them to know they're evil, on the other hand, you'd be a complete fucking moron (thank you for being a great example) if you'd actually thought they had the best interest of the people that use and consume their products, at heart.
But we need guinea pigs to test the shit they put out an who better, than those that worship at the alter of GM Crops.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Enough has come out for a fair few people to realise they're a horrible company with an even worse track record. You don't have to work for them to know they're evil, on the other hand, you'd be a complete fucking moron (thank you for being a great example) if you'd actually thought they had the best interest of the people that use and consume their products, at heart.
> But we need guinea pigs to test the shit they put out an who better, than those that worship at the alter of GM Crops.


Lol as I said mythical status "evil incarnate" "a complete fucking moron" if you believe otherwise

Doesn't matter one bit that every single one of your "evil Monsanto" stories ends up being a severe distortion of the truth because there's so many that it must be true!!!!!

You talk about us worshiping at an alter for wanting evidence when it's clear that you yourself have nothing more than "faith" to back up your beliefs 

"Its Monsanto's for Christ sake!!!!" 

Can I get a hallelujah ?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jun 13, 2013)

This tells you all you need to know about Monsanto. Google it more if you wish, but to say there is no evidence of their wrongdoing is RETARDED to say the least...

Monsanto&#8217;s Harvest of Fear - Monsanto already dominates America&#8217;s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation&#8217;s tactics&#8211;ruthless legal battles against small farmers&#8211;is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 13, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> The following two statements indicate how terribly you have thought through your position.
> 
> Who says GMOs necessarily kill you quickly?


I'd rather know who said they kill you at all...


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 13, 2013)

Ninjabowler said:


> I just read back a couple pages and its the same argument as one hundred pages back......GMOs arent safe for the planets ecosystem vs. show me one study that says that! This is a joke, theres plenty of studies, they all just get swept under the carpet by multibillion dollar corporations....thats right, i said multibillion. Have you ever tried to fight with a billionair? I bet i know where the safe moneys at. OMG, i cant believe im arguing on this thread again, its like a black hole that sucks you in.


bro do you understand that its the vote count here that really matters and that this thread is now on Monsanto/gov radar used as one of their many indicators on what the gen pop is thinking...its somehow comforting to know that they can see that many folks will be very upset when they bring forth the ge Monsanto cannabis...so whats the big deal about the thread? Is there some other thread here (in SHDT politics lol) that serves a greater purpose? If so then I havent seen it lol...
Cant imagine why you have such a prob with this thread, but diversity is the key to life so cheers


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 13, 2013)

*GMO feed turns pig stomachs to mush! Shocking photos reveal severe damage caused by GM soy and corn*








Wednesday, June 12, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
_Tags: GMO feed, severe inflammation, pig stomachs_


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040727_GMO_feed_severe_inflammation_pig_stomachs.html#ixzz2W6QgXzJo

(NaturalNews) If you have stomach problems or gastrointestinal problems, a new study led by Dr. Judy Carman may help explain why: pigs fed a diet of genetically engineered soy and corn showed a 267% increase in severe stomach inflammation compared to those fed non-GMO diets. In males, the difference was even more pronounced: a 400% increase. (For the record, most autistic children are males, and nearly all of them have severe intestinal inflammation.)

The study was conducted on 168 young pigs on an authentic farm environment and was carried out over a 23-week period by eight researchers across Australia and the USA. The lead researcher, Dr. Judy Carman, is from the _Institute of Health and Environmental Research_ in Kensington Park, Australia. The study has now been published in the Journal of Organic Systems, a peer-reviewed science journal.

The study is the first to show what appears to be a direct connection between the ingestion of GMO animal feed and measurable damage to the stomachs of those animals. Tests also showed abnormally high uterine weights of animals fed the GMO diets, raising further questions about the possibility of GMOs causing reproductive organ damage.

Proponents of corporate-dominated GMO plant science quickly attacked the study, announcing that in their own minds, there is no such thing as any evidence linking GMOs to biological harm in any animals whatsoever. And they are determined to continue to believe that, even if it means selectively ignoring the increasingly profound and undeniable tidal wave of scientific studies that repeatedly show GMOs to be linked with severe organ damage, cancer tumors and premature death.

*"Adverse effects... toxic effects... clear evidence"*

The study was jointly announced by GM Watch and Sustainable Pulse.

Lead author of the study Dr. Judy Carman stated, "We found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. Yet no food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture."

The following photo shows one of the pig intestines fed a non-GMO diet vs. a pig intestine fed a GMO diet. As you can see from the photo, the pig fed the GMO diet suffered severe inflammation of the stomach:







*Yet more evidence that GMOs damage mammals*

The study adds to the weight of scientific evidence from others studies which show that rats fed a diet of GMOs grow horrifying cancer tumors and suffer premature death.

A scientific study published last year concluded that eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide was linked with rats developing shockingly large tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death.

That study was also criticized by corporate GMO trolls who argued that scientists should not show pictures of rats with large cancer tumors caused by GMOs because the pictures scare consumers into being afraid of GMOs.

Here are some of the pictures they don't want you to see, taken right from the public announcement of the study:







That study also found that rats fed GM corn suffered *severe kidney damage* as well as shockingly high rates of premature death.

*Why weren't these studies done before GMOs were unleashed into the global food supply?*

The GMO biotech industry was able to escape any meaningful regulation of GMOs in the United States by (ridiculously) claiming GMOs were substantially no different from non-genetically engineered crops. "They're all the same!" we were told. And the USDA bought it.

So how did Monsanto patent its GM corn, then? You're not supposed to be able to patent something unless it's uniquely different. Thus, the very fact that Monsanto has acquired patents on its GMO crop varieties is proof that the company itself believes its seeds are different.

And what's different about Monsanto's GM corn? It produces a *deadly insecticide grown right into every kernel*. That insecticide, of course, is what kills insects that try to eat the crop. And how does it kill those insects? It *fatally damages their digestive systems*. That same insecticide stays inside the corn even as the crop is turned into animal feed... or corn chip snacks... or flaked corn breakfast cereal.

*GMOs are unfit for human consumption*

This pig stomach inflammation study suddenly provides yet more credible evidence that GMOs are *unfit for human consumption* and may be causing severe damage to the digestive systems of both humans and mammals.

Naturally, the GMO industry and all its paid online trolls, on-the-take "scientists" and multi-million dollar P.R. machine will try to viciously attack this study from every angle. They absolutely hate real science when that science calls into question their poisonous, deadly seeds and genetic pollution.

That's why *you won't read this news anywhere in the mainstream media* -- the same media that utterly discredited itself a few weeks ago when it pretended the hugely successful global March Against Monsanto never even took place.

NOTE TO THE SELLOUT CORPORATE MEDIA: You have zero credibility remaining. Virtually no one believes what you print. Everyone knows you have sold out your editorial agenda to Big Pharma, Monsanto, weapons manufacturers and the surveillance state. The reason why alternative media like GM Watch and Natural News is rising while your own numbers keep plummeting is because we print the real news that really matters on liberty, food freedom, farm freedom, health freedom and self-reliance. Maybe if you stopped intentionally lying to your readers on a daily basis while censoring important news on grassroots liberty, you might see some readers return to your publication... 
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040727_GMO_feed_severe_inflammation_pig_stomachs.html#ixzz2W6R6TtyS


​


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 13, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *****Snipped page of bullshit******
> .


http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

here's the study itself and if you look to results you'll see this



> There were no statistically significant differences in food intake, feed, conversion ratios, number or nature of illnesses, number or nature of veterinary interventions, veterinary costs or mortality between the non-GM-fed and GM-fed groups of pigs



Full of shit as ever dna?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jun 13, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf
> 
> here's the study itself and if you look to results you'll see this
> 
> ...


you of all people should know. Did you know there's a direct link with LSD and mind control?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> you of all people should know. Did you know there's a direct link with LSD and mind control?


Does that explain your propensity to tinfoil?


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jun 13, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Does that explain your propensity to tinfoil?


It would explain you're mental deficiency. LSD and hillbilly heroin will do that...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> It would explain you're mental deficiency. LSD and hillbilly heroin will do that...


lol if that's the best you have when presented with facts I haven't got much to worry about


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 13, 2013)




----------



## echelon1k1 (Jun 13, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> lol if that's the best you have when presented with facts I haven't got much to worry about


 bro I doubt you have the required equipment to be able to worry... It would explain why your reality is a little distorted and that's putting it mildly.


----------



## Doer (Jun 13, 2013)

I actually know directly there is a link between LSD and mind control.

In fact, Tim Leary and Richard Alpert (later changed to Baba Ram Das) did experiments on this at Harvard.

They did find that it allows us to control our minds more directly.

Obviously some here, lack the most basic rudiments of actual thought, and don't as yet need to control their minds.

And I will say the first drug I ever took was LSD when I was 16. I am so happy I did, because it showed me some tools of mind control that I practice daily upon myself. I can, with help of LSD foundation, also MDMA helped,) that now, after years of Guru meditation on top, I can now exhibit to myself an extraordinary level of mind control. 

I'm now up to several long seconds...but at that point who is counting, so swamped in Self Bliss? There is only one mind control that is valid for us. Self Control.


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 13, 2013)

Doer said:


> I actually know directly there is a link between LSD and mind control.
> 
> In fact, Tim Leary and Richard Alpert (later changed to Baba Ram Das) did experiments on this at Harvard.
> 
> ...


Have you ever dabbled with DMT (or Ayahuasca) ?


----------



## Doer (Jun 13, 2013)

That was one I missed. That was the 5 day one, right? I never had 5 days.


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 13, 2013)

Doer said:


> That was one I missed. That was the 5 day one, right? I never had 5 days.


~Depends on the individual, 24-36hrs


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 13, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> bro I doubt you have the required equipment to be able to worry... It would explain why your reality is a little distorted and that's putting it mildly.


Care to comment on the study that showed

"there were no statistically significant differences in food intake, feed, conversion ratios, number or nature of illnesses, number or nature of veterinary interventions, veterinary costs or mortality between the non-GM-fed and GM-fed groups of pigs"

I know your worried about all that......

Bit shameful of that article dna posted to misrepresent it in that way don't you think?


----------



## Doer (Jun 13, 2013)

Well, you come down on your own, but you can't sleep.  Very tired, but no sleep. And back in the day we had nothing, though we tried a lot of what pills we could get, like Benedryl and Actifed, didn't work. Smoke two joints doesn't work. Two beers won't work.

BTW, I'd stay off the pot for the first 2 hr, although I have tried many combos. After the peak smoke a lot for extra enjoyment.

After that it is totally situational about how the trip will go. First trip is really a trip. Someone stuck a Zap Comic in my hand and now I am forever lost. 

But, our fears never happened. There are no hallucination like some think. No monster is just going to jump out. It is not going to seem like the floor has vanished. But, everything will be shimmering in light. Your continuity in time is adrift.

You will spend much time gently waving your hands around and saying, Trails of Colors...Trails of Colors.

The first time, you will need a guide. There has to be a watcher for you to keep you out of the street and stuff, at first. But, also best not to leave the house except for the backyard, the first time. But, the next trip, no problem.

You have to get a sense of it, first. But, long and pleasant, gut laughter is the mark of LSD.....someone that can't stop laughing. Someone that wiil just begin chucking to themselves.

After some practice, we were able to go to high school all day, on LSD. We'd meet, maybe 8 trippers in front of the Principle's Office every period and exchange the Notes.

The Notes are the make work for ourselves in class instead of staring around with saucer sized eye dilations.

I'm not saying you can get away with that today, butit is just to show it is a very benign medication if you treat it with respect. We didn't.

We would secretly dose each other.  And sometimes.....

OK, max dose, in CLs. Clear Light gel squares. A fine trip for a Lady going to a rock concert is .5 CL. I might do that also being the companion for her safety. But, by myself, I might take 3/4 or even a whole one if it was an important band like the Eagles.

And, for max,( I would never do this to me)....but I was dosed to 2.5 CL, one time. What a trip. At that dose serious confusion can happen. I remember looking slowly thru a giant pile of rice prints of Tibetan Buddhism. Serious pile of imported prints, maybe 1 foot stack.I was 18 years old. And the radio was on a rock station. I, and the other recipient had not yet been informed, the the jug of apple Juice was tainted.

I looked up and said to no one...I feel weird. I looked over to Bob, the perp, and the other vic Randy, and saw the saucer eyes already YOU Dosed us, I said.

Bob holds up the bottom 1 inch of Apple juice and we can see the 8 count of swollen jell cubes for 3 people. It was a confusing day. But, I just stayed with the Rice prints of the Tibetan Heaven. The mark of LSD is it makes you think you have these grand revelations, and you do.

But, they don't come back to your conscious natter mind very easily, yet they are there. Often I was only left with the symbol that got me there. The giant, now un-remembered revelations are these two paint spots on the side of the bathtub???? How did I get down here?

So, there is the peak. After about 4 hrs. you begin to come down.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 13, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf
> 
> here's the study itself and if you look to results you'll see this
> 
> ...


TW I've told you on more occasions then I can count, but here it is again just in case this could be the straw that finally brakes through to your turtle mind...I only post things for folks consideration, not because I necessarily agree or endorse whatever info is being presented...I know the sewer waters you lurk in are murky but is that finally clear enough 4ya?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 13, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> TW I've told you on more occasions then I can count, but here it is again just in case this could be the straw that finally brakes through to your turtle mind...I only post things for folks consideration, not because I necessarily agree or endorse whatever info is being presented...I know the sewer waters you lurk in are murky but is that finally clear enough 4ya?


So your little more than a propaganda spilling shill? You don't care for facts because getting your bullshit across is more important?

The study shows no difference between gmo and non gmo you intellectually honest enough to comment on this


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jun 13, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Care to comment on the study that showed
> 
> "there were no statistically significant differences in food intake, feed, conversion ratios, number or nature of illnesses, number or nature of veterinary interventions, veterinary costs or mortality between the non-GM-fed and GM-fed groups of pigs"
> 
> ...


As soon as you back up but one of the many bullshit claims you make...


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 13, 2013)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> U mad too bro? lmao
> 
> 
> I like how y'all throw insults instead of discussion.


Welcome to my little patch of sunshine. Mind the gamma rays. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 13, 2013)

Doer said:


> No, you don't get an MBA in Economics. I have a degree in Physics. I work as a Computer Scientist and am a Senior Manager at one of the Big Three. I have been schooled on the company dime, in Economics, in depth. I run a budget of slightly over $1M...used to be more. <sigh> An MBA is a masters in business admin. It is only case studies of the big guys. I did extensive research into ConAgra and price fixing, as a project.
> 
> And I'm a very nice guy. Maybe check your reading filters.
> 
> ...


Wag that beef!  cn


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 14, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> As soon as you back up but one of the many bullshit claims you make...


Sure.... what claims are they then?


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jun 14, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> So your little more than a propaganda spilling shill? You don't care for facts because getting your bullshit across is more important?
> 
> *The study shows no difference between gmo and non gmo* you intellectually honest enough to comment on this


The study did not show what you are claiming.

Just read the abstract. And it was a short term study, so no, the pigs didn't die immediately after ingesting GMO's - they only led very short lives.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 14, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf
> 
> here's the study itself and if you look to results you'll see this
> *
> ...





OGEvilgenius said:


> The study did not show what you are claiming.
> 
> Just read the abstract. And it was a short term study, so no, the pigs didn't die immediately after ingesting GMO's - they only led very short lives.


Look I posted the link to the study. I even told you where to lookin the study (right at beginning of results)

So while your sitting there feeling smart for reading the abstract your wrong 
*

There were no statistically significant differences in food intake, feed, conversion ratios, number or nature of illnesses, number or nature of veterinary interventions, veterinary costs or mortality between the non-GM-fed and GM-fed groups of pigs

​




*


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jun 14, 2013)

Oh, the mortality was no different on pigs that were scheduled to grow up and be slaughtered over the course of half a year. Oh the vet costs were hardly any different too! Really? Is that a surprise? They only lived 150 days. If they had actually lived their full lives, do you suppose they might have suffered from the actual effects noticed? I'm gonna venture a guess and say yes. The study doesn't say what you think it does because you didn't read it. Although you do claim to have, it would appear you have not and do not understand the implications.

The fact their sexual organs were enlarged also indicates possible sexual function problems, which weren't studied.

Let me tell you, IBS and such have increased in incidence dramatically over the past 20 years. Do you suppose those who suffer all enjoy the same long healthy lives normal people do? Cause, I'll tell you, they do not. 

But don't worry, there's no link here. Just read that one sentence and trust ginjawarrior's interpretation.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 14, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> I read all of it dumb fuck. Oh, the mortality was no different on pigs that were scheduled to grow up and be slaughtered over the course of half a year. Oh the vet costs were hardly any different too! Really? Is that a surprise? They only lived 150 days. If they had actually lived their full lives, do you suppose they might have suffered from the actual effects noticed? I'm gonna venture a guess and say yes. The study doesn't say what you think it does because you didn't read it. Although you do claim to have.


You're going to guess......

Not exactly scientific...


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jun 14, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> You're going to guess......
> 
> Not exactly scientific...


You're right, severe inflammation doesn't lead to anything. 

Pigs actually live closer to 13 years on average. Not a half a year. If you can't see why his interpretation is ridiculous and stupid, I can't help you.

I'm going to guarantee, not guess. I have a friend whose mother has been in and out of the ICU with major colitis and has been near death many times over because of the serious drugs she requires to keep down the levels of irritation (see: the effects of cortisone on your body). But don't worry, her mortality would be the same if she were scheduled for slaughter in half a year regardless. GMO's are safe.

The study actually claims that GMO's seem to cause statistically significant increases in colitis and enteritis as well as appearing to have an effect on sexual organ health (did you know that fertility rates are dropping like a stone too?). Don 't stress it though, over a very short period vet costs didn't increase and the mortality was the same for pigs scheduled to die after 158 or 159 days.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jun 14, 2013)

> *Abstract*
> 
> Glyphosate is an active ingredient of the most widely used herbicide and it is believed to be less toxic than other pesticides. However, several recent studies showed its potential adverse health effects to humans as it may be an endocrine disruptor. This study focuses on the effects of pure glyphosate on estrogen receptors (ERs) mediated transcriptional activity and their expressions. Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer, T47D cells, but not in hormoneindependent breast cancer, MDA-MB231 cells, at 10[SUP]-12[/SUP] to 10[SUP]-6[/SUP] M in estrogen withdrawal condition. The proliferative concentrations of glyphosate that induced the activation of estrogen response element (ERE) transcription activity were 5-13 fold of control in T47D-KBluc cells and this activation was inhibited by an estrogen antagonist, ICI 182780, indicating that the estrogenic activity of glyphosate was mediated via ERs. Furthermore, glyphosate also altered both ER&#945; and &#946;expression. These results indicated that low and environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate possessed estrogenic activity. Glyphosate-based herbicides are widely used for soybean cultivation, and our results also found that there was an additive estrogenic effect between glyphosate and genistein, a phytoestrogen in soybeans. However, these additive effects of glyphosate contamination in soybeans need further animal study.


Don't worry, those rising cancer rates have nothing to do with the food supply being dramatically altered. And Monsanto was granted lawsuit immunity for no reason at all. They have perfectly safe products and don't really need it but the government and Monsanto thought it would be fun to gauge public overreaction because they know the product they sell is so safe. They don't really need it, it's just for fun.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 14, 2013)

Edit: never mind. You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jun 14, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Edit: never mind. You don't know what you are talking about.


he GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs (p=0.025). GM-fed 
pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 
32% of GM-fed pigs 
compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (
p=0.004). The severe stomach inflammation was 
worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0 (p=0.041), and 
GM-fed females compared to non-GM fed females by a factor of 2.2 (p=0.034).

This is the conclusion of the study. The authors weren't dumb enough to suggest that the mortality rates meant much beyond GMO's don't kill you immediately, which I don't think was ever really in question. They also weren't stupid enough to suggest that the veterinary rates mattered much, although they did mention them because it isn't completely irrelevant as it demonstrates the short term impacts are manageable for a while. Those pigs live full lives on the same diets, you're going to start seeing statistically significant differences in those numbers. Not where they were only allowed to live less than half a year which doesn't give us much of a picture of the long term impacts and especially mortality rates which really aren't super relevant in a short term study like this one where all the pigs are scheduled to die at the same time regardless of health.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jun 14, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Edit: never mind. You don't know what you are talking about.


Please, elaborate how and don't quote the same bullshit without context.

Or are you going to suggest the context is irrelevant? 

Because it sure seems the authors of the study realized the relevancy having not mentioned the points you seem to want to hang on in the abstract. I think the authors were intelligent enough to realize that pigs scheduled to die after 159 days are likely going to have similar (read: Identical) mortality rates, but that it's certainly worth investigation if there is any large difference in the short term. Most folks are not suspecting immediate short term death from these things. Although I suspect if you drank a bottle of roundup you wouldn't feel so hot (why don't you put it to the test? I mean Monsanto claims it's safe and only effects plant life).


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jun 14, 2013)

Doer said:


> Can we? No. We can't. We don't. If we could we would.
> 
> What is stopping us? That is simply beyond your economic understanding, of course. So, no 1% even.
> 
> ...


i gotta disagree, most gmo cultivars give smaller yeilds per acre and a lower quality crop than modern hybrids. GMO's are intended to solve specific pest/disease problems, and only a few have been really successful 

Golden Rice that provides added nutrients to the eater, GMO papaya that resist ring spot virus, BT cotton that kills boll weevils, and a few others are all that have delivered on their promise of better yields (by killing the shit that kills the plants) but in the absence of boll weevils, hybrid cotton produces more per acre, and in the absence of ring spot virus, traditional cultivars of papaya give a better quality fruit and higher yields. it's a balancing act, and gmo's have been mostly lackluster or total failures

refrigeration resistant tomatoes tasted like ass 

BT corn has produced BT resistant root worms, because BT resistant worms reproduce by self-fertilization, greatly increasing the rate BT resistance spreads in the population, there are some concerns that BT producing food crops may have detrimental effects in test animals fed large amounts of the stuff, since even regular BT spray is not a health potion, but it has greatly reduced budworm/earworm caterpillar damage. science remains unsure about BT crops

glyphosate resistant crops are only useful to those who actually use glyphosate as a general weed killer by indiscriminate spraying, but since thats a dumb ass thing to do anyhow, "roundup ready' crops are a fools investment. 

i could go on, but the "success" of GMO crops is mostly for the producers of the seeds, and the giant agribusinesses that think aerial spraying is a good way to control, and the corrupt farm subsidies system that rewards giant corporate farms and fucks the little guy. 

if the farm subsidies were reformed, most GMO crops would vanish like a fart in the wind, because they are only successful in massive economies of scale with government subsidies.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jun 14, 2013)

It's also worth noting the EPA has raised the allowable residue level of Glyphosphate found on the fruit and vegetables we purchase...

GM corn set to stop man spreading his seed


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jun 14, 2013)

cannawizard said:


>


yes, experiments on experimental products requires a bunnysuit. are you shocked by this idea? you have to wear a bunnysuit in silicon chip factories, when cleaning the tanks in a brewery, when mixing papaya mango and guava for bottling, and many other places. 

the last pic is from a meth lab on breaking bad. 

thats why it's so hard top take you guys seriously. 

also, the middle pic shows a guy mixing LASSO, and yes, if i had to mix Lasso i would be wearing a full NBC suit, over a rainslicker and a full body condom. lasso is banned in the us, and has been for years. Lasso also has NEVER been approved for food crops. it's for carpetbombing invasive weeds and triffids and shit.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 14, 2013)

Cornhole?? cn


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jun 14, 2013)

Immediate Investigation Ordered in GMO Seed Case

Wonder how Monsantos seeds ended up in Hungary when they're banned from being imported or even used....

Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Maize Fields

That's the way to go, simply burn the fields...


----------



## Doer (Jun 14, 2013)

Cornhole in the Bunghole!!!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 15, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> he GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs (p=0.025). GM-fed
> pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of
> 32% of GM-fed pigs
> compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (
> ...


go spend some time looking at the results given and see how the "severe" numbers were cherry picked
pay close attention to "moderate(less than severe) and errosion (more than severe) both worse on non gmo food 

Mild inflammation 
Non-GM-fed 42.5 %
GM-fed 31.9 %

Moderate inflammation
Non-GM-fed 39.7 %
GM-fed 25.0 %

Erosion(s) 
Non-GM-fed 86.3 %
GM-fed 80.6 %

now if they were only testing for stomach imflamation then the number would be more important but as they were testing many thing you would expect anomalies to come up which is fine as it could suggest paths for more focused research.
what they shouldnt be doing is pulling these conclusions out of their arse for what could be an outlier




The​


scientists doing this study stopped on top row and are now playing minecraft.....

if you look deeper into the study you'll find out that all the pigs were raised badly with a mortality rate well over 10% for both non gmo + gmo fed and that at time of slaughter both groups had numbers close to 60% infected by pneumonia


15 % of non gmo pigs had heart defects compared to only 6 % of gmo
twice as many non gmo pigs had liver problems compared to gmo pigs


so you more worried about having a dodgy shit or having a heart attack?

or will you join me in saying "more focused research is needed before we can start linkin say IBS to gmo"?


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 15, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yes, experiments on experimental products requires a bunnysuit. are you shocked by this idea? you have to wear a bunnysuit in silicon chip factories, when cleaning the tanks in a brewery, when mixing papaya mango and guava for bottling, and many other places.
> 
> the last pic is from a meth lab on breaking bad.
> 
> ...


I wasn't trying to be serious  Just googled Monsanto and grabbed whatever pics looked "funny"~

Unlike so many "experts" in this thread posting data (claiming its 100% fact) that they themselves had no involvement in, and since nobody can or cannot prove otherwise-- don't pretend that you do know "everything about GMOs or the inner workings of these corporations who control GMOs"~ *This goes for both sides* 

So unless you ran YOUR OWN studies, and posted YOUR FINDINGS here.. Just *STFU*, and stop regurgitating info, either side is not listening anyways-- you guys are just debating for the sake of arguing~

unsubbed-- I'm done fapping over this thread


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 15, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> go spend some time looking at the results given and see how the "severe" numbers were cherry picked
> pay close attention to "moderate(less than severe) and errosion (more than severe) both worse on non gmo food
> 
> Mild inflammation
> ...


I bet this either gets ignored or the Anti-GM fags will flap their arms and try bullshit the numbers.

EDIT: Whats wrong with Minecraft?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Jun 15, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I bet this either gets ignored or the Anti-GM fags will flap their arms and try bullshit the numbers.
> 
> EDIT: Whats wrong with Minecraft?


Why bullshit the numbers, i think we should GM people....to be more like sheep. So they believe anything someone with more money than them tells them. Actually just the other day i bought some mustard because it had 30% MORE MUSTARD!!


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 15, 2013)

http://www.naturalnews.com/040760_Supreme_Court_gene_patents_Myriad_Genetics.html

[h=1]Sanity prevails: US Supreme Court rules that human genes are not eligible for patent protection[/h]
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040760_Supreme_Court_gene_patents_Myriad_Genetics.html#ixzz2WI4IT54Z

(NaturalNews) In a unanimous ruling, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that human genes cannot be patented. The ruling invalidates the thousands of patents that have already been granted on human genes, including the patent by Myriad Genetics on the BRCA breast cancer genes which the company says no one else can research or even _detect_ without paying it a royalty. Click here to read the complete ruling.

"Myriad did not create anything," said Justice Clarence Thomas. "To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention."

Well, exactly. This point should have been obvious to the lower courts, too, but in today's world of corporate domination over seemingly everything, gene industry lawyers were able to argue that patent protection would somehow inspire more innovation and research. "The biotechnology industry had warned that an expansive ruling against Myriad could threaten billions of dollars of investment," wrote Reuters.

But exactly the opposite is true. Gene patents restricted research and created medical monopolies that raised prices for consumers. Even USA Today seemingly gets this point, saying, "The decision represents a victory for cancer patients, researchers and geneticists who claimed that a single company's patent raised costs, restricted research and sometimes forced women to have breasts or ovaries removed without sufficient facts or second opinions."

The ACLU, which argued the case before the Court, said, "By invalidating these patents, the Court lifted a major barrier to progress in further understanding how we can better treat and prevent diseases."

[h=1]Corporate efforts to influence the Supreme Court ultimately failed[/h]Had the Supreme Court upheld the patentability of human genes, it would have unleashed a horrifying new era of corporations and universities rushing to claim monopoly patent protection on every gene in the human genome. Virtually no one in the media covered this angle other than Natural News. We warned readers that everything found in nature could then be patented: blades of grass, insects, human ears, eye colors, hair colors... anything encoded with DNA.

We also pointed out that Angelina Jolie's carefully orchestrated announcement of a double mastectomy following BRCA gene testing seemed timed to be part of a public relations campaign engineered by the biotech industry to influence the Supreme Court decision. We also challenged Jolie to publicly denounce patents on human genes, which she never did.

It's clear that powerful forces were at work behind the scenes to try to influence this Supreme Court decision, but they failed. Ultimately, the court discovered a moment of unanimous sanity... something we see so rarely that perhaps it deserves patent protection, too.

[h=1]Huge loss for the biotech and pharmaceutical industries[/h]It's important to note that this decision is a huge loss for the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, both of which relentlessly seek total domination over all forms of life on the planet through monopoly patent protection. The biotech industry, of course, would love to patent all seeds and food crops -- even ones it hasn't genetically engineered. And the pharmaceutical industry would love to patent every human gene, thereby claiming literal ownership over every human being born into the world.

Myriad Genetics tried every desperate argument to convince the court that human genes should be patentable by corporations. They even rolled out a whacky "baseball bat theory" which claims it's an "invention" to decide where to start and end a gene sequence:

"A baseball bat doesn't exist until it's isolated from a tree. But that's still the product of human invention to decide where to begin the bat and where to end the bat." - Myriad lawyer Gregory Castanias.

That absurd argument claims that the mere deciding of which genes to snip out of DNA strands somehow makes all genes corporate property. Thankfully, the court did not agree with the baseball bat theory. As Chief Justice John Roberts explained:

"The baseball bat is quite different. You don't look at a tree and say, well, I've cut the branch here and cut it here and all of a sudden I've got a baseball bat. You have to invent it."

[h=1]Huge victory for humanity[/h]Ultimately, this decision is a tremendous victory for all humankind because it prevents the power-hungry, evil-bent medical and biotech corporations from claiming ownership over genetic sequences that already occur in nature.

This ruling means the biotech industry cannot patent common plants and animals, either. They can't patent human body parts or human gene sequences. Yes, the industry can still patent _synthetically-created genes_, said the Supreme Court, but that's something they would actually have to create rather than merely discover in an already-existing organism.

Today's ruling also means that men and women will have access to far less expensive testing for gene sequences in their own bodies. Currently, women who want to test themselves for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes must pay as much as $4,000 for the test due to the monopoly "ownership" of those genes by Myriad Genetics. But now that the Supreme Court has ruled such patents are invalid, prices for the test should drastically fall over time as competition enters the picture. Ultimately, the test could eventually be offered for as little as $100.

The ruling also means that other companies can conduct research on those genes without first seeking permission from Myriad. This will actually spur more innovation, potentially leading to more advanced genetic analysis tests that might help people better understand their health risks (and hopefully encourage them to change their diets and lifestyle choices to avoid expressing those genes).

In a world that seems increasingly dominated by corporate monopolies and biotechnology insanity, this ruling is a breath of fresh air. It confirms that corporations cannot patent naturally-occurring things which have been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years, and it confirms that when you have a child through an act of genetic replication, corporations cannot force you to pay royalties for your own child.

This is a decision of fundamental freedom, which is why I'm shocked the court actually ruled this way. This must be one of those rare moments of sanity in a Supreme Court that otherwise seems intent on destroying human liberty, dignity and justice.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040760_Supreme_Court_gene_patents_Myriad_Genetics.html#ixzz2WI4XQ1rJ
​​


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 15, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> http://www.naturalnews.com/040760_Supreme_Court_gene_patents_Myriad_Genetics.html
> 
> *Sanity prevails: US Supreme Court rules that human genes are not eligible for patent protection*
> 
> ...


It was my understanding you couldn't patent something which occurs naturally anyways...

*Puts in his patent application for gold*


----------



## Doer (Jun 15, 2013)

Yes, that was the basis and it was settled law from long ago. But, Law is all about timing. We have to pay to Umpires to even look at it. And then only after Harm has been identified. It is the 9th A. again. If it doesn't harm, it is one of those unstated freedoms.

In fact there are 1000s of human genes that have been patented, but there was no harm. So, what?

Now, however, there is a so what. It blocks me from getting a personal genome map. It blocks other companies from creating tests and so is anti-commerce.

Those established basis were applied forward to cure the harm in this new situation.


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 15, 2013)

Doer said:


> Yes, that was the basis and it was settled law from long ago. But, Law is all about timing. We have to pay to Umpires to even look at it. And then only after Harm has been identified. It is the 9th A. again. If it doesn't harm, it is one of those unstated freedoms.
> 
> In fact there are 1000s of human genes that have been patented, but there was no harm. So, what?
> 
> ...


However, should they encode a gene sequence of their own its covered under intellectual property laws. 

When you really break it down though, Monsanto could cure cancer and these FUD idiots would moan it's too expensive or something similar.


----------



## Doer (Jun 15, 2013)

Oh, heck yeah. Someone (you?) posted an article in the science section where it has all been designed.
I don't think they have grown a cell yet. But, that would certainly be, IP, I agree.


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 15, 2013)

Doer said:


> Oh, heck yeah. Someone (you?) posted an article in the science section where it has all been designed.
> I don't think they have grown a cell yet. But, that would certainly be, IP, I agree.


There was a doctor who created synthetic life, the cell itself was from a simple bacterium but he produced the nucleus from their base chemicals and encoded 100% of it himself.


----------



## Doer (Jun 15, 2013)

That's getting somewhere....contributing.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 15, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> There was a doctor who created synthetic life, the cell itself was from a simple bacterium but he produced the nucleus from their base chemicals and encoded 100% of it himself.


Oversell. Making the biomolecule and inserting it isn't synthetic life ... it's fitment of a prosthetic (in that instance ... the need was created by the researcher - was he really an MD? - in question by removing the perfectly good original equipment). cn


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jun 16, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I bet this either gets ignored or the Anti-GM fags will flap their arms and try bullshit the numbers.
> 
> EDIT: Whats wrong with Minecraft?


I'm not going to quote his lengthy post, but, he's ignoring potentially the most disturbing part of the study - uterine weights increased significantly in the GMO fed pigs indicating potential problems with the pigs reproductive systems (which to properly study would have to be done completely differently).

As far as the rest of his points -

The pigs were in generally unhealthy environments and this might have contaminated results and I don't think the study was exceptionally well designed (in fact I'd say it was really terribly designed).

That said 52% of pigs fed non GMO food experienced moderate to severe inflammation with approximately a 1/4 of those being severe. 

56.9% of pigs fed GMO food experienced moderate to severe inflammation with 56% experiencing severe inflammation. This is quite statistically significant, more so than all the other things he mentions. Hence the Pa being .0004 while the rest are notably higher. The fact the non GM have a higher incidence of moderate inflammation could be suggestive but likely isn't because the conditions the pigs were raised in likely contributed to their general health and because the incidence of severe inflammation was significantly higher in GM fed pigs. 

Next time you can point me to computer programs written that never crash, we'll talk about how releasing GMO's into the environment isn't mentally retarded, but until then, the chances they are contributing the host of health problems which have increased since their inception is fairly low in my estimation.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 16, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> I'm not going to quote his lengthy post, but, he's ignoring potentially the most disturbing part of the study - CHERRY PICKING


fixed that for you....


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jun 16, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> However, should they encode a gene sequence of their own its covered under intellectual property laws.
> 
> When you really break it down though, Monsanto could cure cancer and these FUD idiots would moan it's too expensive or something similar.


If you cure cancer, you should earn from it, but you shouldn't exploit. Patent law allows exploitation. 

I thought you were for the market, apparently not.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jun 16, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> fixed that for you....


I didn't cherry pick anything. I explained how your interpretation is quite weak in a number of clearly articulated ways. You can't even properly describe what cherry picking is (you ignoring parts of a study that don't suit you is cherry picking, me expressing what I felt was actually the most concerning part of the study is not). You obviously don't understand statistical analysis. 

The fact uterine weights were significantly different is probably the most alarming part of the study. Infertility is a growing problem. Some more alarmist types have warned that our future as a species could be on the line if rates continue to change like they have been, but they might level off or rebound (I doubt it) - who knows?


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 16, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> If you cure cancer, you should earn from it, but you shouldn't exploit. Patent law allows exploitation.
> 
> I thought you were for the market, apparently not.


One can be pro-market and still provide temporary protections on people's work to encourage innovation. 

Why would a firm invest potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D just to have the end result copied and sold freely by someone else?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 16, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> I didn't cherry pick anything. I explained how your interpretation is quite weak in a number of clearly articulated ways. You can't even properly describe what cherry picking is (you ignoring parts of a study that don't suit you is cherry picking, me expressing what I felt was actually the most concerning part of the study is not). You obviously don't understand statistical analysis.
> 
> The fact uterine weights were significantly different is probably the most alarming part of the study. Infertility is a growing problem. Some more alarmist types have warned that our future as a species could be on the line if rates continue to change like they have been, but they might level off or rebound (I doubt it) - who knows?


the whole study was a statistical fishing trip looking for cherries to pick. 
its a best a pilot study looking for anomilies

but its passed off as a final study so that people like youself can gush over how the outliers in the data set "an alarming confirmation of GMO's contribution to human infertility" * i paraphrased there but the sentiment is exactly the same*

i would love for you to tell me how suggesting more focused study on the anomilies is ignoring that part of it?? 

are you expecting me to wet myself and run around hysterically thinking about all the children that never get born (because of GMO) and how is they are born they're doomed to a life of "dodgy shits" (although not slightly or extremaly dodgy as non GMO causes that)


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jun 18, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> One can be pro-market and still provide temporary protections on people's work to encourage innovation.
> 
> Why would a firm invest potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D just to have the end result copied and sold freely by someone else?


Because there is gigantic demand and it takes time to copy something which they will have been working to perfect. They will make their money back if they cure cancer without patent law. If you think otherwise, you really don't believe in the market at all.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jun 18, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Because there is gigantic demand and it takes time to copy something which they will have been working to perfect. They will make their money back if they cure cancer without patent law. If you think otherwise, you really don't believe in the market at all.


25 years and billions in research, to make seeds which can be planted grown and reproduced for sale by any asshole with a few acres in 6 months. 


better sell them seeds quick if you wanna make your money back ehh?

i can buy dvds of movies that arent even in theatres yet from assholes selling shit out of the trunks of their cars... 

AMD copied intel's pentium chip in less than a year. 

cool story bro


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jun 18, 2013)

Or there would be R&D firms that sign deals with multiple manufacturers to get the product out there (even with all of them that are competitive) and receive a small slice of the pie, very small with some language about future dealings and innovations. Less conglomeration.


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 19, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Or there would be R&D firms that sign deals with multiple manufacturers to get the product out there (even with all of them that are competitive) and receive a small slice of the pie, very small with some language about future dealings and innovations. Less conglomeration.


Why are you so jealous of success?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jun 19, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Or there would be R&D firms that sign deals with multiple manufacturers to get the product out there (even with all of them that are competitive) and receive a small slice of the pie, very small with some language about future dealings and innovations. Less conglomeration.


perhaps all the inventors scientists researchers innovators and dreamers should be rounded up, and forced into servitude at government run Thinkatoriums, with all their results given freely to the world... 

im sure that would totally work.

incentive based innovation for the public good

what incentive would be best, you might ask? 

[video=youtube;YdXQJS3Yv0Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y[/video]


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Jun 19, 2013)

Stop proclaiming to believe in the market please, you clearly do not.

The incentive is to make money (filling a demand) and/or general interest and passion. A research and development firm that doesn't also try to invest it's capital in manufacturing has a lot higher probability of survival than one who tries to do it all. Sign deals with multiple manufacturers and you don't really have to worry so much about someone jumping into the market "stealing" your idea and thereby eliminating all potential profit (as the market is already well saturated and why not improve on it while also lowering the cost?). Perhaps this R&D firm ends up arranging their deals so that any future research they do the manufacturers get first crack at it - thereby creating incentive for manufacturers to work with them.

But of course all this means that people actually have to compete and work and do a good job. That's very much unlike today where the biggest always wins regardless of the shit they do thanks to the government assistance they receive.

Get a little imagination please.


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 20, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Stop proclaiming to believe in the market please, you clearly do not.
> 
> The incentive is to make money (filling a demand) and/or general interest and passion. A research and development firm that doesn't also try to invest it's capital in manufacturing has a lot higher probability of survival than one who tries to do it all. Sign deals with multiple manufacturers and you don't really have to worry so much about someone jumping into the market "stealing" your idea and thereby eliminating all potential profit (as the market is already well saturated and why not improve on it while also lowering the cost?). Perhaps this R&D firm ends up arranging their deals so that any future research they do the manufacturers get first crack at it - thereby creating incentive for manufacturers to work with them.
> 
> ...


No that'd involve people not bothering because their work could be easily replicated. 

Stop being such a dumb-dumb and living in the "never gonna happen" hypothetical world of your mind.


----------



## SeeRockCity (Jun 20, 2013)

say HELL FUCKING NO!
TO MONSANTO!!


----------



## SeeRockCity (Jun 20, 2013)

GMO causes cancer..... flat out....
They've already killed our food!
dont let them kill the weed too!!


----------



## SeeRockCity (Jun 20, 2013)

all you who voted YES to this... 
YOU are DUMB.... go read something...
GMO is a killer! it belongs nowhere near our food 
and nowhere near our medicine!!

again, if you voted yes to monanto...
YOU ARE A FUCKING ILLITERATE DOUCHEBAG 

Save cannabis, keep Monsanto away from it!!


----------



## Doer (Jun 20, 2013)

SeeRockCity said:


> all you who voted YES to this...
> YOU are DUMB.... go read something...
> GMO is a killer! it belongs nowhere near our food
> and nowhere near our medicine!!
> ...


You don't know. You just don't know. Now you are acting like there was some plebiscite vote on Monsanto.

Yet you don't even know the real name of this bill and you don't know the para 756(?) to look for if you did know the bill.

What is this bill and how could I have voted for or against?

You don't know that this bill was to prohibit a court ordered injunction from being placed on the entire planting season and thus ruining the small farmers, did you?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jun 20, 2013)

SeeRockCity said:


> say HELL FUCKING NO!
> TO MONSANTO!!





SeeRockCity said:


> GMO causes cancer..... flat out....
> They've already killed our food!
> dont let them kill the weed too!!






SeeRockCity said:


> all you who voted YES to this...
> YOU are DUMB.... go read something...
> GMO is a killer! it belongs nowhere near our food
> and nowhere near our medicine!!
> ...


another chucklehead who didnt read the thread, instead assuming the false premise of the OP, and the bullshit of the fearmongering ecoloons. 

3 posts with no logic, no reason, and no argument beyond *"agree with my ignorant opinions, or you are stupid" *


----------



## Figong (Jun 20, 2013)

I was pretty damn sure that this thread was done around page 187.. which would have been ironic, but alas.. it's still going.


----------



## Doer (Jun 20, 2013)

Well they keep saying claw and I keep telling them its CLAW!


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 20, 2013)




----------



## Harrekin (Jun 21, 2013)

SeeRockCity said:


> all you who voted YES to this...
> YOU are DUMB.... go read something...
> GMO is a killer! it belongs nowhere near our food
> and nowhere near our medicine!!
> ...


Have you any reliable and valid evidence GMO causes any harm effects whatsoever?

I'd genuinely LOVE to read it.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jun 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> Well they keep saying claw and I keep telling them its CLAW!


it's not Da Craw, it's Da Craw!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jun 21, 2013)

or was it Da Craw?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 21, 2013)

If you have PBA this is good for a laugh or a cry or both...


[video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-19-2013/patenting-human-genes[/video]


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 22, 2013)

Frank I found your Friday's tourette's post in my email but I haven't found it here?

Maybe a victim of self initiated chain reaction?

Remember we covered chain reactions earlier in this course Frank, were you not paying attention again?

Maybe a refresher is in order?

http://io9.com/5927112/chinas-worst-self+inflicted-disaster-the-campaign-to-wipe-out-the-common-sparrow

(excerpt)

"While many people nowadays would regard tampering with the ecosystem in such a radical way as a shockingly irresponsible idea, this was a classic case of something appearing like a good idea at the time."

*Chinas Worst Self-Inflicted Environmental Disaster: The Campaign to Wipe Out the Common Sparrow*







Back in the 1950s, China was going through its Great Leap Forward, an effort to transform China from a largely agrarian nation to a thriving industrial Marxist powerhouse. These sweeping (and often brutal) reforms, touched virtually every facet of Chinese life  and as one particular episode in China's history points out, the animal kingdom was also far from immune. In 1958, China ordered the extermination of several pests, including sparrows  an ill-fated campaign that eventually led to catastrophe. 
*The Four Pests campaign*
Chinese leader Mao Zedong initiated the Four Pests campaign after reaching the conclusion that several blights needed to be exterminated  namely mosquitoes, flies, rats, and sparrows. While many people nowadays would regard tampering with the ecosystem in such a radical way as a shockingly irresponsible idea, this was a classic case of something appearing like a good idea at the time. And according to environmental activist Dai Qing, "Mao knew nothing about animals. He didn't want to discuss his plan or listen to experts. He just decided that the 'four pests' should be killed."





Moreover, the idea fit in quite well with Mao's hard-line totalitarian Communist ideology. Marx himself was far from an environmentalist, proclaiming that nature should be fully exploited by humans for production purposes (a legacy which may explain China's poor environmental track record to this very day).
Now, while the Chinese citizens were called upon to wage war against all four of these pests, the government was particularly annoyed by the sparrow, or more specifically, the Eurasian Tree Sparrow. The Chinese were having a rough go of it as it was, adapting to collectivization and the re-invention of farming, so they felt particularly victimized by this bird which had a particular fondness for eating grain seeds. Chinese scientists had calculated that each sparrow consumed 4.5kg of grain each year  and that for every million sparrows killed, there would be food for 60,000 people. Armed with this information, Mao launched the Great Sparrow Campaign to address the problem.
*"Total war"*
To accomplish this task, Chinese citizens were mobilized in massive numbers to eradicate the birds by forcing them to fly until they fell from exhaustion. The Chinese people took to the streets clanging their pots and pans or beating drums to terrorize the birds and prevent them from landing. Nests were torn down, eggs were broken, chicks killed, and sparrows shot down from the sky. Experts estimate that hundreds of millions of sparrows were killed as part of the campaign.
An account from the Shanghai newspaper captures the excitement:




On the early morning of December 13, the citywide battle to destroy the sparrows began. In large and small streets, red flags were waving. On the buildings and in the courtyards, open spaces, roads and rural farm fields, there were numerous scarecrows, sentries, elementary and middle school students, government office employees, factory workers, farmers and People's Liberation Army shouting their war cries. In the Xincheng district, they produced more than 80,000 scarecrows and more than 100,000 colorful flags overnight. The residents of Xietu road, Xuhui distrct and Yangpu road Yulin district also produced a large number of motion scarecrows. In the city and the outskirts, almost half of the labor force was mobilized into the anti-sparrow army. Usually, the young people were responsible for trapping, poisoning and attacking the sparrows while the old people and the children kept sentry watch. The factories in the city committed themselves into the war effort even as they guaranteed that they would maintain production levels. In the parks, cemeteries and hot houses where there are fewer people around, 150 free-fire zones were set up for shooting the sparrows. The Nanyang Girls Middle School rifle team received training in the techniques for shooting birds. Thus the citizens fought a total war against the sparrows. By 8pm tonight, it is estimated that a total of 194,432 sparrows have been killed.​As a result of these efforts, the sparrow became nearly extinct in China.
And that's when the problems started.
*Famine*
By April of 1960, it started to become painfully obvious to the Chinese leaders that the sparrows, in addition to eating grains, ate insects.
Lots of insects.
And without the sparrows to curb the insect population, the crops were getting decimated in a way far worse than if birds had been allowed to hang around. Consequently, agricultural yields that year were disastrously low. Rice production in particular was hit the hardest. On the advice of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mao declared full-stop to the Great Sparrow Campaign, replacing the birds with bed bugs on the Four Pests naughty list.
But the damage was done  and the situation got progressively worse. Locust populations swarmed the countryside with no sparrows in sight. Things got so bad that the Chinese government started importing sparrows from the Soviet Union. The overflow of insects, plus the added effects of widespread deforestation and misuse of poisons and pesticides, were a significant contributor to the Great Chinese Famine (1958-1961) in which an estimated 30 million people died of starvation.
The episode serves as a stark lesson for what can happen when sweeping changes are made to an ecosystem. Yet, in a startlingly similar campaign initiated back in 2004, China culled 10,000 civet cats in an effort to eradicate SARS. And according to Tim Luard of the _BBC_, they have also launched a "patriotic extermination campaign" that targets badgers, raccoon dogs, rats, and cockroaches. The over-arching lesson, it would seem, may not have be learned.
Sources: _BBC, NYT, Independent (1) (2), "Great Sparrow Campaign" video, China: A New History, ThinkQuest._
_Top and inset image is in the public domain via Chinese government. Image of sparrow via Latiche/Wikipedia.

_<em>[video=youtube;lHgoKKr85N8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=lHgoKKr85N8[/video]
_
also maybe this will be helpful...

http://connectedthefilm.com/


_


----------



## Doer (Jun 22, 2013)

Pure and rotten spam....

reported as stinky


----------



## Doer (Jun 22, 2013)

Ya know they wiped out the passenger pigeon exactly the same way. They don't call that an ecological catastrophe of North America (well they should! &%@$ ) Don't bother.

You guys remind me paranoid schizophrenic patients. They see the same world, as the rest of us, but you are very afraid of it and thus, see it completely differently. Youse guys act like you have stunning revelations but when you look at it it is nothing. 

There was not a bit of science in any of these old hippy claims I used to cling to like an ignorant hillbilly. Now it is worse with fake science snake oil. It is just like AGW, guns, WTC, eggs even. It has ever been so, that no matter what the level of tech, fake does happen.

No different now. It isn't magic tricks, it is peer review by retards. A peer review is only as good as the peers that review it. Science is backsliding is a few areas of atmospheric research, facts about guns are shouted down, studies where cancer mice get cancer and the Paper says AH HA....not science, snake oil.

See, research papers are not suppose to draw conclusions. They state results. They dare other scientist to repeat the result or prove them wrong,

I read them all the time. If you see a conclusion in the summary, read that very carefully, first. I don't read these things in typeset order. Then I see if this "conclusion" was even covered in the research. On GMO, I have yet to see a serious paper.

I've seem papers that are meaningless. It is to this level, to be graphic. Please don't read it. And I am not making it up. It is not science but is seems like it to the choir they preach it. I have seem experiments like this written up.

- Take the power transformers on the poles in the neighborhoods. Map them and then find house were someone died of cancer. Map that and say AH HA.

- Feed an irritant to an irritated pig's gut and say AH HA. (or make a cancer mouse get cancer)

- Rough up a dairy cow's nipple with sandpaper, and note that the morning dairy machine make is worse....Ah HA.

- Study the high energy collision of Boeing 767 into a steel column building at 500 mph. Find a coating of Al and Fe.

But also concluded that tons of manufactured nano-thermite were hauled up into the building for some unknown reason. AHHHHHHHH HAAAAAAAAAAA! The govt did it.

So, no conclusions are draw in science, ever. That is the job of Tech. "Well, that means now we can possibly try...."

Get it?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 23, 2013)

It must be a great challenge living day to day with such extreme social dyslexia dear doer, my heart goes out 2u<3
but fear not'
You are simply a part of nature, not separate from it doer...no need to allow your all consuming fear to translate into an illusion of needing to control everything to your every fear inspired whim...in fact such fear inspired action usually ends up being very counter productive...no need to fear non GE potato's or corn etc and no need to fear the critters that would share such with you for daily sustenance...just let it bee'


----------



## Doer (Jun 23, 2013)

Finally....you show your colors. Now you begin the personal insults like all the other passive aggressivse that have no science, only fear. The smary act...like you really care. Coward.

Hippies are more fucked up than church ladies in this regard. You bring nothing because you have nothing. And since you have nothing, you lie.

And when I call the lie, I get the personal ragging back. So, fuck off? You are Saying I am fearful? A Social Dyslexia? Yeah, I hang around bikers, MMA types, their untouchable, loose women, Class 3 weapon permit holders and assorted other nice people.

You old hippies are afraid of your own shadows and that is why you lie.

In SCOTUS, Bowman was 7 to NOTHING *against you. *

Para 7xx in the Farm Bill was not to support Monsanto, it was to protect the small farmers *from you*.

So, I can show you my capabilities only face to face. Here you are just a whining forum nothing, barking up the wrong tree.

Sparrows in China? Grow up, Tinkerbell.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 23, 2013)

Thank you dear Doer, this is another good example of chain reaction, I fart here and you shit your pants there in response


----------



## Doer (Jun 23, 2013)

OK, OK, megalomaniac. It's all about you after all, isn't it? I thought so. The giant ego of righteousness. Oh, we know it well, around here.

Go walk around. Don't pretend you have any effect on me emotionally.Just more ego. Obviously, you seem perturbed.

I answer all these threads if and when I feel like it. If there too much confusion around, I can just ignore it.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jun 26, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Frank I found your Friday's tourette's post in my email but I haven't found it here?
> 
> Maybe a victim of self initiated chain reaction?
> 
> ...


the above wall of kreld is more an indictment of your own reasoning than anyone else's.

declarations by fiat from jackholes who dont know their dirt chutes from a latrine trench is how the eco-loons do business, not rational people who want EVIDENCE of your claims before we rush out to put the blast on any technology or songbirds. 

your anti-GMO cultural revolution is the irrational position, while those who see promise in the technology are well within the bounds of reason and empirical science. 

try again with evidence of harm from REAL sources, not campfire ghost stories from "natural news"


----------



## Doer (Jun 26, 2013)

Yes, for that is it exactly. By the Ganja God, you have it! And if you read the history of these things, these cultural revolutions, that are vicious and bloody. The
very founders of it get plowed under by it. 

The worse disaster for mankind so far is Hippies.

Tampering with ecosystem. That would me we understand the ecosystem. We don't.

Therefore we are* just as likely* to be Gods agent or agents of the Lords of Ganja. Right?

Since we are part of nature then our modifications are therefore actually and factually, entirely natural. 

Maybe this is "suppose to happen", yo?


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> Yes, for that is it exactly. By the Ganja God, you have it! And if you read the history of these things, these cultural revolutions, that are vicious and bloody. The
> very founders of it get plowed under by it.
> 
> The worse disaster for mankind so far is Hippies.
> ...


The beginning of the end of his fail was when he said we're part of nature...

Can't be part of nature and still do "unnatural" things.


----------



## Grandpapy (Jun 26, 2013)

Pop an eyeball out of someone, skull fuck them, totally natural.

Edit: Sorry, too stoned ... I'll leave now....


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 27, 2013)

Grandpapy said:


> Pop an eyeball out of someone, skull fuck them, totally natural.
> 
> Edit: Sorry, too stoned ... I'll leave now....


That is by definition "natural". 

Id imagine the urge to fuck *something* is the definition of natural


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 28, 2013)

?
"40 Tons of GMO Crops TORCHED in America, Media Blackout"

http://www.newssum.com/40-tons-of-gmo-crops-torched-in-america-media-blackout-147#0evYGK4OcMPWufek.99

(excerpt)
Though the controlled corporate media apparatus is suppressing the story, 40 tons of GMO crops were torched, prompting an FBI investigation. There has been a COMPLETE MEDIA BLACKOUT, outside of local circles has dared to mention it, perhaps because government fears that if the public learns that other people are getting fighting mad (literally), they might join in, and become an actual revolution.

​


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 28, 2013)

http://www.realfarmacy.com/40-tons-of-gmo-crops-torched-in-america-media-blackout/

That is the original story your link is from. You will see many mistakes in it. 

Here is where the story they wrote is coming from:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/06/genetically_engineered_sugar_b.html

There is no media blackout. It's just not national news worthy. 

Mistakes: 

no such thing as Monsanto protection act

Events took place over two nights not three

headline of news article hid nothing. Headline actually reads: Genetically Engineered Sugar Beets Destroyed in Southern Oregon

Add all that up with the other mistakes you will find, and you have one agenda driven pile of drivel.


----------



## echelon1k1 (Jun 28, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> ?
> "40 Tons of GMO Crops TORCHED in America, Media Blackout"
> 
> http://www.newssum.com/40-tons-of-gmo-crops-torched-in-america-media-blackout-147#0evYGK4OcMPWufek.99
> ...


you keep trying to sensationalise anything and everything, it's fuckers like you that give everyone who is either un-sure and/or against GM crops a bad name. 

This is clearly a case of sabotage by either a industry competitor or most probably radical eco-loons...


----------



## Doer (Jun 28, 2013)

There is something un-natural in the phrase, DNA protection. 

The studies of DNA and these techniques are possibly the only way
we can SAVE dna from the "protectors." 

Remember, the War Cults are also trying to protect mankind. Not working out so well.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 29, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> you keep trying to sensationalise anything and everything, it's fuckers like you that give everyone who is either un-sure and/or against GM crops a bad name.
> 
> This is clearly a case of sabotage by either a industry competitor or most probably radical eco-loons...


Obviously you have your opinions about me and this overall issue, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are consistent with reality ie Doer, Frank and the rest of the SHDT.
With respect to the post you referred to, or any other post written by an outside source, I only bring here what is out there and only for folks to consider, not to "sensationalize" or present as fact/truth etc...there is truth and untruth in everything humans think and believe (and post)...'it is what it is' lol...though I do understand how when someone simply cannot hit or clearly see/understand the correct target they tend to then redirect bullets at the messenger ie Doer, Frank and the rest of the SHDT....simply human nature I suppose.


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 29, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Obviously you have your opinions about me and this overall issue, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are consistent with reality ie Doer, Frank and the rest of the SHDT.
> With respect to the post you referred to, or any other post written by an outside source, I only bring here what is out there and only for folks to consider, not to "sensationalize" or present as fact/truth etc...there is truth and untruth in everything humans think and believe (and post)...'it is what it is' lol...though I do understand how when someone simply cannot hit or clearly see/understand the correct target they tend to then redirect bullets at the messenger ie Doer, Frank and the rest of the SHDT....simply human nature I suppose.


We're all well of your agenda, given you're part of the organic movement and all...

Maybe just swallow that organo-cock and choke on it, you'd be saving the world from all the hot air you expel.


----------



## Doer (Jun 29, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Obviously you have your opinions about me and this overall issue, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are consistent with reality ie Doer, Frank and the rest of the SHDT.
> With respect to the post you referred to, or any other post written by an outside source, I only bring here what is out there and only for folks to consider, not to "sensationalize" or present as fact/truth etc...there is truth and untruth in everything humans think and believe (and post)...'it is what it is' lol...though I do understand how when someone simply cannot hit or clearly see/understand the correct target they tend to then redirect bullets at the messenger ie Doer, Frank and the rest of the SHDT....simply human nature I suppose.


Well, here is why you can't understand. You have core beliefs. You expect these beliefs to be self evident and beyond reproach.

And yet they are only beliefs. We shred all the science and law you provide by going a step farther than you.

We look up the laws and the peer review and read them. You do not. 

Very simple, why you are a ball of confusion. You are being fed an agenda and the End, sticking it to the Devil Monsanto, justifies the Means of shutting down a planting season and hurting the farmers and the hungry.

That is your only motive. So it not only sucks as a motive, but has been proved, not only false, but that you won't even accept the hard science that you provide. We shred those papers and you don't believe it. We point out what the law actually says and you don't like it.

That's on you. Not us.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 29, 2013)

Grandpapy said:


> Pop an eyeball out of someone, skull fuck them, totally natural.
> 
> Edit: Sorry, too stoned ... I'll leave now....


I'll keep an eye out for this'n. cn


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 30, 2013)

Doer said:


> Well, here is why you can't understand. You have core beliefs. You expect these beliefs to be self evident and beyond reproach.
> 
> And yet they are only beliefs. We shred all the science and law you provide by going a step farther than you.
> 
> ...


The most telling and accurate thing that should be learned from your post here Deer Doer is the simple fact that you don't know me from adam and yet you pretend to know me so as to apparently aid in your efforts to appear 'knowledgeable' (hehe)...this is not unlike your approach, logic and attitude towards Genetic Engineering.
Whenever I bother to read one of the SHDT (RIU sweat hog debate team) posts here (which is seldom), I must admit yours are clearly the most innovative, your teammate Frank usually goes with something more in this vain (but usually not as funny):

[video=youtube;TfMZS__xKzY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfMZS__xKzY[/video]


----------



## Doer (Jun 30, 2013)

We are all hoping you will leave soon. No one supports your BS, here.


----------



## Doer (Jun 30, 2013)

You don't have any more studies.....there are none. Just the few fakes, like 9/11. Same sort of hippy bullshit to me.

You are waving you hands and not addressing the prism of your core believes.

(cn, is there any way to make that prism and *prison* at the same time?)


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 30, 2013)

Doer said:


> We are all hoping you will leave soon. No one supports your BS, here.


From this offering one can conclude dear Doer's notion that he speaks for and represents all the diversity of folks here at RIU (not just the SHDT 
not at all surprising...


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 30, 2013)

Doer said:


> You don't have any more studies.....there are none. Just the few fakes, like 9/11. Same sort of hippy bullshit to me.
> 
> You are waving you hands and not addressing the prism of your core believes.
> 
> (cn, is there any way to make that prism and *prison* at the same time?)


Dear Doer, if our differing perspectives of this issue were instead professional rub downs, imo mine would have the best shot at a 'happy ending' based on all available history, info and common sense surrounding this topic, while conversely based on the same criteria imo your logic would almost assuredly end in a 'sad Travolta'...


----------



## Doer (Jun 30, 2013)

No one here that is a fan of yours, I think.

Just listen to the vast silence. Maybe someone will speak for you. That is how the Royal Navy handled it.

Is there ANY man or boy that will speak for this seaman?...since his Officer will not! (deep scowl)

Someone in the back whispers, soto voce...(the cat's out now, lads)


----------



## Doer (Jun 30, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Dear Doer, if our differing perspectives of this issue were instead professional rub downs, imo mine would have the best shot at a 'happy ending' based on all available history, info and common sense surrounding this topic, while conversely based on the same criteria imo your logic would almost assuredly end in a 'sad Travolta'...


You are not providing studies, you return to Welcome Back Carter.

It was one of the very first stupidities of your thread here. Good job....Ring around the Rosy, all fall down.

Now you are back to the personal jabs and no facts....still no facts and Monsanto is 3 for 3 and that is just recently.

I don't give a shit about your point of view. No one does.

Give some facts. All you guys say there are all these facts and you are so sad for our ignorance.

But, there are no facts and so ignorance is your point of view.


----------



## Harrekin (Jun 30, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Dear Doer, if our differing perspectives of this issue were instead professional rub downs, imo mine would have the best shot at a 'happy ending' based on all available history, info and common sense surrounding this topic, while conversely based on the same criteria imo your logic would almost assuredly end in a 'sad Travolta'...


Yet you havnt even one conclusive, peer-reviewed source...

Lol, you keep speaking of "facts" and then provide disproven papers written by quacks.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jul 1, 2013)

Doer said:


> You are not providing studies, you return to Welcome Back Carter.
> 
> It was one of the very first stupidities of your thread here. Good job....Ring around the Rosy, all fall down.
> 
> ...


'Genetic cleansing'...I'm guessing even just reading that term gives you a woody deer doer.
Imo people like Frank are just here masturbating in effort to cure the boredom of their seeming meaningless lives...somewhat but not all together irreverent in terms of data.
On the other hand though, you dear Doer provide a text book example of a true superiority complex, the likes of which have fueled every genocide in human history. 
It has always been the Doer state of mind that has deemed certain critters (including certain human critters) to be 'trash' and to be discarded/rubbed out etc.
No other study need be done to show us we are not ready for genetic engineering dear Doer because we have you and all those that still congregate in your state of mind...
What you are afflicted with Doer is learned behavior and we will all be learning the long hard way with you et al on this road of life and death.


----------



## Doer (Jul 1, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> 'Genetic cleansing'...I'm guessing even just reading that term gives you a woody deer doer.
> Imo people like Frank are just here masturbating in effort to cure the boredom of their seeming meaningless lives...somewhat but not all together irreverent in terms of data.
> On the other hand though, you dear Doer provide a text book example of a true superiority complex, the likes of which have fueled every genocide in human history.
> It has always been the Doer state of mind that has deemed certain critters (including certain human critters) to be 'trash' and to be discarded/rubbed out etc.
> ...


Ah, good. We see the true color. 3-0 and you, are pissed. I won 3. I am happy. I learned how to be happy on an eternal, in the Now, not-relgious basis. It is a leaned thinking process over many years of practicing certain techniques.

I know a secret. All you see outside will demolish your happiness unless you let your happiness demolish all that fear taught to you, that is outside your own self glory of being.


Ain't no big thing, brother, don' mean nuttin'

Just admit you eat meat or admit you do not.

Don't you mean ethnic cleansing? I've never even heard that term
until you said it. It makes no sense at all. You realize that? A phrase with
no possible meaning.

Are the sickos now going to claim a buzz phrase and morph that to Monsanto?

Figures.

Why don't you just say that GMO is hate crime against the insects? Hmmm? 


Will no one speak for this man? Bosun! 10 lashes. Don't let up, ya hear me now!?


----------



## Doer (Jul 1, 2013)

And a plant should just be allowed to live it's natural life right?

How dare we pick apples and mow grain (or chop ganja) when we know those are the seeds for next generation of Life? How dare we interfere? How dare we deprive the ganja from sex....the staff of life. 

Sound pretty idiotic but the Jains in India don't strop at mammals, they wear scarves so they don't accidentally breath in and kill a mosquito.

So, you don't molest the mosqueatations do you? Horror!! Do you swat flies? You murderer!


----------



## cannabineer (Jul 1, 2013)

I'd rather be Tarzan than Jain. cn


----------



## Doer (Jul 1, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I'd rather be Tarzan than Jain. cn


Me Tarzan! Take off silly scarf, now.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jul 2, 2013)

Doer said:


> * 3-0 and you, are pissed*


Dear Doer, dear dear Doer...I'm trying to figure out if your truly that inept at recognizing when someone is "pissed" or if its just another case of your normal mo shinning through as usual?
Truly dear Doer there is value in being honest with yourself and with others, but the first step is to stop pretending about yourself and others.

ps...In all honesty dear Doer I don't have much time to spend here reading let alone be 'pissed' about anything that is posted here and even if I had the time I wouldn't waste it in that way...I only spend a few minutes here when I come to post and if something screams out 'analyze me' then sometimes I do, and when its you I hear screaming it always provokes a giggle not a snarl


----------



## Doer (Jul 2, 2013)

Pissed, I mean drunk of course. You sounded kinda drunk over the weekend.

Yeah, this sounded kinda drunk to me...Admit it?

*'Genetic cleansing'...I'm guessing even just reading that term gives you a woody deer doer. Imo people like Frank are just here masturbating in effort to cure the boredom of their seeming meaningless lives...somewhat but not all together irreverent in terms of data. On the other hand though, you dear Doer provide a text book example of a true superiority complex, the likes of which have fueled every genocide in human history.

Here's the best one....DRUNK...maybe on ego.

**It has always been the Doer state of mind that has deemed certain critters (including certain human critters) to be 'trash' and to be discarded/rubbed out etc.*


----------



## DNAprotection (Jul 3, 2013)

lol not drunk...I actually only use alcohol for separating cannabis oil.
It has been miserably hot here though and the heat hits me like a sledge hammer...I dont think it effected that post though, it still appears to hold water from my view


----------



## Doer (Jul 3, 2013)

Well, if you typed all that when sober.....

The Royal Navy had what I think is the worse punishment by far. Keelhauling ain't in it. 

A ship's plank is a very large piece. It's about 6 - 8 feet long, 2 foot wide and 18" thick.

So, the punishment for the truly incorrigible, who must leave the ship, is even worst than being hanged. 

But since he hasn't managed to break the first few Articles of War where the Capt. MUST hang him, this is done.

Ears nailed to a ship's plank and set adrift. Too cruel, they cry!! 

Right. Give him a pound of cheese to hold in his hands. (no shit)

(Ye, Yar Capin's a rare goodun', the lad won't starve)


----------



## Harrekin (Jul 4, 2013)

Doer said:


> Well, if you typed all that when sober.....
> 
> The Royal Navy had what I think is the worse punishment by far. Keelhauling ain't in it.
> 
> ...


In other words...DNAprotection is a child molestor?!

Sick fuck.


----------



## Doer (Jul 4, 2013)

No that would be a different punishment. And in the Royal Navy there was little of it.
26. If any person in the fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable sin of buggery and sodomy with man or beast, he shall be punished with death by the sentence of a court martial. 

I think being set adrift like that would be under this one. A "jinks" on the ship's luck in wartime, was enough to qualify according to the immemorial custom of the Sea.
35.All other crimes not capital committed by any person or persons in the fleet, which are not mentioned in this act, or for which no punishment is hereby directed to be inflicted, shall be punished by the laws and customs in such cases used at sea.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jul 5, 2013)

Doer said:


> Well, if you typed all that when sober.....
> 
> The Royal Navy had what I think is the worse punishment by far. Keelhauling ain't in it.
> 
> ...


Since when did cabin boys get to vote? (chuckle) 
In any case dear Doer anyone can plainly see that I don't have 'hands' and I do have wings


----------



## Doer (Jul 5, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Since when did cabin boys get to vote? (chuckle)
> In any case dear Doer anyone can plainly see that I don't have 'hands' and I do have wings


My grandfather ate the brains. We'd shoot them with the .22. And he took the brains after we strung it up and took the head. 

BTW, There were no cabin boys in the Royal Navy. Powder monkeys and scullion rats. And the officer candidates were called Squeekers at 10 years, King's Men, and Midshipmen by 12 years. And there was no voting. The question is if ANYONE will speak.

No one spoke up for you. You noticed that. My "friends" here would have plowed me under for the chance to oppose me.

Why didn't they?


----------



## Harrekin (Jul 5, 2013)

Doer said:


> My grandfather ate the brains. We'd shoot them with the .22. And he took the brains after we strung it up and took the head.
> 
> BTW, There were no cabin boys in the Royal Navy. Powder monkeys and scullion rats. And the officer candidates were called Squeekers at 10 years, King's Men, and Midshipmen by 12 years. And there was no voting. The question is if ANYONE will speak.
> 
> ...


I oppose you regularly, DNAprotection is just SUCH a faggot tho.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jul 6, 2013)

we are here and queer? get use to it 
some suggested reading...

http://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/trash-animals
*Trash Animals*

*How We Live with Nature&#8217;s Filthy, Feral, Invasive, and Unwanted Species*

*2013*
&#8226; Kelsi Nagy and Phillip David Johnson II, Editors







From pigeons to prairie dogs, reflections on reviled animals and their place in contemporary life 

In _Trash Animals_, a diverse group of environmental writers explore the natural history of wildlife species deemed filthy, invasive, or worthless, highlighting the vexed relationship humans have with such creatures. Each essay focuses on a so-called trash species&#8212;gulls, coyotes, carp, and magpies, among others&#8212;examining the biology and behavior of each in contrast to the assumptions widely held about them.


----------



## Doer (Jul 6, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I oppose you regularly, DNAprotection is just SUCH a faggot tho.


That is exactly what I am saying......no one.....even Hark, Buck, Mr E, Chezus, all my other "good friends"
would have opposed me had it* not been you.* HAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH (cough, cough)


----------



## Doer (Jul 6, 2013)

And these retarded agenda filled complaints about our symbiotic partners really just shows the cocked hat of bad navigation.

Lost. When the lines of position do not intersect, but form a triangle of un-cetainty, a cocked hat shape. Knocked into a cock hat, ye be. You'll soon face the horror of the lee shore, mate. Best to heave to and wait for a sun sight.

And let us include, aimless. Lost and aimless. First is was, pity the China swallow, which, thinking they were trash animal, were wiped out, to form eco-disaster, that didn't even happen. More Lies.

I spoke of the passing of the passenger pigeon in the same circumstance, and caused no problems.

So here you are back again with an *anti-bird* agenda? Should we kill all, all, ALL, pigeons, not just the passengers?

So, another slippery butt troll I think. Gone from criticism to payback. And swapped sense for vendetta.

Just against progress. Only FOR going backwards. A Luddite. 

Are you against urban falcons, also? They love those pigeons.


----------



## Harrekin (Jul 6, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> we are here and queer? get use to it
> some suggested reading...
> 
> http://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/trash-animals
> ...


And this is linked to GM how?

Yeah, it's not, you fucking douche-canoe.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jul 7, 2013)

Frank the point is that people dont know enough about anything to really know what is 'trash' or not and that greed/fear etc driven superior (ignorance) mentality is at the height of its destructive potential when aplied to genetic engineering imo...
Seems that while I was sleeping another vote came in for no GE cannabis...
Meanwhile Doer is still lost at sea forever in search of the island of validation


----------



## Doer (Jul 7, 2013)

Really, the only trash animals left are hippies.

And my last call for your support did not come. That must be very strange since you came on assuming we are all like you.

Hey if they smoke pot they must be as confused as all hippies.

The problem with the hippies was never the pot.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jul 7, 2013)

Doer said:


> *The problem with the hippies was never the pot.*


thats the most insightful thing i ever read. 

i celebrate you brother.


----------



## Harrekin (Jul 7, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Frank the point is that people dont know enough about anything to really know what is 'trash' or not and that greed/fear etc driven superior (ignorance) mentality is at the height of its destructive potential when aplied to genetic engineering imo...
> Seems that while I was sleeping another vote came in for no GE cannabis...
> Meanwhile Doer is still lost at sea forever in search of the island of validation


And when the time comes people can smoke GM cannabis or not, Im a believer in labelling and consumer choice. 

What Im not into is forced "tree-huggery" and forced bullshit overpriced "organic" produce...oh and the obstruction of scientific advancement.

See how you want to restrict other people's choices against their will, yet I want to give them the labelled choice to vote with their wallet...

Yet I'm the unreasonable one. 

Cool story, DNAfuckwit.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jul 11, 2013)

*Molokai MOM - Standing Up to GMO *



[video=youtube;_7D4DB5LSBQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=_7D4DB5LSBQ[/video]




*"Big News For Bees! Oregon to Ban Pesticides After Latest Bee Die Off"*

Posted on July 6, 2013 
**

According to the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), the state is temporarily restricting the use of 18 pesticides containing dinotefuran while it investigates the death of thousands of bees near Portland this month. Dinotefuran is a neonicontinoid, a class of pesticides that have been linked to honeybee die-offs.
In a report entitled In the wake of large bee kills, ODA takes steps in an abundance of caution, we find that the ODA restricts use of certain dinotefuran pesticides. They are restricting the use of 18 pesticide products containing the active ingredient dinotefuran while it continues the investigation of a large kill of bumblebees in Wilsonville and Hillsboro this month. By adopting a temporary rule, ODA is taking action, in an abundance of caution, to avoid the potential of similar large bee kills this summer due to specific pesticide applications.I have directed the agency to take this step in an effort to minimize any potential for additional incidents involving bee deaths connected to pesticide products with this active ingredient until such time as our investigation is completed and we have more information, says ODA Director Katy Coba. Conclusions from the investigation will help us and our partners evaluate whether additional steps need to be considered.​The ODA restriction focuses on ornamental, turf, and agricultural pesticide products that are used by both professional applicators and homeowners. Products with the active ingredient dinotefuran registered in Oregon for other uses, such as flea and tick control on pets or home ant and roach control, are not affected by the restriction. ODAs concern is focused on those uses that may impact pollinators.
By statute, ODA has legal authority to establish limitations and procedures deemed necessary and proper for the protection of bees and other pollinating insects. The temporary rule, which goes into effect immediately, will be enforced for 180 days, by which time ODA is expected to complete its pesticide use investigations of the Wilsonville and Hillsboro incidents. Those investigations will determine if the pesticide applications were in violation of state and federal pesticide regulations, and will assist ODA in addressing any potential future actions.
ODAs Pesticide Program has established a website with more information on the dinotefuran restriction, including a list of specific products affected as well as instructions for those who may have purchased these products. Go to the Oregon government website.
Heres a list of consumer products that contain neonicontinoids via Beyond Toxics. For more on honeybees and neonics and local efforts to save the bees go to Beyond Toxicss website.
*READ MORE >>*


Yes, Monsanto Actually DID Buy the BLACKWATER Mercenary Group! 
And the Nobel Prize For Food goes to MONSANTO? 
Indias Seed Savior Goes Against the GMO Corporate_Grain_ 
ECO-REVOLUTION: GMO Crops TORCHED in America 
GMO and Monsanto Fields ABLAZE Was This Book The Start of It All? 
FBI Vague Press Release Calls the Oregon GMO Direct Action Economic Sabotage 
Monsanto Found Guilty of Chemical Poisoning in France 
ECOTAGE! Haitian Farmers Commit to Burning Monsanto Hybrid Seeds 
Anti-GMO ECO-REVOLUTION Hits EUROPE as Hungary BURNS MONSANTO CROPS 
ANTI-MONSANTO POLITICAL PRISONER: Marie Mason and the Green Scare Crackdown 
RUSSIA Suggests that WAR May Be Necessary To Stop MONSANTO 
How Mitt Romney Helped Monsanto Take Over the World 
Monsanto Found Guilty of Chemical Poisoning in Landmark Case


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jul 11, 2013)

You are truly a moron. Neither the bees, nor the pesticide are a genetically modified organism. 

That article has ZERO to do with GMO.


----------



## Harrekin (Jul 11, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> You are truly a moron. Neither the bees, nor the pesticide are a genetically modified organism.
> 
> That article has ZERO to do with GMO.


Hold up...

Pesticides KILL insects?

No FUCKING way!!


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jul 11, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Hold up...
> 
> Pesticides KILL insects?
> 
> No FUCKING way!!


i know! It's horrible!


----------



## Harrekin (Jul 11, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> i know! It's horrible!


Blame Monsanto, there's no other way it couldve happened!!


----------



## tokeprep (Jul 11, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *READ MORE >>*
> 
> 
> Yes, Monsanto Actually DID Buy the BLACKWATER Mercenary Group!


I was curious, so I clicked it. You know how we know Monsanto bought Blackwater? Because Monsanto paid a few hundred thousands bucks over several years for services from an unrelated company that was connected to Blackwater, and someone bought Blackwater. The only logical conclusion, the article declares, is that Monsanto must have been the buyer. Even as they go on to describe the actual buyers...

Yeah, I'm convinced. This ranting article goes on and on and on, and that's all the proof they've got. All the rest of this is surely bunk too.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jul 20, 2013)

215 votes for no GE cannabis...275 votes total...great turn out! 

http://rt.com/news/monsanto-europe-gmo-food-309/
[h=1]No more GMO: Monsanto drops bid to approve new crops in Europe[/h] Get short URL 
Published time: July 19, 2013 12:10 




A corn field in Godewaersvelde, northern France. (AFP Photo / Philippe Huguen)



Share on tumblr 



Tags
Europe, Food, GMO, Health, Protest, Scandal, USA 

The worlds largest seed corporation says it has dropped its bid to get more genetically modified crops onto the European market due to the wide-spread popular opposition. The biotech giant says it will expand its share of the natural seed market instead.
_We will no longer be pursuing approvals for cultivation of new biotech crops in Europe. Instead, we will focus on enabling imports of biotech crops into the EU and the growth of our current business there,_ the US-based company said in an email statement. 

The pending applications for GM crops  6 types of corn, a soybean variety and a modified sugar beet  will be withdrawn shortly, the biotech giant stressed. 

Currently, only two GM crops are approved in Europe, the MON810 maize and a modified potato created by BASF, a German biotech company. However, much of the allowed genetically modified produce is delivered to Europe as animal feed. 

Europe has long expressed its concern over the effects of GM food produce on human health. 

Several EU member states, including France, Germany, Austria, Spain, have banned the cultivation of genetically-modified crops. 

Last September, French scientists from the University of Caen released a study showing that rats fed on a diet containing NK603, a corn seed variety resistant to Monsanto's Roundup weed-killer, along with those given water mixed with the product at levels permitted in the United States, died earlier than those on a standard diet. 

Protests against Monsanto are frequent all over the globe, online and on the streets. 
In mid-June, the latest initiative against the corporation was launched. Monsanto Video Revolt was set to bypass the corporate media blackout on GMO foods and bring the issue to worlds attention. The campaign was announced by the Global Healing Center, Natural News and Natural Society, which have united to counter GM produce and the huge amounts of poisonous herbicides and pesticides being dumped all over the world. 

In May, an estimated two million people, many of them in Europe, turned out for global anti-GM rallies. 





Anti-genetically modified organism activists gather on the Trocadero square near the Eiffel tower during a demonstration against GMOs and US chemical giant Monsanto on May 25, 2013 in Paris. (AFP Photo / Fred Dufour)

In the UK, a YouGov poll released last month shows that only 21 percent of Britons are in favor of growing GM crops, with 35 percent opposed to the technology. 

However, senior officials in Britain have been stepping up the campaign to bring large-scale farming of genetically-modified crops into Europe. In June, UK Environment Secretary Owen Paterson asked the EU to loosen existing controls due to the risk of being left behind. 

Monsanto noted that they will invest in its European non-GMO seed business instead to boost the corporations sales. 

The companys seed business in Europe accounts for over 98 per cent of its $1.72 billion turnover in Europe. 

_"Conventional seeds is the area where we are focusing at this time in Europe, and we are funding the business in a way that we haven't done for more than 15 years,"_ Monsantos President and managing Director for Europe, Jose Manuel Madero, indicated to Reuters. 

The corporation is already investing $300 million to boost its seed production in France, Romania, Hungary and Turkey, with a mind to cashing in on _"several hundred million dollars"_ more over the next five years, Madero says. 

A significant part of that money  an initial investment of $150 million which could double to $300 million within a couple of years  is to be directed to Ukraine, a major global grain producer. Monsanto stressed that the total area sown with its seeds in Ukraine doubled between 2012 and 2013. 

Madero wasnt so optimistic about the corporations prospects in Russia, though, as there are no production facilities there. 

GM crops not currently grown in Russia or in Ukraine, with the corporation stressing they are not currently seeking to push for such cultivation in those markets. 

Despite harsh European opposition, Monsanto-produced GM crops and agro-chemicals are widely used in the US and in other parts of the world.


----------



## Doer (Jul 20, 2013)

We will have to take your word on that since no one spoke up for you.


----------



## Bombur (Jul 20, 2013)

What is wrong with people choosing monsanto weed? Monsanto and GMO in general have done amazing things for agriculture. If you want organic, buy organic, but don't try to shove your baseless fears down my throat. I bet nearly every person who voted "No" eats monsanto products daily without even knowing. Eat anything that contains corn? Soy? 

My point is, unless there is definitive proof of GMO's being harmful, you have no right to outlaw them. Labeling is another story..


----------



## Harrekin (Jul 20, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> 215 votes for no GE cannabis...275 votes total...great turn out!
> 
> http://rt.com/news/monsanto-europe-gmo-food-309/
> *No more GMO: Monsanto drops bid to approve new crops in Europe*
> ...


I love how your group of protestors picture doesn't show the "crowd". 

You know why? 

That photo shows ALL the protestors. 

Another fail of yours, delivered as well as always.


----------



## Someacdude (Jul 20, 2013)

Monsanto is a company, they care less about quality and more about quantity. 

During Vietnam they introduced a new engineered type of rice, this rice could be harvested twice as quickly. 
By helping those poor downtrodden unknowing people they doubled their rice crop, they also started having problems with,,,,malnutrition. 

Americans are obese BECAUSE of the fda , ama, etc. Our diet doesnt even resemble nutrition.
Why do our 13 year old girls look 23, steroids in the meat? More good old intervention from bean counters. 

Years ago you ate your food,because even with a refrigerator it would still go bad.
Today our food is full of chemicals , preservatives, no real nutritional value at all and as a result our bodies feel like they are starving so,,,,they hold onto fat.
Even vegans arent immune anymore, unless you grow it yourself and even then we come into contact with over 50,0000 chemicals every single day.

The last thing i want is anymore chemicals or anymore laws regarding what we can and cant eat.

Comfrey is an unbelievably useful herb for burns or really any other skin conditions, unfortunately its illegal in the states because some idiots ate it and died , but asprin is still legal,,,oh yeah , they can tax that.


----------



## Doer (Jul 20, 2013)

That one in the middle.....I sure would like to puck that one.


----------



## Someacdude (Jul 20, 2013)

Doer said:


> That one in the middle.....I sure would like to puck that one.


All organic?


----------



## Doer (Jul 20, 2013)

No shaved armpits or legs.


----------



## Someacdude (Jul 20, 2013)

Doer said:


> No shaved armpits or legs.


Im gonna like this just so i can unlike it


----------



## DNAprotection (Jul 27, 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/jul/24/gm-crops-ghana-us-genetically-modified-food
*"GM crops: campaigners in Ghana accuse US of pushing modified food"...*



 Afua Hirsch, west Africa correspondent	


 guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 July 2013 02.00 EDT



From farmers to MPs, debate over seed ownership and the role of foreign influences on agriculture is causing divisions in Ghana






Women sweep rice at a processing plant in the northern Ghanaian town of Bolgatanga. Photograph: Finbarr O'Reilly /Reuters

The US embassy in Accra held a roundtable on biotechnology this month. The discussion, designed to promote candid dialogue between biotechnology supporters and sceptics, was attended by experts and campaign groups on both sides of the GM foods debate.
But one Ghanaian campaign group refused the invitation. "Our call for a moratorium on GM foods was met with an invitation to a closed-door discussion," said Duke Tagoe, of Food Sovereignty Ghana, which campaigns for greater transparency about GM foods. "We are deeply worried about what seems like an imposition of genetically modified foods on the good people of Ghana without any meaningful public discourse, compounded by attempts to stifle any opposition."
Food Sovereignty Ghana and other domestic organisations accuse the US and other foreign donors of promoting GM foods to west African countries, and tying aid to implementation.
According to a leaked cable, the US government was heavily involved in drafting Ghana's 2011 Biosafety Act, which provided a framework for the introduction of GM foods. The US aid department provided technical assistance and some funding.
The cable said biotech products were being sold in Ghana and GM seeds from neighbouring countries were likely to have migrated over its borders. US companies have begun requesting permission to conduct trials.
The US embassy in Accra declined to respond to a request by the Guardian to comment on its stance on GM food in Ghana, but claims about the arrival of GM are supported by public officials.




Duke Tagoe of Food Sovereignty Ghana. Photograph: Joy News TV "GM foods are used in agriculture. This is something you cannot wish away because it has come and it is in practice," said John Odame Darkwa, acting chief executive officer of Ghana's Food and Drugs Authority (FDA). "We ensure that any food imported into the country is safe."
But campaigners say trials of GM foods, which the FDA admits have been carried out in Ghana, are a violation of the law, which states trials require the written approval of a new body, the National Biosafety Authority. The problem, they say, is that this authority does not exist yet.
"Trials are being conducted, but there isn't any framework in place," said Kweku Dadzie, from Food Sovereignty Ghana. "We are calling for a ban on the importation, cultivation, consumption and sale of genetically modified foods and crops, until the people of Ghana are satisfied that such an important and irrevocable decision is a sound and proper one to make."
Dadzie points to a lack of public debate surrounding the passing of the Biosafety Act. Maxwell Kofi Jumah, MP for Asokwa, recently admitted on local radio that ministers lacked understanding of the issues.
Many opponents of GM crops have pointed to the role of multinational companies that sell GM "hybrid" seeds that do not self-pollinate, compelling farmers to buy new seeds from the same companies each year, as well as their pesticides and herbicides.
Tagoe said: "Farmers in Ghana have had their own way of keeping seeds year after year. If these policies are allowed to manifest, Ghanaian farmers will have to change money into foreign [currency] in order to purchase seeds from overseas firms. The economic impact on the lives of the farmers will be disastrous. The origin of food is seed. Whoever controls the seed controls the entire food chain. These seeds are not owned by any African entity, they are owned by American companies."
However, experts say there are advantages to the technology. The chief executive of CGIAR Consortium on agricultural research, Dr Frank Rijsberman, said: "Private companies could develop self-pollinating seeds that also provide higher yields, but they don't because it's not profitable.
"But at the same time, the quality of seeds that pollinate themselves is often not that great. It can be difficult for farmers to select the best seeds. The job of seed companies is to select seeds that will have a bigger yields. The best hybrid rice, for example, produce about 20% better yields than the best self-pollinating seeds."
Some say that, instead of looking at yield increases through GM, the focus should be on improving access to markets for the crops that are already being grown by greater investment in extension services and low-technology improvements in farming.
"There is huge potential to increase yields using low-cost and existing technologies," said Kanayo Nwanze, president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, speaking at the Africa Agricultural Science Week in Accra last week. "In Africa, only about 6% of the total cultivated land is irrigated &#8230; It is estimated that irrigation alone could increase output by up to 50% in Africa.
"Small increases in fertiliser use in sub-Saharan Africa can produce dramatic improvements in yields. Post-harvest grain losses in sub-Saharan Africa average $4bn every year. This is food that could meet the nutritional needs of around 48 million people."
Rijsberman said farmers needed better seeds, but also required better access to inputs, access to markets, farming systems and livelihood strategies. "These things would go a long way to improving yields and incomes in a country like Ghana," he added.


----------



## Doer (Jul 27, 2013)

More spam from Mr Bullshit.


----------



## Someacdude (Jul 27, 2013)

Doer said:


> More spam from Mr Bullshit.


 I dont understand what hes trying to gain, science is cool and everything, but it certainly isnt my god ,


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jul 27, 2013)

He's trying to gain money.


----------



## Someacdude (Jul 27, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> He's trying to gain money.


As in sponsors ?


----------



## Doer (Jul 27, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> I dont understand what hes trying to gain, science is cool and everything, but it certainly isnt my god ,


If he would provide Science, I was recognize his contribution. No science so far. He could not even name the Bill he was opposing on this thread. Did not know the wording. Did not know it protected the farmers from him.  :Lost in Space. Danger! Danger!


----------



## Someacdude (Jul 27, 2013)

Doer said:


> If he would provide Science, I was recognize his contribution. No science so far. He could not even name the Bill he was opposing on this thread. Did not know the wording. Did not know it protected the farmers from him.  :Lost in Space. Danger! Danger!


Thats what im getting out of it too.

Most likely a college kid writing a theseus


----------



## Doer (Jul 27, 2013)

Actually, a fine guy. Won an important court case in CA. Fine. But, he had to Rep himself in front of the Jury to win.

So, just a bit off base and being fooled by the snake oil, I think. It isn't like people don't mean well. But, science is science only because of the Method.

No science on this, yet. There may be, but we have to try.

" Oh people might die." Can the even hear themselves? It it embarrassing for them to suggest we got here without any risk and that we maintain our life support on this world for all these many people with no risk. Risk avoidance will kill the Humans faster than anything, I think.

(damn Derivatives)

General Mills, General Motors, Genetic Mods..see? just slogans. Follow the Lemmings of our youth or not?

Only one question for adults, really. Follow, lead, or stand aside and bitch?

Stand, Hold, Fold, Walk away, or Run?

All action and all occurrence is Now. Choose.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jul 27, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Monsanto is a company, they care less about quality and more about quantity.
> 
> During Vietnam they introduced a new engineered type of rice, this rice could be harvested twice as quickly.
> By helping those poor downtrodden unknowing people they doubled their rice crop, they also started having problems with,,,,malnutrition.
> ...


bullshit. 100% bullshit.


vietnam was over in 1975, and the VERY FIRST GM crop was developed in 1983 you blithering dolt. 

there is NO FORM of rice which can be "Harvested twice as quickly", there is a variety of Dwarf Rice that can be harvested and replanted twice in the same growing season, and survives monsoon rains (by being short) but even that wasnt developed until the 80's, and it was in fact developed by entirely ordinary crossbreeding you mindless twit. 


people are fat because we have an abundance of cheap plentiful food, and very few people perform hard manual labour these days you really are stupid. was the "epidemic" of fat people in the rennaissance caused by GMO crops to? 


and now it's preservatives and refrigeration that causes fatness... 

blah blah blah "chemicals" blah blah blah... you are clueless. 

comfrey? growing and selling comfrey is NOT ILLEGAL you fool, you really are just a moron.


----------



## Highlowazupkush (Jul 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> DNAp ... with all due respect, we ARE Nature.
> 
> I would suggest that genetic engineering is an adolescent Nature just discovering how to pleasure herself. Would you deny her those stolen, private moments? cn



Retards are nature too!

As for genetic engineering... It isn't all necessarily bad, is it? I mean, I have no clue, so Id rather be informed on the topic than just up and jump right onto some band wagon. Especially if those fools from the politics forum are on that wagon.. you guys know who I'm talking about; You know who you are. One of them has already got two comments on this page.


----------



## Someacdude (Jul 27, 2013)

Feel better?

I would research all this and post links, but,,,i already dont like you and would rather see you stay stupid.




Dr Kynes said:


> bullshit. 100% bullshit.
> 
> 
> vietnam was over in 1975, and the VERY FIRST GM crop was developed in 1983 you blithering dolt.
> ...


----------



## Doer (Jul 27, 2013)

Oh, the Poet Cowboy? Harmless and fact filled. Just humor him.

He knows his stuff, OK? As do I, a bit now on this subject, but not till I meet him. I dug up, down, in the weed, with the insects in the sky, and the corn next door.

Monsanto. Cool Name. The Big Company filled with US Citizens, under DOD contacts, was split, ya'll.
The Seed Company is not the one with Nam era DOJ connection. Nothing to be ashamed of. Seeds
were split off as a new business.

It is called Demonizing, Being Pandered To, Lead Down the Primrose Path, the Gulibur's Travelers, Swallow Anything. It is very real. And the ones that are the most dipped in it, will be the one that say, "Oh, I'm not, i have reasons, facts.....I have a giant ego and trying to warn all mankind" 

Yet every fact we try to trace down, he from his perspective and me from mine, it is all bullshit. And it gets sickening.

Learning something. You all are chasing a Demon. But, hey that's your thing.

It's Kooky and we don't mind saying so. Have a nice [email protected]@*&%


----------



## Someacdude (Jul 28, 2013)

So hes a tomato tomatoe guy


Doer said:


> Oh, the Poet Cowboy? Harmless and fact filled. Just humor him.
> 
> He knows his stuff, OK? As do I, a bit now on this subject, but not till I meet him. I dug up, down, in the weed, with the insects in the sky, and the corn next door.
> 
> ...


----------



## Doer (Jul 28, 2013)

That will depend entirely on how you pronounce it.


----------



## hempyninja309 (Jul 28, 2013)

Absolutely not...


----------



## Someacdude (Jul 28, 2013)

Doer said:


> That will depend entirely to how you pronounce it.


Thats ok, my fil is like that, i could crap Tiffany cufflinks and he still wouldnt be happy.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jul 28, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> As in sponsors ?


As in he is an organic farmer. 

At least that's what I and a few others seem to take from what he has said.


----------



## Doer (Jul 28, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Thats ok, my fil is like that, i could crap Tiffany cufflinks and he still wouldnt be happy.


But, he would know all the details of both crapping and cufflinks before he says anything.  

Riddle and Rhyme me this. Why is a Poet Cowboy suppose to be happy?


----------



## Doer (Jul 28, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> As in he is an organic farmer.
> 
> At least that's what I and a few others seem to take from what he has said.


It is the Organic Industry. 

Sort of a rather grand, oxymoron.

It is Heirloom Goodness vs Satan


----------



## Someacdude (Jul 28, 2013)

Doer said:


> But, he would know all the details of both crapping and cufflinks before he says anything.
> 
> Riddle and Rhyme me this. Why is a Poet Cowboy suppose to be happy?


Isnt he supposed to be riding happy trails ?


----------



## Someacdude (Jul 28, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> As in he is an organic farmer.
> 
> At least that's what I and a few others seem to take from what he has said.


Yet hes promoting control and or a mandate for growing?

Codex hasnt helped europe much 
I dont want anymore government control in anything, enough is enough. 

99 percent of grows would be shut down on electrical violations alone.


----------



## Doer (Jul 28, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Isnt he supposed to be riding happy trails ?


No country for old men. Grumpy old cowboys are worse, I'll tell ye what. 

Come on, give us a verse....still too early.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jul 29, 2013)

[h=1]Groundbreaking investigation reveals Monsanto teaming up with US military to target GMO activists[/h] Monday, July 29, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041396_Monsanto_GMOs_US_government.html#ixzz2aSggWqSP

(NaturalNews) A hard-hitting investigative report recently published by a prominent German newspaper has uncovered some shocking details about the tactics being used by chemical giant Monsanto in assuming control of global agriculture. According to this thorough analysis, Monsanto appears to be aggressively targeting independent researchers, scientists, activists, and others opposed to genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) by utilizing the vast resources and manpower of both the United States federal government and the American military-industrial complex

The report, which recently appeared in the July 13 print edition of _Suddeutsche Zeitung_ (SZ), explains in rigorous detail how both individuals and groups opposed to GMOs and other chemical-based crop technologies have been threatened, hacked, slandered and terrorized for daring to digress from the pro-GMO status quo. On numerous documented occasions, pertinent information about the dangers of GMOs or lack of GMO safety data has been effectively blocked from timely release by mysterious forces that many say are the chemical industry in disguise.

"A conspicuously large number of Monsanto critics report regular attacks by professional hackers," explains an English-translated snippet from the SZ report. "There are (Monsanto) ties with the U.S. secret services, the U.S. military, with very hard operating private security companies and of course, with the U.S. government."

A telling example of this was when the European environmental group _Friends of the Earth_ (FOTE), together with the _German Environmental and Nature Protection Association_ (BUND), was targeted prior to releasing a damning study on the health-damaging effects of glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. A mysterious virus infected the computer of the study's main organizer just days before publishing, which threatened to delay several important press releases.

The distinguished GMO truth website _GMWatch.org_ has also been relentlessly targeted with "cyber attacks" since at least 2007, a disturbing trend that the site's main editor is convinced originates from the biotechnology industry. As we reported back in 2012, some of the strongest attacks against the site came just weeks and days before the historic Proposition 37 vote in California, which would have mandated GMO labeling at the retail level.

[h=1]Monsanto's targeting activities made possible through corporate takeover of federal government[/h] As it turns out, Monsanto has many close friends within the ranks of the U.S. federal government these days. Scores of key government positions, in fact, are now held by former Monsanto executives, a strategic move that has given the multinational corporation exclusive access to the types of resources necessary to carry out cyber attacks against its opponents on a massive scale.

Monsanto's own executives have even admitted in years past that so-called cyber "warfare" is necessary for the purpose of protecting its own economic interests both domestically and abroad.

"Imagine the internet as a weapon, sitting on a table," former Monsanto Head of Public Relations Jay Byrne is quoted as saying back in 2001. "Either you use it or your opponent does, but somebody's going to get killed."

These are powerful words, and ones that ring increasingly true as reports continue to emerge about Monsanto's intimidatory tactics against foreign governments that refuse its offerings. Confidential documents recently made public through Wikileaks, for instance, revealed a plan by government officials to "retaliate" against nations that refused to accept GMOs, even when the people of those nations wanted nothing to do with the technology.

All the sordid details of the U.S. government's collusion activities with the biotechnology industry are available in the full, English-translated SZ report, which you can read here:
http://sustainablepulse.com

You can also learn more about the dangers of GMOs by visiting:
http://sustainablepulse.com/

*Sources for this article include:*

http://sustainablepulse.com

http://sustainablepulse.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041396_Monsanto_GMOs_US_government.html#ixzz2aShX9Tit


----------



## Harrekin (Jul 29, 2013)

Your only source is a newspaper that only gets 1.1 million reads per day out of a population of 81.6 million people?

Lol, another fail. 

And since when do newspapers count as a source?


----------



## Xub420 (Jul 30, 2013)

i forgot...NO!


----------



## Doer (Jul 30, 2013)

I have it on very reliable sources.

Monsanto will be running for President, next time. And with money, in league with Satan, etc, do you think they can win?


----------



## Grandpapy (Jul 30, 2013)

Doer said:


> I have it on very reliable sources.
> 
> Monsanto will be running for President, next time. And with money, in league with Satan, etc, do you think they can win?


Like Satin stands a chance.


----------



## rizzlaking (Jul 30, 2013)

no way in hell. monsanto are pure evil

there like the umbrella corporation only real


----------



## Harrekin (Jul 30, 2013)

rizzlaking said:


> no way in hell. monsanto are pure evil
> 
> there like the umbrella corporation only real


Lol, you use Rizzla papers right?

You know they're treated with chemicals and bleached...right?

Some hippy you are...AND there's far more evidence to suggest smoking chemically treated papers is harmful than GM foods.


----------



## Doer (Jul 30, 2013)

Grandpapy said:


> Like Satin stands a chance.


I only like silk satin.

But, you agree with me. Monsanto could run for President. Already a leader of a War Cult.


----------



## doublejj (Jul 30, 2013)

If Monsanto was elected president...... I'd have to join the revolution.....


----------



## Grandpapy (Jul 30, 2013)

Doer said:


> I only like silk satin.
> 
> But, you agree with me. Monsanto could run for President. Already a leader of a War Cult.


Without a doubt and Energy as a running mate, the future is set.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jul 31, 2013)

doublejj said:


> If Monsanto was elected president...... I'd have to join the revolution.....


Monsanto doesn't need to 'run' for president...Monsanto is king...
On another disturbing note...

[h=2]http://detroit.craigslist.org/wyn/grd/3970052275.html
[/h][h=2]
[/h][h=2]Eagle Seed Forage Soybeans (Livonia) [/h] ATTENTION HUNTERS!!

Have you had the chance to see these "Super Soybeans" on your favorite hunting show? Maybe you've caught an article about them in your favorite hunting magazine. If you haven't yet seen this amazing product I'm surprised because they're the next big thing in the Food Plot industry! Just google them and see, or go to www.growingdeer.tv (hosted by world-renowned wildlife biologist, author, and land management consultant, Dr. Grant Woods). These soybeans can reach heights of 7-10 feet and provide leaf protein up to 42%. The leaves grow 3 times larger than traditional soybeans and stay green longer. 

Big Fellow - Roundup Ready
Big Fellow is an extremely tall, very large leafed Roundup Ready forage variety. It has been tested in numerous university trials and is an outstanding high protein, high tonnage producer. Big Fellow is also know for its drought tolerance and indeterminate growth habit which makes it truly rare. It can keep growing through heavy browsing by cattle or deer. It continues providing excellent nutrition later in the year after other varieties have completed their life cycle.
Big Fellow is the superior food for deer and cattle. Big Fellow puts on more than twice as many nodes as a regular soybean. Big Fellow's extra nodes provide more height, tonnage, leaf area, and browse tolerance. This variety is a favorite of silage growers since it has very high feed value, equal to alfalfa. 

Large Lad - Roundup Ready
Large Lad is known for it's excellent seed yield and tonnage production. Large Lad plants can reach heights of 84 inches and provide excellent forage for deer and cattle. Large Lad is a favorite of deer hunters since it stays green longer, and has higher protein than regular soybeans. Large Lad is easy to grow and has resistance to many foliar diseases, root rots, stem canker, and races of nematodes. The forage varieties listed on this page are widely adapted to numerous soil types and can withstand tougher growing conditions than regular soybeans. 

Wildlife Managers Mix - Roundup Ready
WMM was originally developed for our northern customers; we now have three selections available based on your geography. Wildlife Manager's Mix RR is a custom, niche blend containing both forage types, climbing soybean, and soybean varieties that are tall, high yielding and broadly adapted for your geography. The blend features 4 maturity groups which mature at different times and allow the deer to feed on both mature soybean and green leaf tissue. You will get high tonnage, excellent browse tolerance and great seed yield all in one bag.

Habitat Haven - Roundup ready
HH is a special order item available for specific growing regions and is known for providing excellent deer cover, tonnage, and seed yield. It has a wide range of maturity groups and is easy to grow.

Waterfowl Keeper ($75), Clearfield Sunflowers (1bg will plant 7 acres - $195.00), and DL 110 day maturity Roundup Ready corn (55lb bag will broadcast 3 acres - $199.00) also available.

We do not have a store front so the seed will not be available for pickup. All orders will be shipped directly to you. 

**ALL Buyers must have a Monsanto grower ID number prior to picking up seed orders.** 
Call Monsanto at 1-800-roundup and select option #3 to get your ID number today.


Michigan Food Plot Services
(734) 564-seven nine eight five


----------



## Doer (Jul 31, 2013)

Food is King. Monsanto is our Queen.

If your life if full of disturbing notes.....

Tune your strings.


----------



## doublejj (Jul 31, 2013)

The marketing term "organic" has come to represent 'NO GMO's'.........buying organic products will send Monsanto a message with your wallet.......support organic farmers......fuck Monsanto......


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 3, 2013)

[h=1]Glyphosate toxicity to humans: An overview[/h] Friday, August 02, 2013 by: Lance Devon


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041464_glyphosate_Monsanto_toxicity.html#ixzz2auWg5cye

(NaturalNews) Monsanto's infamous Roundup contains the hotly debated compound called glyphosate. This merciless herbicide is also found in 750 or more U.S. products. An herbicide like this infiltrates the landscape and accumulates in mammals, especially bone, hindering cellular detoxification along the way.

A destroyer, glyphosate annihilates a plant's _building blocks of life_, tearing apart amino acids. By disrupting the "shikimate pathway" in plants and microorganisms, glyphosate creeps inside leaves and stalk, raping natural life processes. Glyphosate also destroys the beneficial microorganism in the human gut, destroying the human immune system.

To make matters worse, glyphosate is often mixed with adjuvants - chemical agents that increase glyphosate's destructive power. It's often mixed with surfactants and foaming agents that allow the liquid to bond to and penetrate the structures of a plant's leaves. This mass infiltration has created a chemical environment.

[h=1]Glyphosate's existence welcomes GMOs[/h]Glyphosate's mere existence has led scientists to develop Roundup-Ready seeds which are genetically modified to resist the glyphosate. This has allowed an up-rise in engineered food, which the human body cannot naturally process. Farmers can now plant the genetically engineered crop and spray their fields simultaneously with glyphosate. Weeds are expected to die and terminator crops are engineered to withstand the chemicals. This has led to global food dominance by corporations like Monsanto, who push their genetically altered food onto Third World countries all under the guise of "feeding world hunger." Now farmers feel that they must depend on these chemical companies for seed, and are cornered into using herbicides like glyphosate to have a more productive crop.

The production of glyphosate has led the world down a dark course. The human body was intended to eat unmodified, natural food. Chemical-laced, genetically engineered science has manufactured a new-age _frontier of food_ that is wiping out small organic farmers from the picture. As science takes a short cut and eradicates the fields, it globalizes food production. Small organic farmers who work hard to protect the balance of the ecosystem and purity of food, have felt the squeeze global chemical companies are putting on their ability to provide whole food. Glyphosate is a danger to the future of organic farmers, who seek an herbicide-free environment to grow pure and wholesome food.

[h=1]EPA continues to allow higher glyphosate levels on crops and in humans[/h]As if it were working directly for Monsanto and other chemical giants, the EPA continues to permit more glyphosate into the ecosystem. According to pre-1985 studies, detectable levels of glyphosate in animals was nearly non-existent. By 1985, glyphosate levels were appearing in animal meat tissue, fat, eggs and milk. At that point, the EPA assigned an acceptable tolerance level of glyphosate in mammals at 0.5 ppm. The EPA quickly moved to establish an _acceptable daily intake_ of glyphosate for human consumption. At that time, they set the ADI at 0.10 mg per kg body weight per day. However, by 1993 this acceptable daily intake had been renamed to be called a "reference dose" and had gone up to 20 times the previous daily limit to 2 mg per kg body weight per day.

*How is the EPA to be trusted for safety, as they continue to cater to biotech demands?*

According to the nonprofit group, _Beyond Pesticides_, in May of 2013 the EPA ruled to double allowable limits for glyphosate in several key crops, increasing the limits for glyphosate exposure to 100 parts per million (ppm) in crops grown for animal feed, and 40 ppm in oilseed crops.

[h=1]Glyphosate stays in the bone[/h]In some of the first studies in the 90s involving rats, 30-36 percent of glyphosate was passed through the animal's gut wall and into their bodies. A similar study on hens and goats got likewise results. In the rat study, seven days after the glyphosate was administered, the remaining glyphosate levels were found in the rats' bones. In a WHO publication, "the glyphosate isotope was widely distributed throughout the body, but was primarily found in bone."

With these findings, it seems that EPA regulators have missed the point. Glyphosate, regardless of what limits are set, sinks into human organs and accumulates, creating a toxic environment for the human body. The EPA's "reference dose," is a hoax. A "reference dose" does not take into consideration the long term accumulation of glyphosate in a mammal's organs, especially bone. Here's a question: Since bone's major constituent is calcium phosphate, how might glyphosate, which acts as a fake phosphate in plants, manipulate bone growth?

*Sources for this article include:*

http://www.rag.org.au/modifiedfoods/rounduphealthissues.htm

http://northernwoodlands.org

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=10487
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041464_glyphosate_Monsanto_toxicity.html#ixzz2auXFJdRz
​


----------



## Doer (Aug 3, 2013)

On horror of lea shore and a pox on the Jonah that brought us this doom.....

This my friend is what passes for science among the hippies...See how the plant and all life is Holy.

*A destroyer, glyphosate annihilates a plant's building blocks of life, tearing apart amino acids. By disrupting the "shikimate pathway" in plants and microorganisms, glyphosate creeps inside leaves and stalk, raping natural life processes.*

When something is Holy it is religion.
When you follow religion you proselytize
When you proselytize, you forget your ethics
When you forget you ethics you screw over poor dumb farmers
Don't screw over the poor dumb farmers.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 3, 2013)

[h=1]Yet another reason to go organic - Research verifies it really is more nutritious[/h] Friday, August 02, 2013 by: Carolanne Wright


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041456_organic_food_improved_nutrition_health_benefits.html#ixzz2avK8P63U

(NaturalNews) While it's generally agreed in the natural health arena that organically produced fare is superior in safety compared to crops that utilize GMOs or chemical pesticides, the fact that it's more nutritious might be overlooked by consumers. Conventional growers insist there isn't a substantial difference between the two, yet several studies have found otherwise.

[h=1]The science behind nutrient rich organic edibles[/h]In the battle between conventional versus organic, research has shown the latter to be the victor with higher levels of vitamins and minerals as well as conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and omega-3 fats.

*Nutritional profile of organic compared to conventional crops*

After reviewing 41 published studies examining the nutritional content of conventional and organically grown crops, certified nutrition specialist Virginia Worthington discovered organic food rated significantly higher. Findings include greater levels of vitamin C (27 percent), iron (21.1 percent), magnesium (29.3 percent) and phosphorus (13.6 percent). She also notes that organic crops had lower nitrates and heavy metal contamination. Worthington's results can be found in _The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine_.

Likewise, a study led by Alyson Mitchell at the _University of California-Davis_ found free radical scavenging flavonoids were notably higher in organic tomatoes. Over the course of ten years, organically produced tomatoes were compared to their conventional counterpart. The organic fruit was shown to contain between 79 and 97 percent more flavonoid, aglycones, quercetin and kaempferol than conventionally grown tomatoes.

*Variance in milk fatty acids between organic and conventional farming practices*

A study in the _Journal of Dairy Research_ investigated the chemical composition of milk sourced from conventional and organic dairy sheep and goats in Greece. One hundred and sixty two milk samples were taken over three months. Results showed fat content was lower in the organic milk compared to conventional. Additionally, the researchers discovered:

"Milk from organic sheep had higher content in MUFA, PUFA, alpha-LNA, cis-9, trans-11 CLA, and omega-3 FA, whereas in milk from organic goats alpha-LNA and omega-3 FA content was higher than that in conventional one. These differences are, mainly, attributed to different feeding practices used by the two production systems."

According to the study, organic milk has a greater nutritional value (due to its fatty acid profile) compared to conventional milk when "produced under the farming conditions practiced in Greece."

Similar results were found with cow's milk. A team of researchers at the _Institute of Food Science and Nutrition_ in Piacenza, Italy evaluated the fat composition of organic bulk milk as well as conventional. Once again, organically produced milk had higher levels of CLA. "The animal diet appears to be the factor which has the highest effect on the CLA concentration in milk and milk products and an organic diet based on fresh or dried forage, that is rich in CLA precursory fatty acids, may improve the yield of fatty acids with beneficial effects on health."

*Sources for this article include:*

http://science.naturalnews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

http://online.liebertpub.com

http://pubs.acs.orgx

"Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains," by Virginia Worthington, The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001 (pp. 161-173)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041456_organic_food_improved_nutrition_health_benefits.html#ixzz2avKg3gfm
​


----------



## NLXSK1 (Aug 3, 2013)

Eggs were bad, now they are good. Coffee was bad, now it is good. Alcohol was bad now a glass of wine an evening is good. FFS they just came out and said that salt in the amount of 2-3 teaspoons a day is not harmful after a decades long campaign about hardening of the arteries and other made up bullshit about salt. 

The stuff DNA protection is putting up is so full of rhetoric that it affects the believability of the articles. Talk about raping and world dominance, etc... Just laughable.

Could this thread just die of GMO poisoning please? Someone spray a herbicide on it STAT!!


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *Yet another reason to go organic - Research verifies it really is more nutritious*
> 
> Friday, August 02, 2013 by: Carolanne Wright
> 
> ...


You know the "Journal" of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine is a "mickey mouse journal"...right?

In other words, it's about a scientific as beating a horse with a shoe...


----------



## Doer (Aug 3, 2013)

Exactly. The Hippies have their own "journals" that ignore science.

So, actually and technically? Religious Tracts, parading as journals.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 3, 2013)

http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/organisations/codex_en.htm

get rid of this, the fda which is a joke anyway, the ama , most allopathic doctors and the world would be a better place.

Science is many peoples god, just not mine.


----------



## Doer (Aug 3, 2013)

Simply become a Breathairian, right, jackrabbit? Or meditate your way out of here. That's what I do.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 4, 2013)

*"14-year-old teen GMO activist schools ignorant TV host on human rights, food labeling "*

Sunday, August 04, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041481_Rachel_Parent_GMO_labeling_activist.html#ixzz2b1IpyJos
​
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041481_Rachel_Parent_GMO_labeling_activist.html#ixzz2b1IgLE7O

(NaturalNews) Her name is Rachel Parent, and she's suddenly an internet sensation for her cool-headed debate about GMOs on a popular Canadian TV show. (She's also the founder of the _Kids Right to Know GMO Walk_.) As you'll see in the video below, Rachel calmly argues for the basic human right to know what's in our food, even as the condescending bully of a host named Kevin O'Leary verbally assaults the girl and practically accuses her of murdering children.

During the debate, Kevin O'Leary, co-host of the _The Lang And O'Leary Exchange_ show, viciously attacked Rachel, first accusing her of being a "lobbyist" against GMOs (an absurd accusation that O'Leary knows is false, as there is no corporate interest in honest food labeling), and then equating her position of questioning GMOs with somehow supporting a holocaust of widespread death of children. Despite the outrageous attacks, Rachel Parent simply countered his utterly contrived accusations with the facts: GMO crops don't out-produce regular crops, GMOs are a dangerous global experiment using human beings as lab rats, and consumers should have the right to know what they're buying or eating.

(It is astonishing that people like O'Leary want consumers to have _less_ information about what they're buying, keeping them in the dark and subjecting them to the accidental ingestion of modified foods that have been linked to organ damage and cancer tumors.)

*Tips for Rachel - how to respond to GMO death cultists*





Rachel is astonishingly good at the art of debate, even at just 14 years of age. (See her picture on the right, too, and notice she's got a face made for television.)

In addition to celebrating Rachel's amazing debate, I also wanted to offer her some advice in confronting these manipulative, anti-human "death cult" Monsanto apologists like O'Leary, who actually suggested, when asked about GMO labeling advocates, "I have an answer for these people. Stop eating. Then we can get rid of them." (Yes, he would love to usher in another holocaust as long as Monsanto got to run the concentration camps...)

First, you've got to fire back and remind people like O'Leary that *GMOs are not without their own risks*. O'Leary's claim that Rachel endorses the death of children because she doesn't support genetically modified rice engineered with extra vitamin A completely glosses over the inherent risks of toying with the genetic code of self-replicating crops. There are at least three risks that can be used in any debate to silence anyone trying to shove GMOs down your throat:

*Risk #1) Human health side effects*. What is the effect of GM crops on humans who eat them? Will they cause organ damage? Infertility? Unforeseen side effects? Wouldn't it have been wise to answer these questions before rolling out GM crops across the world?

*Risk #2) Genetic pollution*. Will the artificially engineered genes spread through the crops grown in the wild, altering them in unforeseen ways and possibly creating new genetic vulnerabilities that could lead to sudden crop failures? By invoking this argument, Rachel could have accused O'Leary of "putting the entire human race at risk of starvation" from an unforeseen crop failure caused by GMO pollution. And if challenged on that, she could have pointed to all the other times "scientists" have failed to foresee the devastating implications of technologies that were widely believed to be safe when they were first rolled out: thalidomide, DDT, nuclear power plants, the agricultural policies that caused the Dust Bowl, etc.

*Risk #3) Ecosystem devastation*. How will GMO crops interact with insect pests and pollinators? Rachel could have rightly invoked the global collapse of honeybee pollinators and pointed to GMOs as one of the factors believed to be partially responsible. Will GMOs also alter insects and make them more resistant to natural plant defense mechanisms in non-GMO crops? If so, that could prove devastating to non-agricultural ecosystems such as forests or plains. We've already seen how the use of Roundup -- the herbicide commonly used on GM crops -- has resulted in the rise of "superweed" that require enormous quantities of herbicide chemicals to eradicate. That's alarming proof that GMOs actually lead to the use of _more_ chemicals, not less.

With arguments like these, Rachel could have accused O'Leary of "putting the entire planet at risk of a man-made ecological disaster worse than the Great Dust Bowl." She could have then asked O'Leary whether he "supported global starvation for humanity."

*Rachel Parent is the kind of truth-telling activist who will ultimately defeat Monsanto*

These are just ideas of support for Rachel's next debate. In my view, *she was absolutely fantastic* and really made waves on Canadian television by putting O'Leary in his place.

Natural News salutes Rachel Parent, and we know that her debate skills will only continue to gain strength as she acquires more experience doing battle with "cult of death" Monsanto apologists like O'Leary -- the kind of people who don't mind risking the entire future of life on Earth as long as profiteering companies like Monsanto can make a few extra bucks next quarter.

In my opinion, they should fire O'Leary for being such a homicidal racist -- i.e. openly supporting risking the death of the entire race of humans -- and replace him with Rachel Parent who obviously makes a lot more sense and has a far better ability to connect  with the viewing audience.

​

See Rachel Parent's Facebook page at:
http://www.facebook.com/gmonews

And watch her video debate with Kevin O'Leary at TV.naturalnews.com:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=207576091B7B916EAF7F8B971D186DF2

Here it is on YouTube:
[video=youtube;HIXER_yZUBg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIXER_yZUBg&amp;feature=youtu.be[/video]
​


​


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 4, 2013)

And funnily enough, none of the things you mentioned have come to be. 

Your pathetic C/P are entertaining to me at least, it's interesting to read the periodical "Retard Newletter". 

I'd wipe my arse with Natural News...


----------



## echelon1k1 (Aug 4, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I'd wipe my arse with Natural News...


if it's anything like that recycled sandpaper, no thanks...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *Glyphosate toxicity to humans: An overview*
> 
> Friday, August 02, 2013 by: Lance Devon
> 
> ...


not a whiff of truth in the whole copy/paste shitpile. 
*
"This merciless herbicide"* it's a chemical compound it is incapable of emotional responses, and motivations (including mercy) bur so is water water kills people, plants and animals, accumulates in the environment and has extincted many many species. lets ban water too. 

*"An herbicide like this infiltrates the landscape"* no, it does not. it is used by people, it has no ability to hide, sneak, or creep. 

*"accumulates in mammals" *ZERO evidence for this claim. even the EU and WHO doesnt believe this shit. 

*"hindering cellular detoxification along the way"* pure bullshit

*" destroys the beneficial microorganism in the human gut, destroying the human immune system."* pure idiocy. glyphosate disrupts photosyntesis, intestinal bacteria do NOT indulge in photosynthesis. 

the rest of this screed relies upon the above LIES and foolish assumprtions, soi it is irrelevant. 

just like everything DNAprotection squirts out of his watery bowels.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 4, 2013)

It is for this very reason ive decided to switch to super soil.

In my industry i am forced to deal with an unbelievable number of chemicals , i dont want anything else to contend with.

Chemicals are like drugs, no one really understands everything they do, or will do.

I have seen way to many things phased out over the years because they where hazardous or caused cancer death or other major health issues, some of this stuff i have been covered in.

I now have heavy metal poisoning etc because of chemicals. I actually have a part of my arm i accidentally sprayed a certain degreaser on that erupts every 6 months or so like poison ivey, it seems and i scratch until its raw. The chemicals in that degreaser where totally legal and supposedly safe, grow the stuff the way the good lord intended unless science is your god, cant help ya there, actually, no one can.


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 4, 2013)

You nature people are so painfully fucking retarded...

God...FUCKING...damn.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 4, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> You nature people are so painfully fucking retarded...
> 
> God...FUCKING...damn.


Seems to me , the only people acting stupid are you two, neither of you presents any facts, both hold any other view in derision, both are rude and speak to people like they are garbage , i would study some psy see whats really bothering you.

But you shouldnt take it out on others,

btw im an avid hunter and fisherman not a tree hugger by any means, i just simply chose to believe what ive lived,maybe when you are older you will see things differently


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 5, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Seems to me , the only people acting stupid are you two, neither of you presents any facts, both hold any other view in derision, both are rude and speak to people like they are garbage , i would study some psy see whats really bothering you.
> 
> But you shouldnt take it out on others,
> 
> btw im an avid hunter and fisherman not a tree hugger by any means, i just simply chose to believe what ive lived,maybe when you are older you will see things differently



time wounds all heels


----------



## Doer (Aug 5, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> It is for this very reason ive decided to switch to super soil.
> 
> In my industry i am forced to deal with an unbelievable number of chemicals , i dont want anything else to contend with.
> 
> ...


Without chemicals life itself would be impossible. Science is not our god. Earth Mother is your god.

Did the direction of the degreaser say to spray it on your arm? Hell no. It says to be careful. You weren't.

Try an OTC cream, for Earth Mom's sake. Or ganja grease. That works for me on skin irritations.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 5, 2013)

Doer said:


> Without chemicals life itself would be impossible. Science is not our god. Earth Mother is your god.
> 
> Did the direction of the degreaser say to spray it on your arm? Hell no. It says to be careful. You weren't.
> 
> Try an OTC cream, for Earth Mom's sake. Or ganja grease. That works for me on skin irritations.


The only thing that works on it so far is a poultice made of bloodroot , wish i had some comfrey root, how do you make ganja grease? 
Seems the tissue was destroyed and now any time im working with certain chemicals if breaks out and weeps.

True all chemicals came out of mother earth, but not in the concentrates we are dealing with or the combinations.


----------



## Doer (Aug 5, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> The only thing that works on it so far is a poultice made of bloodroot , wish i had some comfrey root, how do you make ganja grease?
> Seems the tissue was destroyed and now any time im working with certain chemicals if breaks out and weeps.
> 
> True all chemicals came out of mother earth, but not in the concentrates we are dealing with or the combinations.


Well, I am glad you asked. You contracted a sensitivity. Your fault. You didn't have to.....all that. But, you did.

I have been on weird chemo that did a very similar thing. It seems like poison oak reaction because it is very similar. But, years later, I still get it in a few certain places. Why? No one knows.

But, I mean Simpson's Oil. It is a whole plant extract of all oils. I get it at the store. $60 for 10 ml. I don't need much, but I like to eat it too.  Mellow.

And I to have say if natural beings concentrate chemicals to use, that is quite natural, also.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 5, 2013)

So thats just regular hemp oil huh?
Bet it would really pop with some catalyst mixed in like cayenne .


----------



## Doer (Aug 5, 2013)

Isn't that what burned your skin cells in the first place, basically. Yes, hemp oil. I just put on the spot and don't pop.


----------



## ak84 (Aug 6, 2013)

Fuck genetic engineering. It's one thing to clone and cross breed, and a whole different thing to put some tigerdinosaur genetics on a cannabis plant, that will then get out in the wild and start feeding on humans or some shit. Genetic engineering is above our species' paygrade and has the potential to fuck shit up in the long run. We are definitely not ready for it yet, as evidenced by a lot of people who won't even take the time to consider possible downsides to GM'ing shit.


----------



## Doer (Aug 7, 2013)

You only say that because.....genetic breeding fucked you?


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 7, 2013)

ak84 said:


> Fuck genetic engineering. It's one thing to clone and cross breed, and a whole different thing to put some tigerdinosaur genetics on a cannabis plant, that will then get out in the wild and start feeding on humans or some shit. Genetic engineering is above our species' paygrade and has the potential to fuck shit up in the long run. We are definitely not ready for it yet, as evidenced by a lot of people who won't even take the time to consider possible downsides to GM'ing shit.


"Not ready yet"...

Bitch please, why don't you just slow human advancement just cos you "feel" we're not ready...


----------



## Doer (Aug 7, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> "Not ready yet"...
> 
> Bitch please, why don't you just slow human advancement just cos you "feel" we're not ready...


I know. But, you also know these Luddites can be quite dangerous. Animal Labs destroyed. Houses under construction burned. Farmers screwed over.

Religion, and Govts both, try to say when and what we are ready for, or not......Burn Them!


----------



## Doer (Aug 7, 2013)

ak84 said:


> Fuck genetic engineering. It's one thing to clone and cross breed, and a whole different thing to put some tigerdinosaur genetics on a cannabis plant, that will then get out in the wild and start feeding on humans or some shit. Genetic engineering is above our species' paygrade and has the potential to fuck shit up in the long run. We are definitely not ready for it yet, as evidenced by a lot of people who won't even take the time to consider possible downsides to GM'ing shit.


So, tell me NOW. What does not have a downside? And since we do it, we do it. It is not God's pay grade.

That is religion. We take chances and most other species will not.

Tell me NOW, you would pay to see the Tigersaur. 

You will see the Wooly Mammouth? Or boycott. I may well live to see that.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 8, 2013)

ak84 said:


> Fuck genetic engineering. It's one thing to clone and cross breed, and a whole different thing to put some tigerdinosaur genetics on a cannabis plant, that will then get out in the wild and start feeding on humans or some shit. Genetic engineering is above our species' paygrade and has the potential to fuck shit up in the long run. We are definitely not ready for it yet, as evidenced by a lot of people who won't even take the time to consider possible downsides to GM'ing shit.


Genetic engineering has been going on for thousands of years. 


Not one study shows that GMO crops are bad for people to consume.
I'm sure there are some hippie studies that show that GMO will make the Earth explode, but there are no real ones.


----------



## desert dude (Aug 9, 2013)

"Generally speaking, many of the biggest bio-tech companies in the world would have us believe that GMOs are 'perfectly safe' and designed to 'more efficiently' feed the world.* But, GMOs do not generate greater yields; effectively resist drought conditions; have greater nutritional value or any other consumer benefit."
*
America's farmers are a bunch of blithering idiots. GMO crops offer no advantages. Despite that, 90% of America's farmers raise GM crops, and they pay handsomely for those seeds every year. You would think they would quickly realize that GM crops offer no advantages and cost more thereby reducing the farmers' profits. You would think farmers would not bother to steal seeds that offer no advantage. 

You would think that farmers the world over would want to maximize their profits. 

Boy, farmers are a bunch of dummies!


----------



## Doer (Aug 9, 2013)

Well, the Monsanto line of Pesticides is attempting a marriage with the Monsanto lines of seed Corn, Soya, etc. Goal = YIELD.

Most farmers are benefiting from the Royalty agreement. No yield increase, no Royalty payment. 85% of corn production is trans-genetic and most is Monsanto. So what? Just a commercial experiment in Botany and yield.

But, such a waste is all these lawyers and lawmakers, sucking off money for more Religious Tract Magazines, and calling them Journals.

New paragraphs for Farm Bills needed, the sneaky buggers. All this money and markers exchanged between States, voting alliances challenged for the Power of the Earth Church, is the extent of it. And all the while hiding it behind faked up "science."


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 9, 2013)

Lol

Not one person here would complain about GMO weed that got you fucked up by just looking at it.

Unless of course they couldnt grow AND sell it


----------



## Doer (Aug 10, 2013)

Would please a Moderator ask me for permission for him to move all this crap to Science and Tech which has turned into Woo and Tech?

Oh, hell. You don't need my permission. Just see this as a friendly request. 

What is political about DNA? And now 4 strands....what? A master race fear next? 

And the entire thread has failed and has been shown to be fake science and no politics from the the beginning.


----------



## rjfmur (Aug 11, 2013)

oh, hell na. Monsanto's should be erased from the face of the earth.


----------



## Doer (Aug 11, 2013)

rjfmur said:


> oh, hell na. Monsanto's should be erased from the face of the earth.


Why? Why do they hate Monsanto? And it should be, huh? Got any details? Do you understand this why you are not in charge?


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 11, 2013)

Monsanto is working on a plant with 43% THC 60% cbd 
It vegs in 3 days and completes flowering in a month
Yeild is 800gs per sq meter


You cant clone it and it is sterile
Seeds will cost between 12-15 bucks a piece

Who is going to not buy this?


----------



## Doer (Aug 11, 2013)

Me...Me me. me. Ask me if I will buy it...doitdoitdoitdoit


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 12, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> Monsanto is working on a plant with 43% THC 60% cbd
> It vegs in 3 days and completes flowering in a month
> Yeild is 800gs per sq meter
> 
> ...


Well so far 228 RIU folks have definitively said no to your candy coated fantasy hehe... 



Doer said:


> Me...Me me. me. Ask me if I will buy it...doitdoitdoitdoit


The poll already did...you now qualify for minority status...

lol I give a perfect 10 to both SHDT (sweathog debate team) offerings


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 12, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Well so far 228 RIU folks have definitively said no to your candy coated fantasy hehe...


All atheists dont believe in god up until a few moments before death

That's right. It's a fantasy right now. If they ever developed a seed like that. You would be alone in not growing it.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 12, 2013)

"You would be alone in not growing it" = total fantasy on your part.


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 12, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> "You would be alone in not growing it" = total fantasy on your part.


Believe what you want. You cant have your way now go home and eat a big bowl of dicks


----------



## Doer (Aug 12, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> All atheists dont believe in god up until a few moments before death
> 
> That's right. It's a fantasy right now. If they ever developed a seed like that. You would be alone in not growing it.


OK OK....clean break.

Back to Scratch, GENTLEMEN.

I total agree with the spirit, pardon the pun, of what you say, but it is a logic I been very close to and so examined myself.

It is the last thing on your mind if you have any sense. However, weakened and slipping the mind is loose of Self's grip in the mortal coil. There is where the Shaman and then the Priest have made their living, from the sick and from the dying.

And say you knew nothing and had never heard of these bald claims? The life and the death of the mind, brother.

God is taught to childern so the true demons of this world can remind us in our weakness and fear. You will void and you will shed your manly demeanor, and you may call out.

But, you may also clean your brain of fear now. That way you can concentrate. 

Try this. Imagine yourself. OK, what is that? Never mind. Imagine yourself imagining yourself. OK, what is that? Never mind. Imagine yourself imagining yourself, imagining yourself. OK, enough already.

What is that? Does it have indemnity anymore? Hardly. This is SELF. It exists, quite actually with no identity necessary. You can take nothing with you, remember?

The sparrow will freeze solid to the branch with never a thought of why me. (paraphrased and butchered from Whitman)


----------



## Doer (Aug 12, 2013)

I suppose I should add that they notified the nun on duty when I was brought in. But, I was out. I came to, with a guy packing ice in the cavities of my armpit, groin, under my knees, around my neck. "Hey," he says, "How come you burning up like this?"

Then later, I woke up and a very sweet old Nun was there. "Can you hear me?"

Yes......."May I pray for you?"

What do you think I said?


----------



## karousing (Aug 13, 2013)

some people believe that by an individual taking time to send good joo joo your way, you will receive it....(no belief in christianity req.) then again some people believe they are stuck in a cycle with retards and need them to become educated and ready for the next step.

btw i am using the definition of retarded that states to be retarded is to be held back. to be slowed.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 13, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> Believe what you want. You cant have your way now go home and eat a big bowl of dicks


good show old rice classic SHDT form and grace...


----------



## Doer (Aug 13, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Well so far 228 RIU folks have definitively said no ...


l

Out of 1/2 million members out of 9 Billion souls. And most of those 9 Billion would take the vote and shove it somewhere in you if they knew what it really meant. They are kept ignorant of your Churchy power play.

And most don't care, like me. Butt, I do care about the Posturing Priesthood of Earth First Dooomheads. Very dangerous and Lying Practitioners of emotion tampering.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 13, 2013)

Doer said:


> l
> 
> Out of 1/2 million members out of 9 Billion souls. And most of those 9 Billion would take the vote and shove it somewhere in you if they knew what it really meant. They are kept ignorant of your Churchy power play.
> 
> And most don't care, like me. Butt, I do care about the Posturing Priesthood of Earth First Dooomheads. Very dangerous and Lying Practitioners of emotion tampering.


nice pitch deer Doer...it appears though that as usual you are tossing that salad on yourself...in any case it can certainly be said that 43 out of 293 folks here agree with you 
I think even your commander and chief would givya a lil pat on the back 







 [h=1]Worse than Bush: Obama fills key government positions in agriculture and trade with biotech execs[/h] Monday, August 12, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041588_Obama_cabinet_Monsanto_Big_Ag.html#ixzz2bryHZaww
(NaturalNews) Anyone who still supports the usurper-and-cheat Obama based on his agriculture "policies" has apparently not been paying any attention whatsoever to reality. Contradicting nearly every promise he made on the campaign trail with regards to reforming American agriculture and kicking out the special interests, Obama has done the exact opposite of virtually everything he said he would do, filling key government positions in both agriculture and trade with executives from the chemical and biotechnology industries.

With a legacy that is now substantially more corrupt than even that of Bush Jr., Obama has exposed himself as nothing more than a puppet and lapdog of corporate agriculture, having lied his way into the White House with promises of ending the reign of terror that corporations still hold over American agriculture. Rather than keep any of these promises, Obama instead decided to fortify the ranks of the very same corporate oligarchy that continues to promote unlabeled genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), toxic crop chemicals, environmentally-destructive monoculture, and other industrial systems.

One key nomination that the mindless masses of Obama supporters conveniently ignored was that of Islam "Isi" Siddiqui, who was given the position of Chief Agricultural Negotiator for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) back in 2009. Siddiqui had previously worked as a lobbyist for _CropLife America_ (CLA), a global lobbying group that represents Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and others. Siddiqui even served as Vice President of Science and Regulatory Affairs for CLA, which actively promoted chemical interests all across the globe.

If there was ever a man more suited for backing and promoting the interests of the chemical agriculture lobby at the expense of clean and sustainable agriculture interests, it was Siddiqui. And yet Obama saw fit to install this corporate pawn into one of the loftiest positions of government responsible for directing agricultural trade policy for the U.S., where he has since actively pushed pesticides and GMOs all around the world.

[h=1]FDA, USDA, USAID, Supreme Court, Executive Cabinet all work for chemical industry under Obama[/h]But Siddiqui's appointment is hardly the only example of key government positions being handed over to agribusiness. The _U.S. Food and Drug Administration_ (FDA), the _U.S. Department of Agriculture_ (USDA), the _U.S. Agency for International Development_ (USAID), the Supreme Court, and the Executive Cabinet have all been stocked by Obama with former Big Ag and biotech executives that are right now steering the future of agriculture toward a world dominated by corporate-owned crops and chemicals.

Not long after first being elected in 2008, Obama appointed the following industry lobbyists into key government positions:

&#8226; Roger Beachy, Director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture at the USDA. According to investigative reporter Jon Rappoport, Beachy is a former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

&#8226; Michael Taylor, Deputy Commissioner of the FDA. Taylor is a former Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto, prior to being handed the government position of "food safety czar."

&#8226; Tom Vilsack, Commissioner of the USDA. A former Iowa governor, Vilsack actively supported biotech interests in his state and across the country.

&#8226; Ramona Romero, Counsel for the USDA. Romero had previously worked as a corporate counsel for biotech giant DuPont.

&#8226; Rajiv Shah, Head of USAID. Shah had reportedly worked in key positions at the vaccine-promoting _Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation_, which heavily funds and promotes GMOs all across the globe.

&#8226; Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State. Clinton previously worked at the Rose Law Firm, which was a counsel to Monsanto.

And the list goes on and on. Be sure to read Jon Rappoport's full report on Obama, Monsanto's key lobbyist, here:
http://www.infowars.com

*Sources for this article include:*

http://www.motherjones.com

http://grist.org/article/2009-09-23-monsanto-suagr-beet-court/

http://www.infowars.com
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041588_Obama_cabinet_Monsanto_Big_Ag.html#ixzz2bryNBeWW
​


----------



## Trousers (Aug 13, 2013)

I still can't find a study that shows GMO crops are not safe to consume. 

Why are eco terrorist ripping up Golden Rice trials? I know they hate science. 
Do they hate third world countries?
Do they want more blind children?

http://www.goldenrice.org/


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 14, 2013)

Trousers said:


> I still can't find a study that shows GMO crops are not safe to consume.
> 
> Why are eco terrorist ripping up Golden Rice trials? I know they hate science.
> Do they hate third world countries?
> ...


but but but... the rats genetically designed to get cancer, got CANCER when fed allegedly genetically modified foods... 


cant you see how dangerous these GMO foods are? 

you're just not smart enough to put the pieces together. 

think about it... 

Mon = mountain in greek

Santo = saint in spanish

Mountain where Saints live, 
the Latter Day Saints is what mormons call themselves
the mormons store massive databases of "genealogy" records in a mountain in utah
"genealogy" is the study of family records
families pass on genetic material
soooo....

*the mormons are trying to patent the human genome and turn us all into slaves!!!*

it's all right there man!


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 14, 2013)

Trousers said:


> I still can't find a study that shows GMO crops are not safe to consume.
> 
> Why are eco terrorist ripping up Golden Rice trials? I know they hate science.
> Do they hate third world countries?
> ...


I am old enough to remember all the science fiction movies were scientists greatest goal was to solve world hunger

Wonder why that is a bad thing now


----------



## echelon1k1 (Aug 14, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> I am old enough to remember all the* science fiction movies *were scientists greatest goal was to solve world hunger
> 
> Wonder why that is a bad thing now


It's not but the rhetoric is the same lines that ushered in the green revolution. All talk... Biotechs wanna make cash off GMOs and people within the industry have already stated that in todays day and age world hunger CAN be solved...

*The problem is poor people don't have the cash to pay for food* as it is or they wouldn't be malnourished and starving...


----------



## Doer (Aug 14, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> It's not but the rhetoric is the same lines that ushered in the green revolution. All talk... Biotechs wanna make cash off GMOs and people within the industry have already stated that in todays day and age world hunger CAN be solved...
> 
> *The problem is poor people don't have the cash to pay for food* as it is or they wouldn't be malnourished and starving...


Well then we have to go up to why they don't have cash and why the country has no food, for them.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 14, 2013)

Trousers said:


> *I still can't find a study that shows GMO crops are not safe to consume. *
> 
> Why are eco terrorist ripping up Golden Rice trials? I know they hate science.
> Do they hate third world countries?
> ...


and let me guess, you probably believe the feds and their 'studies' that have demanded (lol) all these years that cannabis has no medical value etc... 
in any case the FDA chickens don't test GE species to my knowledge (if I remember correctly gmo's are exempt from FDA testing), all the testing is done by the foxes = monsanto et al


----------



## Doer (Aug 14, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> and let me guess, you probably believe the feds and their 'studies' that have demanded (lol) all these years that cannabis has no medical value etc...
> in any case the FDA chickens don't test GE species to my knowledge (if I remember correctly gmo's are exempt from FDA testing), all the testing is done by the foxes = monsanto et al


Well I don't believe any of it. And to my knowledge no studies have been done like that to the standards of science.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 14, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> and let me guess, you probably believe the feds and their 'studies' that have demanded (lol) all these years that cannabis has no medical value etc...


The feds have nothing to do with GMO. 
You have very little understanding of the issue. The "Feds" can not stop scientists from studying GMO crops. They can stop people from studying cannabis. You are comparing apples and elephants. 

There has not been one study that shows that GMO crops are not safe to consume. 

You post junk science from blogs and nature journals. It is embarrassing. 




DNAprotection said:


> in any case the FDA chickens don't test GE species to my knowledge (if I remember correctly gmo's are exempt from FDA testing), all the testing is done by the foxes = monsanto et al


Well again you are wrong. Are you claiming that all the testing done on GMO crops has been done by 
"Monsanto et al"?

You really are not paying attention to what is going on.

Golden rice was made to help reduce blindness in children in poorer countries. There is not a way to make much money off of this. 
Idiot eco terrorists have ripped up trials of Golden Rice in the Philippines. Golden rice could reduce nutrition based blindness in countries like the Phillipines. 

Like everything there is good and bad. I am not denying that Monsanto has done some very shady things, but Monsanto is not the only one in the world involved in GMO crops. You link the two as if they were inseparable. 

If you want to believe that all GMO crops or horrible and will cause the end of humans, that is fine. But your opinion is not based in anything concrete, just rumors and eco terrorists shouting.


----------



## Doer (Aug 14, 2013)

Corporations if shady, in a legal sense, like Enron are taken down

Monsanto has never been lawfully accused of anything that was not legally settled.


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 14, 2013)

Why should Monsanto and ADM et al make money on their research

Scientists and research are free. We bought 2 German Shepherd puppies in the last year. Why did the breeders charge us money? I'm not understanding how these greedy assholes get away with it


----------



## Doer (Aug 14, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> Why should Monsanto and ADM et al make money on their research
> 
> Scientists and research are free. We bought 2 German Shepherd puppies in the last year. Why did the breeders charge us money? I'm not understanding how these greedy assholes get away with it


I can tell you made it into the secret free money club. Good job.


----------



## karousing (Aug 15, 2013)

what exactly are they doing to the plant to get 44% thc and can they instead make it 44% cbd with 5-10% thc?


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 15, 2013)

Thankfully this form of 'crime against nature' is recognized...:


*"Idaho man who dresses as dog had sex with cat:" *

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/idaho-man-dresses-dog-sex-cat-cops-article-1.1425776#ixzz2c3I7aUJ3
(excerpt)
"Ryan Havens Tannenholz, a self-identified "furry," or someone who wears anthropomorphic animal fur suits, was charged with six felony counts of crimes against nature and one misdemeanor count of cruelty to an animal."


...unfortunately though pillaging through and rearranging the genetic sequencing of a species for profit is not...


​


----------



## Trousers (Aug 15, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> blah blah blah



The FDA can not stop scientists from conducting studies.
The FDA has no power over scientists, especially in Europe. 

Where are the studies that back up your lies and fairy tales?


You are just avoiding that which is uncomfortable for you.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 15, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *http://www.chicagonow.com/wild-side-chicago/2013/08/monsanto-ready-to-enter-medical-marijuana-war/
> 
> "Is Monsanto Ready to Enter The Medical Marijuana War?"*



Irrelevant garbage. You are avoiding what makes you uncomfortable.

*There are no studies that show that GMO crops are unsafe to consume. 

*Why are you against Golden Rice?
Do you want poor children to be malnourished and go blind?


----------



## M1dAmber (Aug 15, 2013)

High thc numbers is one thing, but they may genetically alter cannabis to do any number of things to your body.

Hell, it is all about money right? Like most corporations?
What is stopping them from genetically altering cannabis in a way that makes it physically addicting? 
A super strong 40%+ THC plant that you literally CAN'T put down. 
Think about it. They can alter these seeds to do any number of things. They could even make it to where female plants naturally grow sterile, making breeding with these strains impossible, and eventually ALL strains once the genetic pool gets muddied. This way, they are the only ones with plants that can breed and make seeds. 

I think that humans as a species are too eager for control of everything on earth.
One day we will genetically modify every animal and plant to "fit our needs" and we won't have anything natural left. No natural animals and no natural plants.
Then, these plants and animals will die off because we didn't stop to think about long term effects and how changing animals and plants ALSO requires you to put them in a habitat that fits how they have changed. Without a habitat for each and every modified crop and animal, they will die off.

Honestly, this is the EXACT reason I started breeding and creating my OWN fucking seeds. Mark my words, these GM companies WILL ruin cannabis, it is just a matter of time.
Meanwhile, I will have a stock of NON-gm seeds.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 15, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Thankfully this form of 'crime against nature' is recognized...:
> 
> 
> *"Idaho man who dresses as dog had sex with cat:" *
> ...




Your credibility is pushing up against zero.
Can you back up your claim that GMO crops are not safe to consume with something?


I have ADD too.


----------



## Rob Roy (Aug 15, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> Why should Monsanto and ADM et al make money on their research
> 
> Scientists and research are free. We bought 2 German Shepherd puppies in the last year. Why did the breeders charge us money? I'm not understanding how these greedy assholes get away with it


Does Monsanto own any puppies your dogs may have?


----------



## Doer (Aug 15, 2013)

Ruin cannabinol by doubling it?
That is just dumb.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 15, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> I think maybe the SHDT thinking proses may be all the proof we need lol...children of the corn syrup?
> 
> 
> http://www.livestrong.com/article/222893-the-effects-of-corn-syrup-on-childrens-behavior/


You are really good at avoiding what you do not believe in and posting terrible sites with dubious information and opinions.
You should get some organic, free trade butter and use it to help remove your head from where it is stuck.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 15, 2013)

Debating GMOs with out science behind you is like going to a gun fight with a wiffle ball bat.
I guess a few million clueless people with wiffle ball bats can be convincing. 

French Government, Europe Captured By Junk Science on GMOs, Say Expert Scientists
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/06/12/french-government-europe-captured-by-junk-science-on-gmos-say-expert-scientists/


The junk science clowns behind the GMO scare
http://www.troymedia.com/2013/03/06/the-junk-science-clowns-behind-the-gmo-scare/

Is there really a science-based GMO controversy?
http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/is-there-really-a-science-based-gmo-controversy-false-balance-captures-discover-magazine/


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 15, 2013)

Trousers said:


> Debating GMOs with out science behind you is like going to a gun fight with a wiffle ball bat.
> I guess a few million clueless people with wiffle ball bats can be convincing.
> 
> French Government, Europe Captured By Junk Science on GMOs, Say Expert Scientists
> ...


My facebook page is infested with 2 freinds who are also into Homepathy

Try to make a link between the homeopathy and being anti GMO (and vaccines ,raw milk and treating impotence with horny goat weed)


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 16, 2013)

Trousers said:


> You are really good at avoiding what you do not believe in and posting terrible sites with dubious information and opinions.
> You should get some organic, free trade butter and use it to help remove your head from where it is stuck.


Sad to say that apparently your not so great at reading, if you were then you would have discovered (many times repeated in this thread) that for me its not so much about gmo's being harmful to humans per say, its about proper respect for our relatives...no doubt you have no clue what that means so here is some stuff more based on your desired 'debate' and level of self awareness 

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs
[h=2]10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs[/h] *1. GMOs are unhealthy.*
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.
Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.
The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)&#8213;which is linked to cancer.

*2.	GMOs contaminate&#8213;forever.*
GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

*3.	GMOs increase herbicide use.*
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"&#8213;they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.

Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

*4.	Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.*
By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

*5.	Government oversight is dangerously lax.*
Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments' superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn't require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA's own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, later their vice president. He's now the US Food Safety Czar. 
*
6.	The biotech industry uses "tobacco science" to claim product safety.*
Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe. They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied. 

*7.	Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed. *
Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened, and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a "large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge." Attempts by media to expose problems are also often censored. 
*
8.	GMOs harm the environment.*
GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

*9.	GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.*
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield&#8213;the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield. 

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.

*10.	By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.*
Because GMOs give no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of us start rejecting brands that contain them, GM ingredients will become a marketing liability. Food companies will kick them out. In Europe, for example, the tipping point was achieved in 1999, just after a high profile GMO safety scandal hit the papers and alerted citizens to the potential dangers. In the US, a consumer rebellion against GM bovine growth hormone has also reached a tipping point, kicked the cow drug out of dairy products by Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of America's dairies.

The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to achieve a tipping point against GMOs in the US. The number of non-GMO shoppers needed is probably just 5% of the population. The key is to educate consumers about the documented health dangers and provide a Non-GMO Shopping Guide to make avoiding GMOs much easier. 

*Please choose healthier non-GMO brands, tell others about GMOs so they can do the same, and join the Non-GMO Tipping Point Network. Together we can quickly reclaim a non-GMO food supply.*


----------



## Doer (Aug 16, 2013)

Nice warning. I certainly don't want to be part of some Luddite tipping point. What's next? Cows.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 16, 2013)

I guess no one cares about the scientific method. 
GMO haters are the same as climate deniers. Except they are poorer and have hygiene issues.


----------



## Doer (Aug 16, 2013)

Why would you give a sub-micro set of idiots the nomer, everybody?


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 16, 2013)

Trousers said:


> I guess no one cares about the scientific method.
> GMO haters are the same as climate deniers. Except they are poorer and have hygiene issues.


Disagree. The worse ones have money and believe in the new age practice of aromatherapy and the healing power of crystals.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 16, 2013)

Sting doesn't use soap.


----------



## Doer (Aug 16, 2013)

Meaning he has smegma secret?


----------



## ilikecheetoes (Aug 16, 2013)

only if hes uncircumcised.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 16, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> The only thing that works on it so far is a poultice made of bloodroot , wish i had some comfrey root, how do you make ganja grease?
> Seems the tissue was destroyed and now any time im working with certain chemicals if breaks out and weeps.
> 
> True all chemicals came out of mother earth, but not in the concentrates we are dealing with or the combinations.


a quick google search will give you MANY links to buy comfrey, and you can get the seeds here: *http://www.mountainroseherbs.com/seeds/seeds.php* 

comfrey is NOT illegal to grow possess sell or use in the US. 

comfrey is also NOT a panacea. it will not cure your condition.

the condition you describe is called "Defatting", and it is usually treated with lanolin cream 

further, to prevent further "defatting' of your tissues i recommend wearing the propper protective clothing when handling acids and bases (even mild ones like vinegar, dishwasher detergent, household cleaning products, etc) ANY solvents, and most houshold surfactants ( including palmolive etc...) 

use a mild soap like Nutrogena, or Yardley's Oatmeal Soap for bathing, and use a VERY mild shampoo like Mane and Tail for your hair. 

dont use shaving creams and foams for shaving, use a mild hair conditioner (like Garnier Fructisse) since most shaving creams "soften" the beard with caustics and surfactants. dont use aftershaves and shit, alcohol is a solvent. 

when the symptoms of "Defatting" appear, your skin will be highlt vulnerable to even mild caustic solvent or surfactant products, which should have been discussed with you by your dermatologist. 

In Brief: 
avoid anything designed to strip oils. 
use lanolin (not that fucking Aloe Vera) on your hands and arms
mind your exposure to UV, since your effected areas will be susceptible to sunburn.
WEAR GLOVES when handling any "chemicals"


----------



## Doer (Aug 16, 2013)

Damn Cowboy, I hope you didn't get run over by a turnip truck.

When a Cowboy happens to feel lonely
And he don't have in mind his own pony

.....huh? Huh? and he...then they....huh? doitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoit Please?


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 16, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> a quick google search will give you MANY links to buy comfrey, and you can get the seeds here: *http://www.mountainroseherbs.com/seeds/seeds.php*
> 
> comfrey is NOT illegal to grow possess sell or use in the US.
> 
> ...


Sorry comfrey root.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 16, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Sorry comfrey root.


comfrey root extract, 2oz size $13.59.
http://www.comfreyrootextract.com/

2x 1oz size $19.98 
http://www.pennherb.com/comfrey-root-extract-topical-1-P122K

theres MANY more

it is NOT illegal to grow possess use or sell. 

plus if you grow the seeds yourself you get the leaf, the root and all, which can be used in whatever manner you choose. 
my gam gam used the roots mixed to a pulp in a blender with long cut chaw, peppermint leaves and just a little bourbon as a poultice for various injuries on livestock and grandkids. 

niether the roots the leaves the flowers nor the extracts thereof are prohibited in any way, *except for those intended to be ingested* (that would be idiotic, it is toxic if eaten). thats the only prohibition on the sale of comfrey or it's various extracts.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 17, 2013)

[h=1]Health Ranger launches 3-minute 'GMOs Explained' video to introduce new people to the dangers of genetically modified foods [/h]




Thursday, August 15, 2013
(NaturalNews) Now there's an easy way to introduce new people to the topic of GMOs. Here at Natural News, we've just completed a fascinating new video that reveals the story of GMOs in just three minutes.

Check it out on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8qvskYvnH8

The video reveals where GMOs come from, why they're used and why they cause organ damage and cancer in mammals. It also explains how to *avoid GMOs* by shopping for USDA certified organic foods.

The short duration of the video makes it perfect for viewing by new people who either aren't familiar with the problem of GMOs or who don't want to sit through a long-duration documentary.

Also covered in the short video is the concept of "genetic pollution" -- how GMOs threaten the viability of global agriculture by turning the entire planet into a mad science genetics experiment with potentially catastrophic results.

The video also plugs some of the top websites covering GMOs including GM Watch (www.gmwatch.org), the Organic Consumers Association (www.organicconsumers.org) and the Institute for Responsible Technology (www.responsibletechnology.org).

Watch it here and either share this page or share the video:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041645_GMOs_explained_video_genetic_pollution.html #ixzz2cEMiwPk4
[video=youtube;b8qvskYvnH8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8qvskYvnH8[/video]
​
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041645_GMOs_explained_video_genetic_pollution.html #ixzz2cEMQ44v9
​


----------



## Doer (Aug 17, 2013)

New people?

Infants, and little minds you lie to?

I can tell you there is not a single fact in there. Ero Sum. All LIES>


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 17, 2013)

Doer said:


> New people?
> 
> Infants, and little minds you lie to?
> 
> I can tell you there is not a single fact in there. Ero Sum. All LIES>


correction, Mostly Lies, with a few half truths and several blatant distortions of fact.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 18, 2013)

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=21597.0 


http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/Plantox/Detail.CFM?ID=22869

\So the answer is only some types of comfrey are banned,,the good ones.

Im not looking up any more crap either, research it yourself

One thing is for sure , some of you get really pissy when your god (science) is called into question, next time do the research or show some class when someone has a different point of view.

Monsanto is a crap company that is concerned with ONE thing, making money, they dont care about you at all.

Im pretty sure you supporters where also in favor of all these sterile seeds out there.

I remember reseeding from plants year after year, now we are forced to buy seeds every year .


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 18, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=21597.0
> 
> 
> 
> I remember reseeding from plants year after year, now we are forced to buy seeds every year .


Did someone say Autoflower?


----------



## Doer (Aug 18, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=21597.0
> 
> 
> http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/Plantox/Detail.CFM?ID=22869
> ...


It is a corporation. If there is an it, is a boardroom of suits attempting to grow shareholder wealth.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 19, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=21597.0
> 
> 
> http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/Plantox/Detail.CFM?ID=22869
> ...


you can say it over and over, but comfrey is STILL NOT ILLEGAL
a very few cultivars cannot set seeds, BY DESIGN because it is a non-native plant, and it is a pernicious weed in most of the country, but you can get the seedy stuff easily.

no types of coppmfrey are banned, the ONLY restriction is you cant sell shit designed for internal use (thats eating or drinking it, since it is POISONOUS in large amounts and people are dumbasses). there are NO banned cultivars of comfrey. 

i dont give a squirt of piss what you do or do not "look up", but when you LIE i will debunk your LIES, so nobody else makes the foolish mistake of believing your LIES, just like the LIES of DNAprotection, who's tongue would catch fire if he told a single truth. 

i do not need to "research" comfrey's imaginary prohibition, since your premise is BULLSHIT. I also do not need to "research" claims of alien anal probing, bigfoot, or visitations by Bloody Mary, since BULLSHIT stinks from a distance and is thus easily identified

if you want to sling bullshit, try Grasscity, or yahoo chat.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 19, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> you can say it over and over, but comfrey is STILL NOT ILLEGAL
> a very few cultivars cannot set seeds, BY DESIGN because it is a non-native plant, and it is a pernicious weed in most of the country, but you can get the seedy stuff easily.
> 
> no types of coppmfrey are banned, the ONLY restriction is you cant sell shit designed for internal use (thats eating or drinking it, since it is POISONOUS in large amounts and people are dumbasses). there are NO banned cultivars of comfrey.
> ...


Im guessing you are an allopathic doctor or just a wanna be believer in allopathic drugs. 
DRUGS and chemicals will be the death of us, better living through chemistry is a lie.
Drugs cure things huh? You dont think the burry or hide the real problem, one things for sure, you are brain washed and arrogant enough to be a doctor.

Whatever you do , dont research, i also like the way you repeatedly have gotten personal, i think your a 17 year old with a daddy doctor or mommy nurse.


Do some research junior


----------



## Doer (Aug 19, 2013)

Weird since you don't provide any. Death of us? Life expectancy is up.

Drugs cure things. Drugs can kill you. 

What do you really mean? Don't get trolled. Just say it.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 19, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Im guessing you are an allopathic doctor or just a wanna be believer in allopathic drugs.
> DRUGS and chemicals will be the death of us, better living through chemistry is a lie.
> Drugs cure things huh? You dont think the burry or hide the real problem, one things for sure, you are brain washed and arrogant enough to be a doctor.
> 
> ...


since you used the bullshit phrase "allopathic" i must therefore assume you have ZERO hours of study in real science, since "Allopathy" is a pejorative term created by the homeopathic/chiropractic/snakeoilsalesmen/witchdoctor crowd to swing like a cricket bat at any who doubt the unproven claims of their BULLSHIT assertions. 

comfrey is NOT illegal, i never made any claim of "chemicals" (which of course comfrey contains none of... wait? what?) or "drugs" (which term only applies to REAL medical compounds, while unproved bullshit is of course "medicine").

you got every scrap of that narrative from the voices inside your head. 

i love natural remedies, and use them often, preferring to avoid pharmaceuticals whenever possible. 

i still use gentian violet, epsom salts, willow bark, peppermint, and many other natural old tyme remedies in my day to day. 

Bee/insect sting: a paste of baking soda and oatmeal applied to the wound draws out the venom.
minor infections: gentian violet applied daily for a week clears it up most every time
athelete's foot: zinc powder and talc. 
headache: willow bark tea (thats where aspirin came from originally)
burns: aloe vera right off the cactus growing in my garden
etc etc etc. 
all this shit is "natural, but it actually works, meanwhile you cant discern between *"comfrey is NOT illegal and i have used it to good effect"* and *"comfrey is hokum so you should buy cialis and prilosec" *thus proving that you are, like so may others in the anti-gmo crowd, an incorrigible liar and bullshit slinger. 

i even gave you links to by REAL "heirloom" comfrey seeds to grow it yourself, but you still maintain that it is illegal. 

self-deluded or mentally retarded? pick your label, cuz im done arguing with your dumb ass.


----------



## jkahndb0 (Aug 19, 2013)

Trousers said:


> I guess no one cares about the scientific method.
> GMO haters are the same as climate deniers. Except they are poorer and have hygiene issues.


I am not against GMO's...
I am against introducing GMO's into the national food supply without labeling and without proper long term testing...


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 19, 2013)

So 30 years isn't long enough? 

First GMO in 1983. 

How long is long enough? 

Want to go with first edible plant? 1994. 20 years. That's not long enough either?


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 19, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> since you used the bullshit phrase "allopathic" i must therefore assume you have ZERO hours of study in real science, since "Allopathy" is a pejorative term created by the homeopathic/chiropractic/snakeoilsalesmen/witchdoctor crowd to swing like a cricket bat at any who doubt the unproven claims of their BULLSHIT assertions.
> 
> comfrey is NOT illegal, i never made any claim of "chemicals" (which of course comfrey contains none of... wait? what?) or "drugs" (which term only applies to REAL medical compounds, while unproved bullshit is of course "medicine").
> 
> ...


Bingo , i just knew you where a wanna be.
Better living through chemistry to you too, even if it is a lie , just one more scheme to keep people dependent and medicate them out of their misery.
You wouldn't know an actual cure if it bit you on the butt.
Wish i had time to explain things to you, but im covered in hives from one of your wonderful products , wont make that mistake again.
Wish i could have been a doctor, then again i was never really good at memorizing , writing it down, then forgetting it.

What did you prescribe for yourself ?


----------



## jkahndb0 (Aug 19, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> So 30 years isn't long enough?
> 
> First GMO in 1983.
> 
> ...


You have a link to the study?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 20, 2013)

jkahndb0 said:


> You have a link to the study?


I could point to plenty of studies by people trying to find harm in gmos that can only find results by using extremely poor methods

After 20 years if there were adverse effects then surely they would have been found? As above there's been no shortage of people looking for that harm

Hell after 20 years they can't even show how it would cause


----------



## Doer (Aug 20, 2013)

jkahndb0 said:


> You have a link to the study?


I too have followed all this studies I can find. There is nothing here but the Hippy Religion where Monsanto is the Devil.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 20, 2013)

jkahndb0 said:


> You have a link to the study?


There are links to studies that have been performed. They have performed them since 1983. 

NO health effects to humans have ever been discovered in the 20 years GMO food products have been available. 

You want a link to hundreds of studies showing its safe? 

Ok. The list:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AoiID3EuxBOYdExZSF9VQk1iR0pBXzlzaTFQYWp3SVE


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 20, 2013)

Then we have this, from the continent that is scared the most of GMO, Europe:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1688_en.htm

And we have this:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

Answer my question. You didn't before, if you don't now, well I won't be responding to you.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 20, 2013)

Guys i never said monsanto was the devil, all im saying is eat and grow as natural as we can.
I watched what this did to the quality of our food first hand growing up in farm land.
Poor nutrition is one of the biggest drawbacks. 
Money drives it all period and any business will say and pay whoever and whatever they have to to keep the sales up.

I handle enough chemicals already, grow what you like, have a ball, just dont ell me im stupid for not agreeing with you.


----------



## Doer (Aug 20, 2013)

Doer said:


> I too have followed all this studies I can find. There is nothing here but the Hippy Religion where Monsanto is the Devil.


cdude, I looked for the word stupid and could not find it. I said the hippies have a religion where Monsanto is Devil.

Not that you worship the devil.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 20, 2013)

Doer said:


> cdude, I looked for the word stupid and could not find it. I said the hippies have a religion where Monsanto is Devil.
> 
> Not that you worship the devil.


I was following along, i didnt get that out of your post, i dont troll you since you seem like i decent guy who can discuss things. 

Like i said, i just dont want anymore government or big business interfering with food unless it involves cleanliness. 

Im not a liberal nor a conservative, i see both sides as equally guilty and equally devoid of any quality that will actually help anyone, otherwise we would all be healthy for free, its all money driven.

Once upon a time in china , the local healers where paid until the people got sick , them he stopped being paid. Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 20, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Once upon a time in china , the local healers where paid until the people got sick , them he stopped being paid. Seems reasonable to me.


If you think that's good I rent out tiger repelling rocks to people to protect them from tiger attacks. If they get attacked by a tiger they no longer have to pay the rentals

I'm thinking about branching out into cancer repelling sticks under the same model.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 20, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Bingo , i just knew you where a wanna be.
> Better living through chemistry to you too, even if it is a lie , just one more scheme to keep people dependent and medicate them out of their misery.
> You wouldn't know an actual cure if it bit you on the butt.
> Wish i had time to explain things to you, but im covered in hives from one of your wonderful products , wont make that mistake again.
> ...


ORLY? 

when did i ever say "better living through chemistry" or any other such twaddle? 
when did i ever suggest you buy pharmaceuticals? (*protip:* Lanolin, the product my dermatologist recommends for my own "defatting" issue is a byproduct of sheep wool) 
what product of mine gave you hives? 
indeed what product do i produce that you might have been exposed to? (i only sell my fruits and vegetable locally)
what does you inability to memorize shit has any bearing on my PROOF that comfrey is not banned? 

for myself i prescribe cannabis, my current rotation is Northern Lights, 707 Headband, Jilly Bean, DJ Short's OG Blueberry and the Spice Melange.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 20, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *http://bigbudsmag.com/grow/article/medical-marijuana-next-gmo-franken-plant
> "Is Medical Marijuana the Next GMO "Franken-Plant"?"*
> 
> 
> ...


Now *THIS* is all lies. 
this is the stupidest claptrap ever foisted on this DOPE GROWING FORUM

*Unbeknownst to hemp activists in California, and other states that have passed hemp farming bills, there is no hemp variety currently available that will produce less that .3 percent THC when grown below the 45th parallel. This is because the amount of UV light that gets to the earth&#8217;s surface is higher below that parallel and cannabis has a built in UV protector, THC. 

*BULLSHIT!

*This is similar to the situation with plant-based medications like morphine and codeine, both extracted from the non-GMO opium poppy (papaver somniferum) and whose active compounds are chemically reconstructed to create the even more potent oxycodone (found in Percocet and Oxycontin), while growing and consuming the plant oneself is illegal. *

BULLSHIT!
Protip: you can buy, plant grow and enjoy Papaver Somniferum ANYWHERE in the US, only tapping the sap of the seed pod, or consuming the product thereof, is illegal, much in the same what it is illegal to inhale the nitrous oxide from your Reddi Whip can, or sniff glue. 

*"La Cominera's" higher value is due to its increased concentration of THC, the plant's principal active ingredient, and the modified plant verges on an 18 percent concentration level, compared to a normal marijuana plant's two to seven percent, said the researcher.*

18%???? HA HA HA HA!! dude. seriously. 

*Feminized & Autoflowering Marijuana: A Monsanto GMO Plot to Eliminate Natural Marijuana Genetics?*

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! man you are useless.


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 20, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> _Greenhouses lined with genetically modified marijuana sit on a mountainside just an hour ride from Cali, Colombia, where farmers say the enhanced plants are more powerful and profitable._
> _One greenhouse owner said she can sell the modified marijuana for 100,000 pesos ($54) per kilo (2.2 pounds), which is nearly 10 times more than the price she can get for ordinary marijuana._
> *Local authorities said the arrival of genetically modified seeds, which are imported from Europe and the United States have allowed "a bigger production and better quality at the same time".
> *_A police commander in the Cauca region where Cali is located, Carlos Rodriguez, said one of the modified varieties goes by the name "Creepy"._
> ...


So do they get their seeds from the same places as our sponsors for this forum?


----------



## RPM371 (Aug 21, 2013)

desert dude said:


> You want to ban science? What are you, a Republican?
> 
> I say genetically engineer the shit right out of cannabis, and corn, and wheat, and fish, and humans.


You do understand that if your non Monsanto plant somehow gets pollinated by a Monsanto plant that your plant is now a Monsanto plant. If they push the same policy they have with soybeans you can not clone the plant or keep any seed. You do not want to take on Monsanto.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 21, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> _"La Cominera's" higher value is due to its increased concentration of THC, the plant's principal active ingredient, and the modified plant verges on an 18 percent concentration level, compared to a normal marijuana plant's two to seven percent, said the researcher._
> ​Once the gene responsible for marijuanas psycho-activity was identified, mad scientists had the ability to start manipulating it. The genome of the cannabis plant was sequenced and published by the British company Medicinal Genomics in 2011.
> Whether their goal is to increase or decrease THC production within the cannabis plant, there is no doubt medical marijuana is the next big Franken-plant for the GMO industry.


Haha 18% thc = super genetically modified cannabis?

That's worse than the "super skunk" bullshit propaganda you get from idiot reporters.... you do know this is a growers forum?

I love how the article immediately goes on to admit that they've only just sequenced the cannabis genome too as I can find references to _"La Comineras" &#8203;going back to 2011 _
That means this claim of gmo cannabis is bullshit


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 21, 2013)

RPM371 said:


> You do understand that if your non Monsanto plant somehow gets pollinated by a Monsanto plant that your plant is now a Monsanto plant. If they push the same policy they have with soybeans you can not clone the plant or keep any seed. You do not want to take on Monsanto.


No it does not mean your plant is Monsanto's plant


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 21, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Haha 18% thc = super genetically modified cannabis?
> 
> That's worse than the "super skunk" bullshit propaganda you get from idiot reporters.... you do know this is a growers forum?
> 
> ...


Dont forget all the home grow busts where they show the "dangerous" chemicals also found in the raid 
Like liquid fertilizers and dirt


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 21, 2013)

[h=1]Chile fights GMO in national protest against "Monsanto law"[/h]http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15005-chile-fights-gmo-in-national-protest-against-monsanto-law






Thousands of Chileans have rallied against a bill dubbed the &#8220;Monsanto law&#8221; that would let multinationals patent GMO seeds.
There are some great pictures of the protest here: [url]http://rt.com/news/chile-protest-monsanto-law-634/[/URL]http://rt.com/news/chile-protest-monsanto-law-634/
And a video here: [url]http://rt.com/in-motion/chile-protest-gmo-monsanto-633/[/URL]http://rt.com/in-motion/chile-protest-gmo-monsanto-633/
[h=2]Chile fights GMO in national protest against "Monsanto law"[/h]Russia Today, August 18, 2013
http://rt.com/news/chile-protest-monsanto-law-634/
Thousands of Chileans have rallied against a bill dubbed the &#8220;Monsanto law&#8221; that would let multinationals patent GMO seeds. Activists say it will not only compromise food sovereignty in Chile, but will also harm consumer health.
Mass protests were held in at least nine cities across the Latin American country to protest the bill that would allow for the development of genetically modified seeds. Activists carried banners emblazoned with slogans such as &#8220;Monsanto kills&#8221; and &#8220;Monsanto will patent your life&#8221;.
Other protesters dressed up as bees and zombies to illustrate their fear that the new legislation could lead to the degradation of Chile&#8217;s biodiversity.
The legislation, which was proposed by ex-President Michelle Bachelet, is currently being discussed by the Chilean Senate and has already been approved by the House of Representatives. The law&#8217;s official name is the Plant Breeders Act, but it was branded the &#8220;Monsanto law&#8221; for the multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation.
The patent would mean large corporations would set the price of seeds and who can use them, protesters claim.
&#8220;This law puts seeds into the hands of a few transnational companies,&#8221; said Ivan Santandreu, a member of Chile Sin Transgenicos (Chile without GMOs) on Radio Universidad de Chile. &#8220;This measure does not contribute to the innovation and well-being of independent farmers at all. What it does is put food sovereignty at risk by making it dependent on big corporations.&#8221;
Santandreu said that if the law is passed, companies like Monsanto will exert their monopoly on the seeds market and introduce their own genetically modified products.
Monsanto has been the target of mass protests recently over the safety of their genetically modified products. In spite of the fact the transnational maintains its products are all perfectly safe, serious doubts have been raised. The transnational has been trying to expand into Europe, but has been thwarted by bans on GMO products in France and Germany.
The company said it had dropped its bid to get its crops cultivated in the EU in July because of strong opposition.
&#8220;We will no longer be pursuing approvals for cultivation of new biotech crops in Europe. Instead, we will focus on enabling imports of biotech crops into the EU and the growth of our current business there,&#8221; the US-based company said in an e-mailed statement.
However, EU officials told RT that the approval of genetically modified SmartStax maize was in the cards.
&#8220;The approval of SmartStax maize is expected in September or October,&#8221; a spokesman for EU health and consumer policy commissioner, Tonio Borg, told RT.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> correction, Mostly Lies, with a few half truths and several blatant distortions of fact.




[h=1]Is extremism in defense of GM food a vice?	[/h] By Nathanael Johnson
When a study came out in 2012 associating gruesomely lumpy rats with genetically modified food, critics trashed it so thoroughly that a group of researchers and advocates called foul. This went beyond legitimate scientific critique, they wrote. It was evidence that those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results.
More recently, a long-term GM feeding trial of pigs received a similar (though milder) treatment. Tom Laskawy here at Grist made the point that, though this study had flaws, the dismissals seemed knee-jerk  ideological rather than thoughtful.
So is there an echelon of corporate Pinkertons pouncing on any scientist who dares to dissent from the GM consensus? Are researchers who raise doubts about GMOs unfairly punished? Its hard to assess while smoke billows and rhetorical bullets fly. Its much easier to judge with the clarity of hindsight. The historical picture is sharper and simpler, and I think it really does show that scientists who step out of line on this issue are savaged in a manner thats out of all proportion to their errors. These errors are real, but they should be exposed in the spirit of collaboration rather than castigation.

Back in 1998, Arpad Pusztai was just beginning his third year of research on the safety of transgenic potatoes when a TV program asked him to do an interview about his preliminary results.




Arpad Pusztai. A Cold War defector to Britain from Hungary, Pusztai was a world expert on lectins  naturally occurring proteins that provide plants with a measure of pest resistance. Scientists had added genes for lectin production to potatoes, and Pusztai was feeding these potatoes to rats to test for adverse effects. Hed become more concerned when he saw that the rats hed fed with transgenic potatoes were slightly smaller, and had less-reactive immune cells, than the others. (In the end, after statistical analysis, the only real difference was a slight change in gut cells.)
All these years later, we know what happened. The lectins themselves probably werent hurting the rats: Pusztai had cleverly designed his experiment with a control group of rats that ate non-transgenic potatoes plus a pure dose of lectin, so the problem (if there was a problem at all), was some unknown element of the transgenic potatoes. It seemed obvious to point to genetic engineering itself; that would be the only other difference, right?
Actually, no. Weve come to understand that the DNA differences between two potatoes in a field are usually more significant than the difference between a parent plant and its genetically modified progeny. The comparison youd want to make to test the effect of genetic engineering would be a transgenic plant versus its unmodified clone. And youd want to make sure that these plants grow side by side, because we know that plants alter their gene expression in response to weather, soil, and history. Plants can even turn on genes to produce natural pesticides when afflicted by insects.
When you taste the terroir in wine, its not just the soils effect on the grape, its also the grapes epigenetic _response_. In a very real way what youre tasting is not just cause and effect, but a conversation. Youre tasting a complex dialogue between the grape and the mineral soil beneath it, the quality of sunshine on its leaves, the hand of the vintner. All of these factors can create genetic shifts more profound than a gene inserted by a scientist. And any of these changes might provoke a slight reaction in gut cells.




Clopin clopant Back in 1998, however, people didnt really understand any of this. So when Pusztai looked at his underweight rats, he attributed the cause to the one difference staring him in the face: genetic engineering. And, as Peter Pringle recounts in _Food, Inc., _he said as much on TV.
The TV presenter asked the obvious question: So if genetically altered food can affect rats in this way, could they possibly have long term effects in humans too? Pusztai was cornered. He could have replied that it was far too early for such a judgment and that he would not want to comment until his work had been peer reviewed. Instead he said that he would not eat genetically modified foods if he could help it, until there was more evidence about their safety. And then he added a bombshell: Its very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs.​ All hell broke lose. The telephone lines running to the Rowett Institute, where Pusztai worked, jammed with calls from activists, government ministers, and industry heavyweights. Scientists began to pick apart Pusztais techniques. The media wallowed happily in the mess. There were rumors that the command had come down from the White House, to Downing Street, to the Rowett Institute, to smother the frenzy. The director of the Institute, facing a megacrisis we didnt remotely anticipate, sealed Pusztais lab, confiscated his notebooks, and forbade him from further communication with the press. And, though the director had given Pusztai permission to speak about the preliminary results on TV and offered congratulations immediately afterward, once the frenzy started he put Pusztai on indefinite leave.
Lets pause here for a moment to consider how this looks. Suppose you were the director of the Rowett Institute: If you wanted to inflame fears about GM food, would there be any better way to do it than shutting down suspicious research before its finished and firing the researcher? A group of scientists rallied to support Pusztai, writing: Those of us who have known Dr. Pusztais work or have collaborated with him were shocked by the harshness of his treatment.




Gordon WattStained glass at the University of Aberdeen celebrating the Rowett Institute. Heres what might have happened under less volatile conditions: Pusztai would have gone on to (um) _finish his experiments_, and, after peer review, would have come to more tempered conclusions. (Even under the actual, high-pressure conditions, the paper, eventually published in _The Lancet_, had much more modest findings.) Other scientists would have made their critiques, and Pusztai would have eventually zeroed in on the real cause of the problems. Everyone, including the biotech industry, would have come out ahead.
Instead, this affair effectively ended Pusztais career, and it polarized the debate. Even plant geneticist and prominent GM food supporter Nina Fedoroff (who wrote this excellent analysis of the affair, delving much more deeply than I have into the science) thought Pusztais treatment was inappropriate. The whole thing was badly botched, she emailed.
The botching continued. Ignacio Chapela, a UC Berkeley professor and author of a controversial paper suggesting that transgenic genes were mingling with traditional varieties, was denied tenure shortly after the university signed a $25 million sponsorship agreement with the agribusiness company Novartis (now Syngenta). A group of independent professors, invited by UC Berkeley to assess the situation, concluded that there is little doubt that the Berkeley-Novartis deal was partially to blame.
Lawrence Busch, a professor of sociology at Michigan State University, who led this review, said the sponsorship played a very clear role and an unsatisfactory role in the tenure process. (Chapela eventually did receive tenure.)




Steve Rhodes Ignacio Chapela Science writer Emily Waltz has catalogued other examples of what looks like overreaction to research suggesting problems with genetically engineered crops. Much of the criticism is legitimate (if ferocious) scientific exchange. But some of it is probably orchestrated by industry. Theres evidence that the Bivings Group, a PR firm, spread false information about Chapela using pseudonyms on an Internet forum for scientists. And we know that Syngenta has stooped to ad hominem attacks.
You could say the same and more about activists campaigning against biotech: Anti-GMO trolls relentlessly bully and defame scientists, while spreading misinformation. Groups of thugs, like those that trampled a plot of Golden Rice recently, try to stop experiments. Swiss researchers running recent GM trials spent 78 percent of their research funds on security.
But theres a crucial difference: Anti-GMO activists arent in positions of power. The Golden Rice experiments, unlike Pusztais, will be completed. I havent found any example of a scientist losing her job for a finding thats favorable to biotech.




DA-RFU 5 Public Information UnitTrampled Golden Rice plot Im not saying we should smother criticism of science, or give a pass to studies that suggest theres a problem with GM food. Im all for thoughtful critiques, just not knee-breaking. Its possible to assess unexpected new findings skeptically in the larger context of the existing corpus of science without setting phasers on utter destruction.
For instance, the study comparing pigs given conventional and GM feed exactly repeated Pusztais error. (The researchers said they couldnt get genetic matches to GM feed because of intellectual property restrictions, but they could have partnered with any researcher at a university in the United States, which have permission to study patented seeds.) And when long-term feeding trials are done so as to compare apples to apples, theyve reinforced the conclusion that genetically modified foods are safe. Stating these points is an appropriate response. And thats the response most scientists have made.




Richard Muller. Given the power of corporate influence, however, I think its also appropriate to provide extra shelter and support for legitimate scientists with unpopular views. This is one way in which climate science is very different from genetic engineering: Reasonable climate skeptics, like Richard Muller and his team, have been given the space to check their theories and  rather than being hounded and radicalized  theyve generated data that changed their minds and resulted in a stronger consensus.
Heres a proposal for putting this into practice: Why not fund a team of scientists with concerns about GM foods to address popular fears under open, rigorous conditions? Instead of having top-flight pro-GM scientists attack the studies after publication, it would make a lot more sense to have some of these people on the team from the beginning, helping to design the experiments. Whatever the results, science could only win.
_More in this series: _


The genetically modified food debate: Where do we begin?
The GM safety dance: Whats rule and whats real
Genetic engineering vs. natural breeding: Whats the difference?
Is nature a cradle or a battlefield?
Genetically engineered food: Allergic to regulations?
Genetically modified seed research: Whats locked and what isnt
Genetically modified literature (in which I read books so you dont have to)


----------



## Doer (Aug 21, 2013)

SPAM....and it is funny how self identification, of the bad actors, works. Very Freudian. The article is a tap dance, of Really Really there is evidence, we just haven't found it yet. BAD SCIENCE at the core. No one is blocked from science.

But, Science is skeptical by definition. The Hippies are gullible by definition. Easy prey for the Slant Rags that are claiming they are Journals.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 21, 2013)

Dear Doer, it seems to me that it is far more 'gullible' to belly up to and eat from the corporate/gov trough, especially considering the track record of your breeders...but I suppose that sweathogs will eat from whatever trough looks to be greedily being consumed by other sweathogs


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> SPAM....and it is funny how self identification, of the bad actors, works. Very Freudian. The article is a tap dance, of Really Really there is evidence, we just haven't found it yet. BAD SCIENCE at the core. No one is blocked from science.
> 
> But, Science is skeptical by definition. The Hippies are gullible by definition. Easy prey for the Slant Rags that are claiming they are Journals.


Are you sure science is open to everyone, last i checked even the belief in a creator is enough to turn one into a pariah in the scientific field. 
Who receives the grants? Who receives the support? Those who speak the party line. Who runs our miserable educational system? The libs who despise the very idea of a creator.
No science isnt open to anyone at least not the in depth studies that truly make a difference.
We are fed lies from all sides not just one.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> ORLY?
> 
> when did i ever say "better living through chemistry" or any other such twaddle?
> when did i ever suggest you buy pharmaceuticals? (*protip:* Lanolin, the product my dermatologist recommends for my own "defatting" issue is a byproduct of sheep wool)
> ...


So you are a failed medical student, sorry didnt realize .


----------



## Doer (Aug 21, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Are you sure science is open to everyone, last i checked even the belief in a creator is enough to turn one into a pariah in the scientific field.
> Who receives the grants? Who receives the support? Those who speak the party line. Who runs our miserable educational system? The libs who despise the very idea of a creator.
> No science isnt open to anyone at least not the in depth studies that truly make a difference.
> We are fed lies from all sides not just one.


As far as I am concerned SELF is my creator. And anyone can do science. Botany is science.

I have really thought about this. OTHER as creator is entirely unnecessary and misses the very point of continuous, spontaneous creation, IMO. So, what I would call God, is certainly not what religions limit it to. 

Nor do I ascribe, smotting and smiting, or any magic or miracle to SELF beyond the very obvious, spontaneous, continuation of breathing.

Oh, BTW, worship of any kind is war cult only.

Pray to win.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 21, 2013)

'religion' in it's most legitimate form = an individuals conscience imo (needs to be a constitutional 1amen standard, it isnt yet)...not necessarily 'worship' at all deer Doer...in fact I would agree that 'worship' might as well be 'warship' if that is somehow some part of your deluded point...


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 21, 2013)

Doer said:


> As far as I am concerned SELF is my creator. And anyone can do science. Botany is science.
> 
> I have really thought about this. OTHER as creator is entirely unnecessary and misses the very point of continuous, spontaneous creation, IMO. So, what I would call God, is certainly not what religions limit it to.
> 
> ...


I didnt intend for this to become religious, i was only pointing out how not only one sided the scientific community is, but how rabidly one sided it is.
They even turn on their own if they even hint at the idea.
Any type of intolerance from a supposedly tolerant group not only smells fishy, its down right disgusting.

In short, I DONT BELIEVE A WORD THEY SAY, EVER.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 21, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> So you are a failed medical student, sorry didnt realize .


wow. just... WOW.


----------



## Doer (Aug 21, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> 'religion' in it's most legitimate form = an individuals conscience imo (needs to be a constitutional 1amen standard, it isnt yet)...not necessarily 'worship' at all deer Doer...in fact I would agree that 'worship' might as well be 'warship' if that is somehow some part of your deluded point...


you seem lost in history with no point to make


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 21, 2013)

78% and counting

nature happens without choice or reason . . . .my friend

Attempting to change that by design is not nature


----------



## Doer (Aug 21, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> 78% and counting
> 
> nature happens without choice or reason . . . .my friend
> 
> Attempting to change that by design is not nature


Explain that. Unless you thinking we are tampering with some grand design. I don't. Spontaneous creation creates us constantly and then doesn't. 

And even the bible states the obvious. We have Dominion.

So, you know there is no design. It is all raw selection and viral infection. For all I know it is our design. Zea maze is not much of a meal. We created Corn.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 21, 2013)

changing something with design and *purpose *that naturally can be done like through filial generation and selection for traits . . .*with no idea of the real ramifications *of new tech is foolish....feeding it to the world is down right negligence 

they are utterly different in all ways except perception . . . . .change is all that is seen but , natural selection however that happens is very different to genetic coding done to make money

their are no quantifiable benefits of it other then funding cooperate R/D, which i dont see as a benefit . . .try to tell me how we re invent the egg and how its better . .please . . id love to here it


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 21, 2013)

ciggarettes were once believed to be healthy, and so was DDT good to use . . . .and i just dont see it as a inovation when its impact is unknown . . .risk not worth it


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 22, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> changing something with design and *purpose *that naturally can be done like through filial generation and selection for traits . . .*with no idea of the real ramifications *of new tech is foolish....feeding it to the world is down right negligence
> 
> they are utterly different in all ways except perception . . . . .change is all that is seen but , natural selection however that happens is very different to genetic coding done to make money
> 
> their are no quantifiable benefits of it other then funding cooperate R/D, which i dont see as a benefit . . .try to tell me how we re invent the egg and how its better . .please . . id love to here it


come on sam you can do better than this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 22, 2013)

Oh now TW 'don't make me come back there' and show you all over again how 'nature' and or all that exists can be translated in to numbers...numbers that are continually adding up to whatever 1+1 etc is in any given moment, therefor nothing is 'random' in nature, everything adds up...even human disconnect and consequence etc...therefor it is entirely 'natural' for humans to genetically engineer anything they so choose, its just not a very wise thing to do if you dont know the numbers and what they add up to etc...and we dont...so that makes GE (Genetic Engineering) about as smart as GC (General Custer) rushing in when he also had no clue of the numbers


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 22, 2013)

cool story bro


----------



## Doer (Aug 22, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> changing something with design and *purpose *that naturally can be done like through filial generation and selection for traits . . .*with no idea of the real ramifications *of new tech is foolish....feeding it to the world is down right negligence
> 
> they are utterly different in all ways except perception . . . . .change is all that is seen but , natural selection however that happens is very different to genetic coding done to make money
> 
> their are no quantifiable benefits of it other then funding cooperate R/D, which i dont see as a benefit . . .try to tell me how we re invent the egg and how its better . .please . . id love to here it


So, in nature we have complete control of all the real ramifications? You aren't making sense, in the line you draw.

The Virus have selected for traits for a billion years in all life forms. In fact they also create manipulation directly. Why do people think nature is pastoral,, and only humans are vicious? Only humans create Pasture, for crying out loud.

Nature is vicious and humans are pastoral.

And Sam, a hen egg? That is the product of centuries of GM. It was not an much edible as a war bird. It is all war and famine. Didn't you know. W and F in the Great GM.

"Humans first domesticated chickens of Indian origin for the purpose of cockfighting in Asia, Africa, and Europe. Very little formal attention was given to egg or meat production... "[SUP][2][/SUP] Recent genetic studies have pointed to multiple maternal origins in Southeast, East, and South Asia, but with the clade found in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa originating in the Indian subcontinent.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh now TW 'don't make me come back there' and show you all over again how 'nature' and or all that exists can be translated in to numbers...numbers that are continually adding up to whatever 1+1 etc is in any given moment, therefor nothing is 'random' in nature, everything adds up...even human disconnect and consequence etc...therefor it is entirely 'natural' for humans to genetically engineer anything they so choose, its just not a very wise thing to do if you dont know the numbers and what they add up to etc...and we dont...so that makes GE (Genetic Engineering) about as smart as GC (General Custer) rushing in when he also had no clue of the numbers





ginjawarrior said:


> cool story bro


Yes TW I agree, even cooler though is the fact that its sponsored by fact, not opinion...and though from my perspective its plainly implied, I should add/mention specifically some of the most directly relevant numbers in the mix (in terms of sum totals and or outcomes) that go to human motivation (also relating directly to human disconnect and consequence). 
Just as with GE, GC was also fueled by greed and the unquenchable thirst for power etc...


----------



## Doer (Aug 22, 2013)

Name one fact. You have presented nothing factual. I have shredded everything. Not wise? Show me any examples of what you see as wisdom in humans at large.

So, now we move to war lord, where a tiny few control with force and call it higher wisdom.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Yes TW I agree, even cooler though is the fact that its sponsored by fact, not opinion.****snipped waffle****


Cool story bro


----------



## RPM371 (Aug 22, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> No it does not mean your plant is Monsanto's plant


It becomes a "Monsanto plant" as soon as it's pollinated by a Monsanto plant. Any seed or clones are Monsanto intellectual property. I know it sounds insane, but that's the way it is. Seriously, look into what Monsanto did with Soybeans. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html?_r=0


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 22, 2013)

RPM371 said:


> It becomes a "Monsanto plant" as soon as it's pollinated by a Monsanto plant. Any seed or clones are Monsanto intellectual property. I know it sounds insane, but that's the way it is. Seriously, look into what Monsanto did with Soybeans.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html?_r=0


No...

first off I suggest you spend some time reading basic biology on plant reproduction. If a plant becomes pollinated it doesn't alter the genetic structure of that plant.. the only place you'd find the gmo DNA would be in the seeds 

Even then it wouldn't be all the seeds to get to a situation where you run afoul of Monsanto's lawyers you would need to grow several generations killing off all stock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

The article you linked to does not support what your saying


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh now TW 'don't make me come back there' and show you all over again how 'nature' and or all that exists can be translated in to numbers...numbers that are continually adding up to whatever 1+1 etc is in any given moment, therefor nothing is 'random' in nature, everything adds up...even human disconnect and consequence etc...therefor it is entirely 'natural' for humans to genetically engineer anything they so choose, its just not a very wise thing to do if you dont know the numbers and what they add up to etc...and we dont...so that makes GE (Genetic Engineering) about as smart as GC (General Custer) rushing in when he also had no clue of the numbers





ginjawarrior said:


> Cool story bro





DNAprotection said:


> Yes TW I agree, even cooler though is the fact that its sponsored by fact, not opinion...and though from my perspective its plainly implied, I should add/mention specifically some of the most directly relevant numbers in the mix (in terms of sum totals and or outcomes) that go to human motivation (also relating directly to human disconnect and consequence).
> Just as with GE, GC was also fueled by greed and the unquenchable thirst for power etc...





Doer said:


> Name one fact. You have presented nothing factual. I have shredded everything. Not wise? Show me any examples of what you see as wisdom in humans at large.
> 
> So, now we move to war lord, where a tiny few control with force and call it higher wisdom.


Dear deer Doer...first of all if you really think you have 'shredded' anything then you are clearly either off your meds or just punch drunk from shadow boxing with yourself lol...name one 'article' or 'study' or 'opinion' I have advocated for as fact?...you can't because I haven't...and even more relevant they are merely as they claim to be = 'articles', 'studies' and 'opinions', not fact, do you understand the difference deer Doer?
These articles and so forth are only posted because someone finds them relevant in their opinion and so it all adds' to the discussion just as it should...maybe such free flowing availability of differing view points offends you deer Doer?
In any case whatever you thought you were 'debating' I can't be certain, but the intended discussion for this thread was stated and clarified early on...maybe you came late?
Anywho it all goes to that which you have responded to apparently by writing this: "Name one fact. You have presented nothing factual."...hehe your joking right?
Are you seriously claiming that everything that exists could not be translated into numbers?
Are you also stating that when those things that exist then interact it doesn't result in even more numbers etc?
The numbers are everything deer Doer, for every action there is a reaction etc...this is all very simple fundamental facts of life stuff....hmmm, hey wait! maybe you have figured out all the numbers and how they interact and thats why you take your position?
If that is true then where were you when the SHDT needed you most...that would be back a good many pages when Doni settled any so called 'debate' with the deadly quote of destiny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw

Maybe also see post #693 
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/602854-monsanto-cannabis-yes-no-dna-70.html#post8505599

Maybe for you it would be better understood in this version deer Doer;D
...
[video=youtube;_w5JqQLqqTc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=_w5JqQLqqTc[/video]


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 22, 2013)

Doer said:


> So, in nature we have complete control of all the real ramifications? You aren't making sense, in the line you draw.
> 
> The Virus have selected for traits for a billion years in all life forms. In fact they also create manipulation directly. Why do people think nature is pastoral,, and only humans are vicious? Only humans create Pasture, for crying out loud.
> 
> ...



responsible testing before selling to consumers. . .do all the genetic whatever you want, i don't agree with it but that's a non point what i think doesn't matter in the long run . . . .dont feed it to me and not tell me that its modified genetically . . . . its very simple if theirs nothing to hide and GMO foods are great then there should be tons of research on how great they are over non GMO foods as well as 

but i deserve a choice . . . . and proper responsible research deserves to be done, long term studies . . . .. not studies paid for by the companies that want to make money off of the possible results . . .that is a obvious conflict of interest 



so you can go on about how selective breeding is like this or that . .cause it aint like genetically modifying foods . . . in a lab. . . your control thing . . .im not sure where control lends any credence to your argument ., .. . crops have been growing and feeding people without lab control for thousands and thousands of years . . .wired selective breeding seemed to work for them . . . why role the dice with a variable like genetic coding and it is a variable . .not proven yet or we would have GMO food packaged and marked so to show its superiority or particular attributes that make it better then the rest

and last but not the least issue i have with the progress of GMO foods in our supermarkets is . . we dont want it . . .. and they know it . . .


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 22, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> No...
> 
> first off I suggest you spend some time reading basic biology on plant reproduction. If a plant becomes pollinated it doesn't alter the genetic structure of that plant.. the only place you'd find the gmo DNA would be in the seeds
> 
> ...



monsanto does own your crop if their genetics are found in it . . . they own teh genetics . .if you have their genetics in your crops they own a piece of you . . . . .it may seem ugly but its true . . .


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 22, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> monsanto does own your crop if their genetics are found in it . . . they own teh genetics . .if you have their genetics in your crops they own a piece of you . . . . .it may seem ugly but its true . . .


Utter drivel

Cite?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 22, 2013)

well to start here is a article where monsanto says pollen doesn't drift . . . 

http://monsantoblog.com/2012/09/13/the-myth-of-pollen-drift-compromising-organic-farms/

oh so a court only bound them from not sueing cause they don't sue people . . for their genetics being in crops . . apparently 
http://www.pubpat.org/osgatavmonsantocafcdecision.htm

"A three-judge panel at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled today that a group of organic and otherwise non-GMO farmer and seed company plaintiffs are not entitled to bring a lawsuit to protect themselves from Monsanto's transgenic seed patents "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower&#8217;s land).'"


http://www.pubpat.org/osgatavmonsantocafcdecision.htm

"Corporations did not create seeds and many are challenging the existing patent system that allows private companies to assert ownership over a resource that is vital to survival and that historically has been in the public domain," said Debbie Barker


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 22, 2013)

"Regarding the question of patent rights and the farmer's right to use seed taken from his fields, Monsanto said that because they* hold a patent on the gene*, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the intentional replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally. Schmeiser insisted on his "farmer's rights" to do anything he wished with seeds harvested from any plants grown on his field - including plants from seeds that were accidentally sown - and that this tangible property right overrides Monsanto's patent rights."


results of _*Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser*_


----------



## Doer (Aug 22, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> *responsible testing* before selling to consumers. . .do all the genetic whatever you want, i don't agree with it but that's a non point what i think doesn't matter in the long run . . . .dont feed it to me and not tell me that its *modified genetically* . . . . its very simple if theirs nothing to hide and GMO foods are great then there should be tons of research on how great they are over non GMO foods as well as
> 
> but i deserve a choice . . . . and *proper responsible research* deserves to be done, *long term studies* . . . .. not studies paid for by the companies that want to make money off of the possible results . . .that is a obvious conflict of interest
> 
> ...


They did all that. The hippies set up these straw dogs with no science applied what so ever. You are the guys just woke up yesterday. Not Monsanto and not the US FDA or the Dept Ag. all that. This entire study is not owned by Monsanto. WE have our own labs. WE have our own research universities. We don't worry about the final commercialization. 

WE have all that non-commercial independent Federal research infrastructure, funded by mucho tax dollars, so that we don't have to listen to mush brained hippies that have never done science, and have no idea what it is. 

BTW, we do want it and that is why we have it.

BTW, the lists of what has GM is widely available. Anyone who cares and has been panicked by the hippies can not buy. Sam don't buy.

Labeling is un-con when no harm can be shown. DUDE.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 22, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> well to start here is a article where monsanto says pollen doesn't drift . . .
> 
> http://monsantoblog.com/2012/09/13/the-myth-of-pollen-drift-compromising-organic-farms/
> 
> ...


Bolded the important part


Samwell Seed Well said:


> "Regarding the question of patent rights and the farmer's right to use seed taken from his fields, Monsanto said that because they* hold a patent on the gene*, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the intentional replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally. Schmeiser insisted on his "farmer's rights" to do anything he wished with seeds harvested from any plants grown on his field - including plants from seeds that were accidentally sown - and that this tangible property right overrides Monsanto's patent rights."
> 
> 
> results of _*Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser*_


Its funny I linked to the wiki on that case just a few posts ago

Are you deliberately leaving out the part where he used roundup to select out the roundup ready seeds?


----------



## skunkd0c (Aug 22, 2013)

Doer said:


> Name one fact. You have presented nothing factual. I have shredded everything. Not wise? Show me any examples of what you see as wisdom in humans at large.
> 
> So, now we move to war lord, where a tiny few control with force and call it higher wisdom.


I know its not strictly related to GM, but what do you think of lab-grown / stem cell meat or the Google burger 
is this progress ?

[video=youtube;gyxPxcE_4to]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyxPxcE_4to[/video]

perhaps by the year 2029 Apple inc will be making lab grown chicken nuggets in China
drive through Google burger restaurants in every town 
McDonalds will be making Eyephone clones on the Moon if they don't get on board soon !


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 22, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Bolded the important part
> 
> 
> Its funny I linked to the wiki on that case just a few posts ago
> ...


no . . . you asked me to show they sue and try to own peoples farms for having patented a genetics . . .and i did

i know you already knew that .. monsanto has patented a gene and claims that pollen from these crops cant travel . .and pollinate other fields . . . i mean what is their to support . . all they wnat to do is make money off screwing other farmers 

my county is highly agricultuiral so maybe it effects me more . .or it effects more people i know . . .in a indirect way . . . . .

the debate on who can own a gene is simple to me . .and you cant or shouldnt be able to


do testing (proper unbiased testing)

advertise GMO on foods so we know what we eat

and do whatever the fuck else for all i care 

im nto here to suggest a hualt in technologies 

i just think progressing responsibly is a better choice them 

hastily


----------



## Doer (Aug 22, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> no . . . you asked me to show they sue and try to own peoples farms for having patented a genetics . . .and i did
> 
> i know you already knew that .. monsanto has patented a gene and *claims that pollen from these crops cant travel . .and pollinate other fields* . . . i mean what is their to support . . all they wnat to do is make money off screwing other farmers
> 
> ...


What evidence do you have to this bold claim. And there has been no claim of that. That issue is not even part of the debate.

The seed corn has to be purchased not gathered and re-planted. That's it. If you thought it through you could see, it is a control, of what you want controlled.
AFAIK, it is not capable of pollenating. You should like that control.

But, see the luddist don't want control the tech. They want the absolute control to shut it all down, as if it was sinful. Oh, you won't admit it. Everything the crazies scream, is no need for science this is a sin. You see it as an affront unto the Earth Mother, and you know it.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *Health Ranger launches 3-minute 'GMOs Explained' video to introduce new people to the dangers of genetically modified foods *
> 
> 
> 
> ...





More lies and junk science and freaking blogs. The "study" that claims organ damage was a complete sham. 
You should be ashamed of yourself for spreading all those lies.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> all complaints/criticisms should be submitted to the authors of whatever articles that are posted = not me...lol...i only work here...
> god i love sweathogs
> thanks for keepin this train fueled and runnin strong...
> 
> ...


​

You are posting blogs, junk science and lies. You are either ignorant, a liar or a blend or the two.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 22, 2013)

Trousers said:


> [/LEFT]
> 
> 
> You are posting blogs, junk science and lies. You are either ignorant, a liar or a blend or the two.


not surprising how golden'cheesrice seems to love your trousers trout logic lol...and apparently what is so very important to you is all but irrelevant to me...and if you bothered to read what I actually write instead of focusing on what others write then you would know that silly trout...maybe read post #2834 to help you up the fish ladder
in the mean time here's more of what I didn't write 






 [h=1]New European food safety guidelines affirm methodology, findings of Seralini's GM corn lab rat study[/h] Thursday, August 22, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041728_food_safety_guidelines_Seralini_study_GM_corn.html#ixzz2ckvd6dFe
(NaturalNews) After vehemently criticizing a researcher's groundbreaking study and inappropriately calling into question the validity of his rigorous scientific research methods, the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA) has made a surprising about-face. According to new reports, the agency recently vindicated Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini's published paper on the long-term health damage caused by eating Monsanto's genetically-modified (GM) NK603 corn, affirming that the study is, in fact, valid.

As reported by _GMOSeralini.org_, the EFSA's indirect approval of Prof. Seralini's study comes as the agency issues new guidelines for how long-term feeding studies are to be conducted in the European Union (EU) moving forward. Believe it or not, the EFSA, which is essentially Europe's version of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is modeling these guidelines after the very same ones that Prof. Seralini used to show that GMOs cause organ failure and cancer.

As you may recall, the EFSA came out like an attack dog following the publishing of Prof. Seralini's controversial study back in 2012, claiming that he failed to apply appropriate research methodology in his work. As previously pointed out by _GMWatch.org_, these claims were completely unfounded and hypocritical, as none of the industry-backed safety studies used by the EFSA to approve GMOs applied these standards, either.

But now the EFSA is essentially admitting that Prof. Seralini was right all along, and that his research methods are, in fact, more robust than currently accepted methods. So, the agency is adopting many of them and making them official standards for modern food safety research, which is a major victory not only for Prof. Seralini's work, but also for the entire independent research community that seeks truth rather than corporate propaganda.

"This is a fascinating document which largely validates the methodology and choices of Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini in his 2012 study on GM maize NK603 -- methodology and choices that EFSA and countless other critics previously attacked him for," explains _GMOSeralini.org_ about the release of the EFSA's new guidelines.

You can review these new guidelines for yourself by visiting:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3347.htm

[h=1]EFSA affirms almost every research method used by Seralini[/h] Some highlights from the new EFSA guidelines include a pronouncement that the type of rat species used by Prof. Seralini, the Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat, is, indeed, appropriate for use in long-term food safety studies. Prof. Seralini had previously been criticized for using SD rats in his study, but according to the EFSA, SD rats are fitting for this type of research.

The EFSA also now agrees that long-term food safety studies do not necessarily need a narrow and fixed hypothesis, another criticism that was levied against Prof. Seralini's work. Since GMOs themselves are still technically a novelty as far as the scientific literature is concerned, constructing studies in a more "exploratory" fashion, just like Prof. Seralini did, is completely acceptable.

The new EFSA guidelines do much more than just exonerate Prof. Seralini's work, however. They also take aim at the misguided use of historical controls in safety testing, a practice often used by Monsanto and others to essentially arrive at pre-determined outcomes. According to the EFSA, historical control data "should be considered with caution," as it can lead to false outcomes.

"Overall, we're pleased to see EFSA taking on board our cautionary lessons on spurious 'reference' control groups and historical control data (even if in the same document EFSA subsequently allows the use of both), as well as validating the aspects of Seralini's experiment that he was most criticized for."

You can read a review of the major points of the EFSA's new guidelines by visiting:
http://gmoseralini.org

*Sources for this article include:*

http://gmoseralini.org

http://www.gmwatch.org

http://www.efsa.europa.eu

http://science.naturalnews.com
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041728_food_safety_guidelines_Seralini_study_GM_corn.html#ixzz2ckyhDUYO
​


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 22, 2013)

I dont need any paperwork to know what these things do, i saw it with my own two eyes, Farmers FORCED to grow that garbage , back when people still had integrity . When they still wanted to make a quality product with good nutritional value.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 22, 2013)

"*They also take aim at the misguided use of historical controls in safety testing, a practice often used by Monsanto and others to essentially arrive at pre-determined outcomes."

*huh what did they infere . . . .bias testing by companies for companies may not have the proper procedures we all would think . . . .. huh ..


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 23, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> no . . . you asked me to show they sue and try to own peoples farms for having patented a genetics . . .and i did
> 
> i know you already knew that .. monsanto has patented a gene and claims that pollen from these crops cant travel . .and pollinate other fields . . . i mean what is their to support . . all they wnat to do is make money off screwing other farmers


I asked you to support this


*

monsanto does own your crop if their genetics are found in it . . . they own teh genetics . .if you have their genetics in your crops they own a piece of you . . . . .it may seem ugly but its true . . .​




*The case you posted the farmer deliberately acted in a way that would guarantee him gmo seeds at a much higher concentration that would be possible as simple windowing contamination

Now if you want to argue that monsanto owns a piece of you for pollen contamination then I suggest you find a case that supports that claim


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 23, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> I dont need any paperwork to know what these things do, i saw it with my own two eyes, Farmers FORCED to grow that garbage , back when people still had integrity . When they still wanted to make a quality product with good nutritional value.


no american farmer has ever been "forced" to grow any crop.

you are once again slinging shit.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 23, 2013)

keen perception doc...its also true that if you intentionally 'help' a person spiral into economic hardship and desperation they will probably agree to things they otherwise would not, especially when such contracts are all talked up with fanciful untrue promises of getting wealthy by 'feeding the world' etc...then once your in for a penny your in for a pound...its a deadly game of capitalist roulette that most lose...


----------



## Doer (Aug 23, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> I dont need any paperwork to know what these things do, i saw it with my own two eyes, Farmers FORCED to grow that garbage , back when people still had integrity . When they still wanted to make a quality product with good nutritional value.


Tell me how you saw that with your own two eyes. Because I would like to see that. Help me out?


----------



## Doer (Aug 23, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> keen perception doc...its also true that if you intentionally 'help' a person spiral into economic hardship and desperation they will probably agree to things they otherwise would not, especially when such contracts are all talked up with fanciful untrue promises of getting wealthy by 'feeding the world' etc...then once your in for a penny your in for a pound...its a* deadly game* of capitalist roulette that m*ost lose*...


Now you are simply talking down on farmers. They have their heads in the game with skins, their wallet their families, their lives, you don't. You are a 3rd hand observer, and know nothing but what you are given to repeat here.

All contracts are eyes open, between adult US citizens. All win in Capitalism. And there is no alternate that can stand the test of time. And you LIE about deadly.

Monsanto is the Devil and Envy is Lord in the Hippy Religion.

It all comes down to your lack of money and Envy. You are a socialist. Obvious. Or the latest is Shared Prosperity to hide the word socialist..


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 23, 2013)

dear deer Doer, actually it all comes down to 'cause and effect'...here's an example of what happens when folks allow themselves to become dependent on corpsegov etc

[video=youtube;qFp0llZ_0kc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFp0llZ_0kc[/video]...

(the SHDT is another shining example )


----------



## Doer (Aug 23, 2013)

If you cared you could go back through your posts and highlight all the times you lied through exaggeration. All the times you claimed this study that proved anything and it didn't. All the times you could have used the words socialism and envy, instead of your Hippy Church tap dance. Yeah, be more honest.

That would be fun....for you.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 23, 2013)

far more 'honest' to say that if you were being 'honest' you would go back and do this highlighting you speak of yourself, but at last you cannot deer Doer because such spots do not exist to be highlighted 

now back to the irregularly scheduled program 
(because here at RIU politics we can do that!)
[video=youtube;98nNpzE6gIs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98nNpzE6gIs[/video]







 *Hedge funds, insider traders begin dumping Monsanto stock as reality of GMOs sinks in across Wall Street *

Friday, August 23, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041737_Monsanto_share_prices_hedge_funds.html#ixzz 2cnsdCsXC
​
(NaturalNews) Monsanto executives and insiders are dumping Monsanto stock in record volumes, sending the stock price spiraling downward. CEO Hugh Grant just sold off 40,000 shares at $97.74, and both Janet Holloway and Gerald Steiner -- both high-level Monsanto executives -- recently ditched more than 10,000 shares each. Tom Hartley also bailed on another 6,000 shares at $100.15. (See sources below.)

Hedge funds, meanwhile, are also dumping Monsanto stock, most likely due to sharply increased "negative sentiment." This means people increasingly don't like Monsanto, and that's a direct result of all the growing realizations about the dangers of GMOs, Monsanto's predatory business practices, the company's dangerous experiments that have already unleashed genetic pollution, and the fact that GM corn has been experimentally found to cause widespread cancer tumors in rat studies.

Just the fact that Monsanto's GE wheat trials got out of control and contaminated a wheat field in Oregon -- causing Japan and South Korea to ban U.S. wheat imports -- has resulted in 150 groups now demanding the USDA keep a tighter lid on Monsanto's GMO experiments. These groups are fed up with seeing the market value of their crops destroyed by sloppy "open field" experiments being conducted by Monsanto that spread *genetic pollution* across the country and contaminate non-GMO crops. (Monsanto goes even further and actually sues the farmers whose fields they contaminated!)

*Hedge funds dumping Monsanto*

As InsiderMonkey.com reports, Monsanto "has experienced declining interest from the entirety of the hedge funds we track."

The report goes on to say:

_At the top of the heap, Jeffrey Vinik's *Vinik Asset Management* said goodbye to the largest stake of the 450+ funds we monitor, totaling close to $100.8 million in [Monsanto] stock. Sean Cullinan's fund, *Point State Capital*, also dropped its [Monsanto] stock, about $54.7 million worth._

These sales leave Stephen Mandel's *Lone Pine Capital* with the largest holdings of Monsanto, over $613 million worth of the company's stock. Natural News urges all investors to *ditch Lone Pine Capital* and take your money somewhere else that doesn't invest in "the world's most evil corporation."

*Blue Ridge Capital* also owns over $320 million in Monsanto stock and should be immediately abandoned by all investors.

*Monsanto share prices plummeting ever since the March Against Monsanto*

So far this year, Monsanto (MON) share prices have plummeted from a high of $109 to a current trading range around $95. That's a drop of nearly 13%, and the bad news for Monsanto just keeps coming.

For one, the European Union's new food safety guidelines affirm the methodology and findings of the Seralini GM corn rat study. As much as the biotech industry and all its pimped-out science trolls have attempted to attack the study, the secret is already out: *GM corn causes cancer tumors* and consumers accurately see GM corn as equivalent to a "poison" symbol on foods.

The Seralini study, by the way, found that:

&#8226; Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered *premature death*.

&#8226; Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a *200% to 300% increase in large tumors*.

&#8226; Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered *severe organ damage* including liver damage and kidney damage.

&#8226; The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that's grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that's in your *corn-based breakfast cereal*, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.

Anyone who is still investing in Monsanto is investing in this:







*All food companies that use Monsanto's corn will be punished in the marketplace*

The future for sales of Monsanto's GM corn look especially bleak due to the simple fact that *GMO labeling is now inevitable*. The consumer push to know what's in our food is unstoppable, no matter how much lobbying Monsanto conducts in a desperate effort to keep consumers ignorant about what they're eating.

Whole Foods, of course, has already announced mandatory GMO labeling on everything it sells by 2018. I believe Wal-Mart and other retailers are also considering a similar move, or they'll lose market share to Whole Foods.

At the same time, major food manufacturers are realizing they must either get the GMOs out of their products or face a massive consumer backlash. As a result, there is currently *a mad rush* by food companies to get their products certified by the Non-GMO Project. Across the board, products that achieve Non-GMO Project Verified status experience an almost immediate *30% increase in sales* nationwide.

Do the math: companies that use Monsanto's GM corn are punished and boycotted in the marketplace. Companies that use non-GMO corn experience huge increases in sales. In food company corporate boardrooms all across America, this is a no-brainer: *dump GMOs if you want to survive*.

The same is also true for hedge funds and mutual funds: the more they invest in Monsanto, the more they stand to lose from the global outrage against Monsanto, GMOs and GM corn in particular.

Plus, I also happen to believe there will come a day when many of the top Monsanto executives will be arrested and prosecuted for their role in carrying out crimes against humanity (not just from GMOs but also from glyphosate). When that day comes, Monsanto share prices will obviously fall through the floor. The company may, in fact, implode like a dot-com bubble, leaving investors holding worthless paper instead of valuable shares... a kind of poetic justice for all those who furthered the means of such a destructive entity in the first place.

*See the funds that still invest in Monsanto*

The mutual funds still investing in Monsanto include:

&#8226; Fidelity Select
&#8226; American Century
&#8226; Rydex Basic Materials
&#8226; Hartford Growth
&#8226; ICON Materials
&#8226; Vanguard Materials

If you own any of these mutual funds, *sell them now* and invest somewhere else. Become an "activist investor" and put your money in companies that create a better world, not companies that destroy their world for their own selfish greed.

See a more detailed list at:
http://www.morningstar.com/invest/categories/funds-holding-monsanto-c...

*Why humanity will achieve victory against Monsanto*

Monsanto is at war with humanity and the planet, but humanity will achieve victory against this evil corporate force of death and destruction. It is already happening in the marketplace and across the minds and hearts of millions of activists in stand in solidarity against corporate evil.

So spread the word about not just avoiding GMOs but also *avoiding owning Monsanto stock in any form*. If you have money invested in a mutual fund or hedge fund that owns Monsanto, *sell the fund!* Don't let anyone use your money to further the profits of the biotech industry. Invest your money in something that helps humanity, not harms it.

*Sources for this story include:*
http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/hedge-funds-are-dumping-monsanto-co...
http://www.insidermonkey.com/insider-trading/company/monsanto+co/1110...
http://GMOseralini.org
http://www.naturalnews.com/039405_whole_foods_gmo_labeling_monsanto.h...
http://www.nongmoproject.org
http://farmfutures.com/story-groups-request-enhanced-usda-oversight-g...
http://www.morningstar.com/invest/categories/funds-holding-monsanto-c...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041737_Monsanto_share_prices_hedge_funds.html#ixzz 2cnsr1gXn
​


----------



## Doer (Aug 23, 2013)

Cancer mice. NO. Bunk. You know that and still lie.

*far more 'honest' to say that if you were being 'honest' you would go back and do this highlighting you speak of yourself, but at last you cannot deer Doer because such spots do not exist to be highlighted





*
That makes no sense. But, is this the answer? Damn right there's not! Nice of you to point that out. But, it is well known among our cadre.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 23, 2013)

" if you were being 'honest' you would go back and do this highlighting you speak of yourself, but at last you cannot deer Doer because such spots do not exist to be highlighted"

makes sense to me deer Doer, maybe it doesnt make sense to you because you cannot produce what you claim exists?...or maybe its because you are the real miss-leader here (please stand up lol) and aside from your SHDT 'cadre' it seems that at least 78% of the folks that have voted in this threads poll have figured that out


----------



## Doer (Aug 23, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> " if you were being 'honest' you would go back and do this highlighting you speak of yourself, but at last you cannot deer Doer because such spots do not exist to be highlighted"
> 
> makes sense to me deer Doer, maybe it doesnt make sense to you because you cannot produce what you claim exists?...or maybe its because you are the real miss-leader here (please stand up lol) and aside from your SHDT 'cadre' it seems that at least 78% of the folks that have voted in this threads poll have figured that out


I'm debunking your claims. If you are looking at my stuff, for any claims...you're right. There are none.

And never watched Welcome Back Carter.

And it is a good thing we don't vote on Science.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 23, 2013)

"your posts and highlight all the times you lied through exaggeration"
lol deer Doer that certainly looks and smells like a claim to me, one that your are clearly unable to substantiate...while conversely the 'claims' I have definitively made go to the facts of the numbers game which you also run from like the wind...more like breaking wind actually


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 23, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> no american farmer has ever been "forced" to grow any crop.
> 
> you are once again slinging shit.


You are once again wrong.
Our whole society is swirling down the tubes and you embrace it.
Again, i was there, i saw it, farmers paid to NOT farm, all it took was a few less than scrupulous farmers to start using this garbage, their yields increased and the nutritional value of their crops decreased, these farmers reaped this so called reward and any other farmers who didnt want to lose their family farm had to capitulate. 

See , i use facts, things ive seen with my own eyes and i do it without name calling etc maybe because i can actually think unlike you, try it some time, you may like it.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 23, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> keen perception doc...its also true that if you intentionally 'help' a person spiral into economic hardship and desperation they will probably agree to things they otherwise would not, especially when such contracts are all talked up with fanciful untrue promises of getting wealthy by 'feeding the world' etc...then once your in for a penny your in for a pound...its a deadly game of capitalist roulette that most lose...


Spot on dna


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 23, 2013)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100413112058.htm


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 23, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100413112058.htm


thank you thats a good article


> "Many American farmers are enjoying higher profits due to the widespread use of certain genetically engineered crops and are reducing environmental impacts on and off the farm," said David Ervin, professor of environmental management and economics, Portland State University, Portland, Ore., and chair of the committee that wrote the report.





> *Environmental Benefits*Improvements in water quality could prove to be the largest single benefit of GE crops, the report says. Insecticide use has declined since GE crops were introduced, and farmers who grow GE crops use fewer insecticides and herbicides that linger in soil and waterways. In addition, farmers who grow herbicide-resistant crops till less often to control weeds and are more likely to practice conservation tillage, which improves soil quality and water filtration and reduces erosion.





> *Economic and Social Effects*





> In many cases, farmers who have adopted the use of GE crops have either lower production costs or higher yields, or sometimes both, due to more cost-effective weed and insect control and fewer losses from insect damage, the report says. Although these farmers have gained such economic benefits, more research is needed on the extent to which these advantages will change as pests adapt to GE crops, other countries adopt genetic engineering technology, and more GE traits are incorporated into existing and new crops.


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 23, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> You are once again wrong.
> Our whole society is swirling down the tubes and you embrace it.
> Again, i was there, i saw it, farmers paid to NOT farm, all it took was a few less than scrupulous farmers to start using this garbage, their yields increased and the nutritional value of their crops decreased, these farmers reaped this so called reward and any other farmers who didnt want to lose their family farm had to capitulate.
> 
> See , i use facts, things ive seen with my own eyes and i do it without name calling etc maybe because i can actually think unlike you, try it some time, you may like it.


"Co-opted" isn't "forced". The farmers are willing participants in what you describe. 
Losing a family spread because it can't compete with the corporate farms is a separate evil. It isn't "being forced to grow a crop" but "being forced out of the market". I view those as distinct.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 23, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> You are once again wrong.
> Our whole society is swirling down the tubes and you embrace it.
> Again, i was there, i saw it, farmers paid to NOT farm, all it took was a few less than scrupulous farmers to start using this garbage, their yields increased and the nutritional value of their crops decreased, these farmers reaped this so called reward and any other farmers who didnt want to lose their family farm had to capitulate.
> 
> See , i use facts, things ive seen with my own eyes and i do it without name calling etc maybe because i can actually think unlike you, try it some time, you may like it.


Where are they forced? That is your claim.... 

Citation, not anecdotal evidence that could or could not be true.

And where is the citation that GMO is for sure less nutritious?

not going to google it. You make the claim, you back it up. Not doing your work for you.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 23, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> "Co-opted" isn't "forced". The farmers are willing participants in what you describe.
> Losing a family spread because it can't compete with the corporate farms is a separate evil. It isn't "being forced to grow a crop" but "being forced out of the market".* I view those as distinct*.


Absolutely they are distinct, but the end result isnt.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 23, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Where are they forced? That is your claim....
> 
> Citation, not anecdotal evidence that could or could not be true.
> 
> ...


Then dont believe it, you really think organic foods hold a huge market share because of hippies? Its because it works, thats why we as Americans are so obese, our bodies think they are starving since our food industry is driven by greed and not quality. Im not doing anymore research for others, even when i prove a point i rarely get a thank you. 
Eat what you want, grow what you want, doesnt matter to me, im about done with everything but organic food anyway.

Try it, veg juice for 3 days with store bought veggies, then do it for 3 days with organic.

wish i could afford all organic now


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


>


Lol the single table "lifted" from a non-existent paper

Includes such brilliance as numbers like 1.2% organic material found when analysing grains of corn.....


How do you consistently manage to find such bollocks?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *****snipped unremitting spam*****


Fixed that for you


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 24, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Then dont believe it, you really think organic foods hold a huge market share because of hippies? Its because it works, thats why we as Americans are so obese, our bodies think they are starving since our food industry is driven by greed and not quality. Im not doing anymore research for others, even when i prove a point i rarely get a thank you.
> Eat what you want, grow what you want, doesnt matter to me, im about done with everything but organic food anyway.
> 
> Try it, veg juice for 3 days with store bought veggies, then do it for 3 days with organic.
> ...


So no citations? 

As far as I'm concerned, you are blowing smoke up my ass.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> why is everyone so against touching their own g-spot? sure it can cum pouring out and get a lil messy if you touch it just right, so just keep a towel handy
> 
> Analysis Finds Monsantos GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic
> 
> ...


Your article has no credibility. There is no such thing as the Monsanto Protection Act. Can you say biased?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Dr. Andrew Wakefield


Why am I not surprised...?


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 24, 2013)

Because he doesn't understand what he is talking about?


----------



## Doer (Aug 24, 2013)

Why are you a sexual deviant, DNAprophylactic.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 24, 2013)

DNAprotection you are a childish, ignorant liar. 

Did you actually read any of those "studies"?

Could you reference the study that says that GMO crops cause tumors?
It would be fun if you did. That study and the others you posted are not scientific and have no basis in reality, like you. 

You are exactly like the climate deniers. 
You do not care about the scientific method, you just want to hear what you want to hear. 


Here are over 600 actual, peer reviewed, independently funded, scientific studies that show that GMO crops are perfectly safe. 
Some of the studies go back to the 1980s. 
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

Those studies are much better than the blogs you post. 


I do not expect you to believe independent scientists, but you should really stop posting shit and claiming it is gold. You are a liar, stop it.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 24, 2013)

http://www.goldenrice.org/
Can you tell me what is wrong with trying to help poor children avoid blindness due to malnutrition?
Who are the evil overlords that make money from Golden rice?
What is wrong with your brain?


----------



## Doer (Aug 24, 2013)

Trousers said:


> DNAprotection you are a childish, ignorant liar.
> 
> Did you actually read any of those "studies"?
> 
> ...


Yeah, what he said.

They big assumption they want us to swallow is the BIG LIE of the entire thing. 

GMO has been studied for decades. It is studied in the Peoples own Labs. We don't depend on Monsanto. WE ride their asses as hard as we ride the hippy ass.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 24, 2013)

Trousers said:


> DNAprotection you are a childish, ignorant liar.
> 
> Did you actually read any of those "studies"?...


Answer:
no on both counts lol...thats what I have sweathogs for


----------



## Trousers (Aug 24, 2013)

So you don't read the garbage you post? 
Then you present the lies as fact?
It is fine that you hate logic, reason and science. But why must you spread your lies and ignorance?


You are a terrible person.


----------



## Doer (Aug 24, 2013)

He is trolling because he has lost his way. As soon as he began posting, we began our dark mind influence. Now he is sorta in the middle.

He dares not read the drivel he post, apparently. But, he can't stop posting it for his Self needs more dark mind influence. It is all good.

The signs are there. The descent into insult and then base sex, like a lizard. From here he can ascend or stay stuck and then sink some more.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 24, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> You are once again wrong.
> Our whole society is swirling down the tubes and you embrace it.
> Again, i was there, i saw it, farmers paid to NOT farm, all it took was a few less than scrupulous farmers to start using this garbage, their yields increased and the nutritional value of their crops decreased, these farmers reaped this so called reward and any other farmers who didnt want to lose their family farm had to capitulate.
> 
> See , i use facts, things ive seen with my own eyes and i do it without name calling etc maybe because i can actually think unlike you, try it some time, you may like it.


paid to not grow a particular crop is NOT forced to grow something you dolt. 

if the govt offers me $5000/acre to NOT grow barley, but i think i can get more than $5000/ acre by growing barley, i will grow motherfucking barley. 

likewise if the government offers me a subsidy of $500/ acre to grow corn (the current subsidy, as a matter of fact), but i decide i can make more by growing sorghum i will grow sorghum. 

there is no compulsion, there never has been, and your lies are transparent. 

if you think a subsidy is compulsion, you are a fool. 

you have earned every imprecation and slander i have laid upon you, by being a LIAR and a fool. 

i use FACTS AND TRUTH, unlike yourself. you might want to try that, but you probably will not like it.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 24, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> paid to not grow a particular crop is NOT forced to grow something you dolt.
> 
> if the govt offers me $5000/acre to NOT grow barley, but i think i can get more than $5000/ acre by growing barley, i will grow motherfucking barley.
> 
> ...


I read a study where genetically engineer food causes breast cancer


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 25, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> I read a study where genetically engineer food causes breast cancer


Well link it up and we'll shred it for you...


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 25, 2013)

Trousers said:


> So you don't read the garbage you post?
> Then you present the lies as fact?
> It is fine that you hate logic, reason and science. But why must you spread your lies and ignorance?
> 
> ...


Silly trout, I challenge you to find even one occasion where I have been dishonest...but you cant because I haven't...that leaves you only to do what you do best, lying about others...its all you've got...its all Monsanto's got...
When you asked if I had read the last article, I answered truthfully as I always do, maybe ask yourself why (if i lie) would I not have lied about that?
I know its hard sometimes to try new things, but 'logic' and 'reason' are good words trout, you should try to use them to work this equation out...
Further, information from either side of this 'debate' is biased, therefor I find that such 'info' form both 'sides' is mostly irrelevant to me as I only calculate my position based on the common most basic fundamental facts of life = the numbers...the big mother of all equations...in others words that which you seem to ignore or maybe simply just cannot comprehend?
In any case the point is that (aside from my time constraints) reading that article would have no impact on my position one way or the other, it might though hold interest for someone else and so I posted it...
There is also the fact that I am usually also bating a hook for large mouth sweathogs who cant help but bight hard on such...


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 25, 2013)

Tell ya what Frank (and all the SHDT), here's your chance to finally make a difference in this life (when pigs fly)...
I'll take the high road (got wings?) and you take the low road,
and we'll meet up again here in the mornin,
if you can find a post where I lied about the quotes,
then I'll get on the boat for Loch Lomond


----------



## Doer (Aug 25, 2013)

I am making a difference, in my life. How dare you, you silly pig?


----------



## Doer (Aug 25, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Silly trout, I challenge you to find even one occasion where I have been dishonest...but you cant because I haven't...that leaves you only to do what you do best, lying about others...its all you've got...its all Monsanto's got...
> When you asked if I had read the last article, I answered truthfully as I always do, maybe ask yourself why (if i lie) would I not have lied about that?
> I know its hard sometimes to try new things, but 'logic' and 'reason' are good words trout, you should try to use them to work this equation out...
> Further, information from either side of this 'debate' is biased, therefor I find that such 'info' form both 'sides' is mostly irrelevant to me as I only calculate my position based on the common most basic fundamental facts of life = the numbers...the big mother of all equations...in others words that which you seem to ignore or maybe simply just cannot comprehend?
> ...


Science is not a debate and there is nothing in real Journals that back your stupidity.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 25, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Exactly what I was thinking about you Frank lol so where are these posts?


The title of the thread is a lie. There is no Monsanto protection act. Every article you post that contains those words, is a lie.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 25, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Silly trout, I challenge you to find even one occasion where I have been dishonest...


We can devolve this into a name calling contes, since you are losing the debate. 
That is all you have left because you lies have been exposed. 

Pretty much everything you have posted has been from a blog. The Natural News has a very clear agenda and the truth is not really important to them. The "studies" you posted are not actual scientific studies.

Here is an example of a lie:
*
**


DNAprotection said:



The video reveals where GMOs come from, why they're used and why they cause organ damage and cancer in mammals.

Click to expand...

*I asked you to reference the study that lie was based on. You still haven't done it. Why? I assume you realize that it is a garbage "study" and not accepted by independent scientists. 

If you want to argue semantics by saying, "I wasn't lying, I was just posting a video." You posted a video that is full of lies. You endorse it as truth. That is lying. 

You are a liar and a horrible person. I do not understand why you accept blogs and pseudo science as fact and deny the 600 independently funded studies going back 30 some years that say GMO crops are not harmful. 




DNAprotection said:


> but you cant because I haven't...that leaves you only to do what you do best, lying about others...its all you've got...its all Monsanto's got...


You are obviously unhinged. You post lie after lie as fact. that is lying. You are a terrible person and a liar. 





DNAprotection said:


> When you asked if I had read the last article, I answered truthfully as I always do, maybe ask yourself why (if i lie) would I not have lied about that?


Posting something you haven't read is just dumb. 
You are still posting lies and presenting them as fact. You are a liar and a horrible person. 




DNAprotection said:


> I know its hard sometimes to try new things, but 'logic' and 'reason' are good words trout, you should try to use them to work this equation out...


The scientific method hates you and the bullshit you post. 




DNAprotection said:


> Further, information from either side of this 'debate' is biased,


You are not smart enough to understand the difference between a blog and an independently funded, peer reviewed study, much less 600 of them. 

you ignorance combined with your willingness to lie and spread lies is crazy. You should be ashamed of yourself. Your parents should have eaten you while your bones were still soft. 




DNAprotection said:


> therefor I find that such 'info' form both 'sides' is mostly irrelevant to me as I only calculate my position based on the common most basic fundamental facts of life = the numbers...the big mother of all equations...in others words that which you seem to ignore or maybe simply just cannot comprehend?


I haven't ignored anything. You post stuff without reading it. 
You can ramble on about how you figure things out, but you are ignoring the best information in favor of blogs and scare tactics. 

It is fine if you want to disregard science, but don't spread your garbage lies. I am embarrassed for you and your feeble, lying mind. You are deep in denial. 





DNAprotection said:


> In any case the point is that (aside from my time constraints) reading that article would have no impact on my position one way or the other,


So why post it? Do you enjoy spreading lies? 
Do you enjoy being an ignorant liar?




DNAprotection said:


> it might though hold interest for someone else and so I posted it...


Then why didn't you read it? How would you know?
Why do you post lies and present them as fact?



DNAprotection said:


> There is also the fact that I am usually also bating a hook for large mouth sweathogs who cant help but bight hard on such...


Troll away. You are a liar and a horrible person. you have no interest in logic, reason and especially critical thinking. 
You are unable to hold your own in this debate.

Could you please reference the study that you said shows that GMO crops cause cancer/tumors or what ever you claimed?
I assume you will not, because you know it is a lie. 

So, do you want to debate, or do you just want to go ahead and turn this into a name calling contest?
Either way, I will crush you. 

Have a great day son.


----------



## karousing (Aug 25, 2013)

science is wrong though. shit that was concrete gets proven false everyday. science is simply what we are capable of proving using the instruments we have at the time.... think what tools and instruments we will have in 50 years from now... what do you think will still be concrete.....


----------



## Trousers (Aug 25, 2013)

This is a philosophical argument meant to support an opinion based argument. This has been covered and is irrelevant. 
It just does not make any sense. This is what GMO haters rely on. 



karousing said:


> science is wrong though.


What are you talking about?
What studies do you not agree with?
Why?





karousing said:


> shit that was concrete gets proven false everyday.


The best studies and evidence right now say that GMO crops are not harmful.
Until there is better evidence, I will believe the independently funded scientists over a blog and OP-EDs.
Why would you believe opinions over 600 independently funded studies?




karousing said:


> science is simply what we are capable of proving using the instruments we have at the time....


Not exactly. Are you talking about the scientific method? You should look that up. 



karousing said:


> think what tools and instruments we will have in 50 years from now... what do you think will still be concrete.....



Are you arguing against the scientific method?
I would be happy to debate you on that, but it is not really germane to the subject at hand as it is ridiculous.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 25, 2013)

karousing said:


> science is wrong though. shit that was concrete gets proven false everyday. science is simply what we are capable of proving using the instruments we have at the time.... think what tools and instruments we will have in 50 years from now... what do you think will still be concrete.....


Are you suggesting we sit on our hands because we might know more in 50years?

Should we also not sit on our hands in 50years because in 100years from now even more would be known?


We can only act on the information we have at hand


----------



## karousing (Aug 25, 2013)

you guys are really defensive. i am simply stating a fact. 

you can take it to mean whatever you want it to. 

and no, i dont think we should sit on our hands. 

the only way to make new tools and instruments is to use the ones available at the time until we come across new ones.

you guys really need to look at each statement from a neutral point......


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 25, 2013)

karousing said:


> you guys are really defensive. i am simply talking out my arse


Fixed that for you 


> you can take it to mean whatever you want it to.


Facts mean "what ever you want it to"?


> and no, i dont think we should sit on our hands.
> 
> the only way to make new tools and instruments is to use the ones available at the time until we come across new ones.
> 
> you guys really need to look at each statement from a neutral point......


What exactly was your "neutral point" about "science is wrong"?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 25, 2013)

*scientist used to say cigarettes *were good for your health, and* DDT *was safe as well . . your "here is our unquestionable proof that what your opinion and your choice to know what you feed yourself dont matter" reassurance means very little . . only one man thought the earth wasnt round . . . he was killed for it . . . .funny you guys bring up that argument of the more correct theory vs the one with the most government support

yalls view is at best disconcerting and at worst and bad puppet act . . yall knwo as much as us, which is nothing . . independently funded . . .huh . . lol . . .more like indirectly paid for

if GMO is better , market and advertise it . . .as such


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 25, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> *scientist used to say cigarettes *were good for your health,
> and* DDT *was safe as well


science found them to be unsafe in the end through proper testing and reporting data through proper journals 

The moment gmo's are shown to be unsafe in same manner you'd have a point


> . . your "here is our unquestionable proof that what your opinion and your choice to know what you feed yourself dont matter" reassurance means very little


You want to eat organic food there's nothing stopping you. 

It is labelled properly


> . . only one man thought the earth wasnt round . . . he was killed for it


Right.....


> . . . .funny you guys bring up that argument of the more correct theory vs the one with the most government support


What?


> yalls view is at best disconcerting and at worst and bad puppet act . . yall knwo as much as us, which is nothing . . independently funded . . .huh . . lol . . .more like indirectly paid for
> 
> if GMO is better , market and advertise it . . .as such


It is marketed and advertised to the farmers.... as such 

By the time it reaches the store it's just food

You want to fool yourself that your eating something better buy organic


----------



## Doer (Aug 25, 2013)

karousing said:


> science is wrong though. shit that was concrete gets proven false everyday. science is simply what we are capable of proving using the instruments we have at the time.... think what tools and instruments we will have in 50 years from now... what do you think will still be concrete.....


Science is neither right or wrong. That is not even covered in the Scientific Method. Science is about attacking, methodically, the Current Understanding. It is all Theory at the top and below the Theory is the Math and below that is the Experiment. After that is tech. Tech works as defined by the Current Understanding.

So, a lot of what is going on with the hippies is attempting to prove something....to be right about something. Not science.

Us actual, trained in method, science types will never say right or wrong except against the assaulted Theory. You get the Theory accepted in the Understanding, like the Higgs field, you will immediately get that turned upon and attacked. By who? The hungry dogs called brilliant Grad Students.
They will jobs from people. Entire fields are disrupted constantly by Experiment. You have to back the right horse to get going in Science. It is dirty business.

Careers rise and fall on this stuff.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 25, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> science found them to be unsafe in the end through proper testing and reporting data through proper journals
> 
> The moment gmo's are shown to be unsafe in same manner you'd have a point


 possibly poisoning us for a market share of commodities is not ok with me ., . . . and the we just found this out . is not a reasonable excuse to me

so no

my use of the DDT as a point, trumps any caution you throw into the wind

who conducted these independent studies, i missed that page


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 25, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> It is marketed and advertised to the farmers.... as such
> 
> By the time it reaches the store it's just food
> 
> You want to fool yourself that your eating something better buy organic




itsGMO food, and i deserve a right to know . . .bottom line, in a open market if you goign to peddle your whares be ready to accept public backlash when they find out what is actually in them

kinda like MSG

or pink slime

transparency should be easy if your product is safer healthier and more economically and fiscally responsible(as they claim)

do you think we dont need to knwo or shouldn't know or its not important to you so it shouldn't be to me

im trying to Advocate for more transparency your trying to fight *for what* in regards to not advertising GMO'ed products?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 25, 2013)

who conducted these independant studies that prove all teh glory to the GMO foods, a simple link would suffice . . .


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 25, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> possibly poisoning us for a market share of commodities is not ok with me ., . . . and the we just found this out . is not a reasonable excuse to me


Possibly poisoning? 
Absolutely no evidence or even a mechanism for the poisoning to occur?

Cool story bro


> my use of the DDT as a point, trumps any caution you throw into the wind


Nonsense it's just hysterical blovating by yourself to hide the fact you have no evidence against gmo


> who conducted these independent studies, i missed that page


Scientists


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 25, 2013)

DDT, nutra sweet, pringles fat blocker chips(made in teh 90) made you shit yourself all Gov approved untill not

um, your they feed it to us so its safe argument is so easily turned into ky jelly, i dont even know where to start 

the ramifications of these products on our society is not known, the FDA feeds us corn by products in every thing, def not good for us and they admit it!

PINK SLIME FDA approved . . . your point is moot in light of what is already on the market, approved by the very entities you that approve all this other shit 

im asking for transparency(my personal beliefs are irrelevant) your saying why

and now im wondering why is it you dont care what others are tricked into eating

the percentages dont lie, if we knew it was all GMO(which all corn is and soy and whesat is on its way) people wouldnt eat it

but they dont advertise that, and FDA ORGANIC is a facade 

so much of the process is allowed to be not organic its just a giant lie


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 25, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> P
> 
> Scientists


can you source the study or not . . . .


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 25, 2013)

at one time their was no evidence that DDT caused birth defects either

Cigarettes were healthy and promoted by doctors

MSG was thought to be healthy

for fucks sake

pizza is a vegetable now

your they tell us so its right methodology means very little 

how many sugar alternatives have been forced on to the market only to be taken off years later for cancer or bith defects risk\

PINK SLIME is MORE THEN edible its been a main stay for probably over 20 years

explain that


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 25, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> itsGMO food, and i deserve a right to know . . .bottom line, in a open market if you goign to peddle your whares be ready to accept public backlash when they find out what is actually in them
> 
> kinda like MSG
> 
> ...


If you want warning stickers first I suggest you show harm to be warned against. I will not advocate scaring consumers on the whim of woefully misinformed idiots

There is already a labelling system that should guarantee gmo free food

It's called 100% organic

Why is that not good enough for you?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 25, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> can you source the study or not . . . .


Your asking for the studies that show cigarettes unsafe?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 25, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> If you want warning stickers first I suggest you show harm to be warned against. I will not advocate scaring consumers on the whim of woefully misinformed idiots
> 
> There is already a labelling system that should guarantee gmo free food
> 
> ...


but its not 100%, they use non organics in teh process . .the qualifications for organic have become less organic as of late so more people can make money

look it up, the FDA organic labeling system is fucked up 

scaring misinformed idiots .. . .huh....you say its unequivocally better then the same product . . .. shoudl be easy to prove then huh

but the fact is that its not proven 

or the results would be transparent

*how long after DDT was used did they know it was bad for you and how long did it take to get it off the shevles 

13 years after it as known to be deadly, 23 years after it was thought to be deadly and 40 years after it was created*

it was also thoguht to be a break through and it was a farce created by those who made the most money off it



40 years for proper testing, which was observe, as DDT effects are easily seen .. . . . .whats that about scientific method . . . . .should have been obvious . . . huh

when money is at stake, the public's safety seems to always be the last concern


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 25, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> at one time their was no evidence that DDT caused birth defects either
> 
> Cigarettes were healthy and promoted by doctors


Humans have to sit on their hands for eternity because something may or may not at sometime in the future be shown unsafe?


> MSG was thought to be healthy
> 
> for fucks sake
> 
> ...


I'm struggling to read your spittle flecked rantings let alone explain them

Tell you what why don't you link to example so I can read the source rather than your interpretation


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 25, 2013)

link me your studies friend . . that prove GMO's are great , illgo through the last 50 years to find all the thigns the FDA adn the gov decided were ok that were not ok for consumer use . .and we will see who list is longer, and lends more credit to caution vs profit margins


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 25, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Humans have to sit on their hands for eternity because something may or may not at sometime in the future be shown unsafe?
> 
> I'm struggling to read your spittle flecked rantings let alone explain them
> 
> Tell you what why don't you link to example so I can read the source rather than your interpretation


do you knwo how many people all over the world were effected by DDT and the 40 year mistake of its greatness and use . . . .. .wow , just wow

your get it all and make as much as possible and do as much as possible at whatever cost as long as we are not "siting on our hadn s" argument seems foolish


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 25, 2013)

if we do not heed the mistakes of the past we are doomed to repeat them

money profit margins and cooperate exspase in not an excuse to through caution to the wind


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 25, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> but its not 100%, they use non organics in teh process . .the qualifications for organic have become less organic as of late so more people can make money


cite?


> look it up, the FDA organic labeling system is fucked up


Cite?


> scaring misinformed idiots .. . .huh....you say its unequivocally better then the same product . . .. shoudl be easy to prove then huh


please show where I said " unequivocally better then the same product"


> but the fact is that its not proven
> 
> or the results would be transparent


Proving a negative isn't possible

Every single attempt at trying to find harm in gmo has transparently failed



> *how long after DDT was used did they know it was bad for you and how long did it take to get it off the shevles
> 
> 13 years after it as known to be deadly, 23 years after it was thought to be deadly and 40 years after it was created*
> 
> ...


Utterly irrelevant to discussion of gmo


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 25, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> do you knwo how many people all over the world were effected by DDT and the 40 year mistake of its greatness and use . . . .. .wow , just wow
> 
> 
> your get it all and make as much as possible and do as much as possible at whatever cost as long as we are not "siting on our hadn s" argument seems foolish


your hysterical comparison of ddt is foolish

Get evidence that gmo is bad


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 25, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> do you knwo how many people all over the world were effected by DDT and the 40 year mistake of its greatness and use . . . .. .wow , just wow
> 
> your get it all and make as much as possible and do as much as possible at whatever cost as long as we are not "siting on our hadn s" argument seems foolish


Not many

DDT wasn't banned because of ill affects on humans


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 25, 2013)

I'd say millions were affected by DDT. In a good way. Malaria was wiped from our nation thanks to DDT. Saved countless numbers of lives. 

Sam, I posted a link to 600 studies showing they were safe. It's up to you to click it. Someone else posted it after I did as well.


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 25, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> I'd say millions were affected by DDT. In a good way. Malaria was wiped from our nation thanks to DDT. Saved countless numbers of lives.
> 
> Sam, I posted a link to 600 studies showing they were safe. It's up to you to click it. Someone else posted it after I did as well.


DDT was beneficial to us.
Shown to cause a lot of damage to the enivroment. That's why it got banned


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 25, 2013)

right 


Potential mechanisms of action on humans are genotoxicity and endocrine disruption.

huh . . .endocrine . . . . . huh . . . .do any of you knwo what that is at all

the real doctors in the members list will/should 


im wtf


im guessing cigarettes are still ok right


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 25, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> right
> 
> 
> Potential mechanisms of action on humans are genotoxicity and endocrine disruption.
> ...


Health effects of DDT exposure are much more contentious than the environmental effects. Carson's study relied heavily on the carcinogenic effects of DDT but to this day they remain highly speculative. A group convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 1991 that prior studies are inadequate evidence for carcinogenicity in humans. Reports since have focused on DDT's effect on liver and pancreatic Cancer but have yet to conclusively prove its carcinogenic effects. For details of various agencies' evaluations of DDT's chronic toxicity, please visit the Pesticide Action Network's page on DDT.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 25, 2013)

ignore it if you like,

genotoxicity ,endocrine system . . . .. i cant make you read or use google to educate yourself

when you start to use google, pleasure yourself!


----------



## Situation420 (Aug 25, 2013)

Whats so bad about genetically engineering weed. Noobs would love it because it would be resistant to diseases and pests and all the other shit they suck at. We could probably increase thc concentrations not alter the drug as well. A win win in my book, i wouldn't have to read half the stupid help me out my plants are sick threads that I do on a regular basis over the dumbest things and I would be able to get even higher, smokin less weed, perfect.

Whats the worst thing that could happen anyway? People get sick or are exposed to unknown health risks and complications in the future? Well duh dont use it until it is a proven and quality tested alternative to natural cannabis and there are no reports of adverse side effects. Why ban scientific exploration before the all the benefits of it is understood. Think about the industrial applications of genetically altered industrial hemp and the potential that holds for the future. I say go science, change is a good thing anyway, the same ol gets boring after a while.

If you're worried about cross contamination between species, I doubt that the people that have financial capabilities to genetically engineer weed lack the funds to ensure that contamination in not an issue. I know about the genetically altered corn that leaked out and contaminated fields but that is a rare occurrence. A serious failure in ensuring the safety of the public is just as likely to happen in any other field of scientific exploration as well. The only reason you are able to even debate this topic on your laptop over the internet using electricity in your air conditioned home is because past risks were taken in scientific exploration. Get a clue people.


----------



## TreeOfLiberty (Aug 25, 2013)

Responding to the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] post of the OP, NO , I do not like GMO.


Imagine this , a company like Monsanto starts tinkering with Cannabis DNA genetics as legalization spreads, they eventually create strains of Cannabis that are physically addictive in the same way Tobacco plants are addictive with higher nicotine producing varieties of Tobacco. Now you have a new form of Cannabis that the world has never had before. It's not just an enjoyment, but you physically feel sick when you skip a day from getting high instead of just wishing you had some to get high.


Don't kid yourself thinking Monsanto wouldn't put their top plant geneticists on a project like that. It would ensure that a steady flow of income would come in.


Who's to say that certain genetics of the Poppy plant which has physically addictive properties couldn't be crossed with Cannabis genetics making physically addictive strains of Cannabis ? This would open all sorts of nightmares coming out of pandora's box. As many Cannabis users in the world that exist , especially in the US, it would be a guaranteed cash flow of steady ganja consumers. 


I'm all for total legalization of ganja , but I am dead set against Monsanto and their GMO frankenfood bullshit. It's kind of ironic that the elite of the world that push for Monsanto refuse to eat GMO foods but want the lower classes to eat the hazardous garbage. 


http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/gmo-hypocrisy-double-standards/


Also - Cross breeding different species of Cannabis with other species of Cannabis isn't the same thing as injecting DNA of Poppy plant into Cannabis , or creating some type of Cannabis that has pesticide already intertwined within the Cannabis DNA such as the Round-Up Ready Corn. Some of these posters here are going to be Pro-GMO come hell or high water no matter what. I'm not posting for them but for others like myself.


Another thing though is I don;t think there is anything that can be done to stop the genetic testing of Cannabis DNA strains. I think it will come soon, so the Pro-GMO folks will get exactly what they wish for. There is something that the Anti-GMO folks can do in regards to Cannabis, start buying up seeds NOW, of as many varieties as you can get of your favorite strains. Store them well, breed seeds so that you will always have stock of Non-GMO Cannabis. 


The upside to this if you start breeding your own Non-GMO seeds now and store them well is I guarantee you will find a market for them when the FrankenFood Monsanto Corporation starts meddling with Cannabis genetics !!! There will be many organic growers that will want them. There are a lot of us out there who are Anti-GMO.


----------



## Situation420 (Aug 26, 2013)

Doesn't anyone realize that the population of the world has only been able to get as big as it has because of genetically modified food in the first place? NO one in this entire thread has touched on the logistics of world hunger and the reason why we are even able to support the current global population in the first place. Geez why is everyone so narrow minded


----------



## Situation420 (Aug 26, 2013)

I cant wait for 20 years from now when everyone crying about how hungry they are and have to plant their own garden just to support their family. You'll see, something dramatic needs to be done to the food industry over the next 20 years or there are going to be bigger issues than just genetically engineered food.


----------



## bluntmassa1 (Aug 26, 2013)

Situation420 said:


> I cant wait for 20 years from now when everyone crying about how hungry they are and have to plant their own garden just to support their family. You'll see, something dramatic needs to be done to the food industry over the next 20 years or there are going to be bigger issues than just genetically engineered food.


not me and my family I got a little farm that can be a huge farm within a years notice as I breed and sell animals and I could just keep them all plus I have plenty of gmo free seeds I never got around to and I got more cannabis seeds then anything else.


----------



## bluntmassa1 (Aug 26, 2013)

TreeOfLiberty said:


> Who's to say that certain genetics of the Poppy plant which has physically addictive properties couldn't be crossed with Cannabis genetics making physically addictive strains of Cannabis ? This would open all sorts of nightmares coming out of pandora's box. As many Cannabis users in the world that exist , especially in the US, it would be a guaranteed cash flow of steady ganja consumers.


well maybe they could but who would be foolish enough to buy them? I know I'm not the only one with 100's of cannabis seed and no space to grow them all I've also read enough about breeding where I could do pretty good at least at breeding I damn sure wouldn't be the worst.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 26, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Tell ya what Frank (and all the SHDT), here's your chance to finally make a difference in this life (when pigs fly)...
> I'll take the high road (got wings?) and you take the low road,
> and we'll meet up again here in the mornin,
> if you can find a post where I lied about the quotes,
> then I'll get on the boat for Loch Lomond


Well Frank you and the SHDT have had ample time to produce even one post to back your claims and you couldn't...not surprising though because as you well know such does not exist...so once again you are left only with seriously needing to heed your own words...



Harrekin said:


> Fuck off with your retardism.


lol...


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> who conducted these independant studies that prove all teh glory to the GMO foods, a simple link would suffice . . .


Science is not for that, sophist. You Luddites need to get a smattering of the basics. Sci. is to dis-prove a hypothesis. Not kidding. An honest sci. is like this.

H - Pure Water can freeze at several temps.
E -Control everything including the temp of the water. Run the experiments until there is a statistically significant sample size. Math work.
R - Pure water cannot be made to freeze at any but one temp if all the other variables such as pressures, light, etc are controlled.

So, if you look at medical trials, something I know too much about, this is how it works. First, does it harm? Second, does it work? Third, does it work in humans?

So, sam, it is your Luddite tendencies that make you ignore reality.

It is frequently claimed that GM foods are not properly tested, or asserted that few independent studies have been published to establish their safety. Another similar claim made is that the food regulatory agencies rely exclusively of corporate information to decide whether GM food and feed are safe. The further claim is made that very few independent tests relating to GM food safety are done. This conventional 'wisdom' is wrong. The modern scientific literature shows that these commonly held opinions are merely myths. Academics Review website comprehensively shows that many of these myths are merely baseless rumors and misinformation.

 Currently there are near 600 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature which document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds.

Note also that by December 2010, *15 years, 81 projects, 400 teams and at least &#8364;70 million had been spent by European Union taxpayers on issues relating to GMO safety or GMO acceptance*. (This is documented in December 2010 at another GMO Pundit posting, and is described at a comprehensive European commission website.).

 A summary report on this major project is available as a pdf file:EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2010 A Decade of EU-funded GMO research


----------



## Situation420 (Aug 26, 2013)

Is this the dumbasses only thread or am I lost.


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Situation420 said:


> Is this the dumbasses only thread or am I lost.


You are lost, because only a dumbass can say that.  They come here seeking knowledge. They know not what they do. They relish the dark mind influence, though they like it not. So, they call, from the dimness, for our help.


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> Science is not for that, sophist. You Luddites need to get a smattering of the basics. Sci. is to dis-prove a hypothesis. Not kidding. An honest sci. is like this.
> 
> H - Pure Water can freeze at several temps.
> E -Control everything including the temp of the water. Run the experiments until there is a statistically significant sample size. Math work.
> ...


So how does it feel to be the Dup, boys? The hippies are manipulating your emotions like the wannabe warlords they are.


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Situation420 said:


> Doesn't anyone realize that the population of the world has only been able to get as big as it has because of genetically modified food in the first place? NO one in this entire thread has touched on the logistics of world hunger and the reason why we are even able to support the current global population in the first place. Geez why is everyone so narrow minded


Umm....fact not in evidence. Would you care to submit some links to a peer reviewed study in a real Journal that speaks to that?


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 26, 2013)

This is nothing but a spamming thread for the natural news. Reported as spam.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 26, 2013)

Situation420 said:


> Doesn't anyone realize that the population of the world has only been able to get as big as it has because of genetically modified food in the first place? NO one in this entire thread has touched on the logistics of world hunger and the reason why we are even able to support the current global population in the first place. Geez why is everyone so narrow minded


The green revolution was not driven by GMO nor was GMO even a part of it.

However you are right that we couldn't support the world's population* if all food production was grown organically



*not without stripping the forests bare to support extra farmland


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 26, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> This is nothing but a spamming thread for the natural news. *Reported as spam*.


Good plan Seconded


----------



## Situation420 (Aug 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> Umm....fact not in evidence. Would you care to submit some links to a peer reviewed study in a real Journal that speaks to that?


I guess this is the dumbasses only thread, with a few exceptions.



ginjawarrior said:


> The green revolution was not driven by GMO nor was GMO even a part of it.
> 
> However you are right that we couldn't support the world's population* if all food production was grown organically
> 
> ...


Exactly my dude, but everyone tends to focus on the small here and now than the larger scope of things. When they have to pay $10.00 for a gallon of organic milk or $5/1b for corn when the genetically modified stuff is going to be far less lets see how fast they change their opinions of genetically modified food.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

so general consensus is they are better in every way

GMO crops


so advertise it as such

what exactly are they afraid of, better in every way, easily proven with science and scientist with lab coats

im still not understanding why products are not being forced to advertise that they are GMO based . . .

nutritionalvalues are on anything and everything, would the fact that they are GMO products make them more valuable and better for oyu

its what i keep reading in here . . . i wonder why the companies are not advertising their products to recoup R/D . . .

and i keep missing the links to these 600 studies proven to show GMO food and crops are better then non GMO

could someone PM them to me


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Situation420 said:


> I guess this is the dumbasses only thread, with a few exceptions.


So, you don't have any evidence to support your claim that the world's population growth is caused by GMO? You and I can run these dumbasses off with a good science discussion.

I am interested in this claim because as I understand it, GMO has not increased yield except in cotton.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 26, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> This is nothing but a spamming thread for the natural news. Reported as spam.


Actually this has unintentionally become a good hogpen where all other RIU members can come and see sweathogs for what they are...kinda like going to the zoo...
i just toss in some feed every now and again lol...


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so general consensus is they are better in every way
> 
> GMO crops
> 
> ...



There you go again creating that emotional straw dog. No one is afraid of the stupid hippies, we just have a duty
to curtail their lies.

My links didn't work? Try this.https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7hhP5QasNtsX1AwV2YzNnlrZTA/edit?pli=1







http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html
​


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

The real stuff is right here where bad science is de-bunked.

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/


----------



## Situation420 (Aug 26, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> The green revolution was not driven by GMO nor was GMO even a part of it.
> 
> However you are right that we couldn't support the world's population* if all food production was grown organically
> 
> ...


One little fact about the green revolution is that scientists took advantage of forced mutations by exposing plants to un-natural growing environments and causing plants to exhibit traits that are not found naturally. These frankenstein plants were then bred for agriculture and sustain the booming global population. GMO is defined as "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology" by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosaftey so forcing these plants to grow the way they did unnaturally back in the 50's, 60's and 70's was a primitive form of GMO but is still legally classified as such.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

"Smith is actually asking the reader to believe that the FDA would approve a lethal product."

heres a snippit from the academics review . . 

ya this never happens

wtf

also the first rebuttal-
*Pusztai&#8217;s Flawed Claims*-http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-1/1-1-pusztais-flawed-claims/



they claim he didnt submit it to them(them being the very people now reviewing it) first before publication . . . 

"*Science should be published in peer-reviewed literature and not on TV."*-i didn't know books were published on TV

ya cause scientist and by extension science is always 100% correct and without flaw, nothing every gets proven wrong or changed over time---this infallible belief in their opinion and views must really make for great progress in the scientific community . .. . ."...if we dont believe it it probably is true . . ....." -science

and the big big fallacy on the first page of said peer review experts

"Although Pusztai travels around the globe fear-mongering about the dangers of GM crops, i*t is ironic that even if his study were correct, it would only prove that those specific potatoes were unsafe, and not that all GM crops are unsafe as he seems to be claiming.* "

even if he was correct . . it would have only been those potatoes . . . . .makes perfect sense . .even if or when GMO potato is bad or unsafe . . it would only be that potato individually . . . . 


funny how DNAprotectionact guys team of professionals sound a lot like the real scientist while debunking claims . . . . .



are their any real studies the pro GMO team can put up . . . or is it this . . . take it apart at the seems reviews of other peoples hard work(valid or not) that is all your proof that GMO's are the greatest 

im not saying your lack of sources is proof of no proof.....im just still waiting to see a real study done to show nutritinal content and safety of the products . . . .it should be somewhere as a lot of GMO products are already on the market, maybe not here but somewhere with less regulations . . .


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so general consensus is they are better in every way
> 
> GMO crops
> 
> ...


It is not considered better in every way. More emotional straw dogs. You realize you cannot discuss this rationally, right? You and dna, only speak with charged negative language of religion.


----------



## Situation420 (Aug 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> It is not considered better in every way. More emotional straw dogs. You realize you cannot discuss this rationally, right? You and dna, only speak with charged negative language of religion.


Do you own a doomsday bunker?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so general consensus is they are better in every way


Shameless straw man 


> GMO crops
> 
> 
> so advertise it as such


They do to the farmers


> what exactly are they afraid of, better in every way, easily proven with science and scientist with lab coats


Again with the shameless strawman


> im still not understanding why products are not being forced to advertise that they are GMO based . . .


because apart from your own hysterics there's no reason to treat them differently 

The moment you can show added risk from GMO I would support you


> nutritionalvalues are on anything and everything, would the fact that they are GMO products make them more valuable and better for oyu


 apart from the blatant straw man Gmo matches non him nutritionally


> its what i keep reading in here . . . i wonder why the companies are not advertising their products to recoup R/D . . .


Why spend money advertising when farmers will happily buy it?


> and i keep missing the links to these 600 studies proven to show GMO food and crops are better then non GMO
> 
> could someone PM them to me


&#8230;


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

OK so better is the wrong word to use, what is the right word to use when describing GMO foods attributes and reason for existance


and why is it not ok to ask for transparency in our supermarkets . . .


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 26, 2013)

TreeOfLiberty said:


> Responding to the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] post of the OP, NO , I do not like GMO.
> 
> 
> Imagine this , a company like Monsanto starts tinkering with Cannabis DNA genetics as legalization spreads, they eventually create strains of Cannabis that are physically addictive in the same way Tobacco plants are addictive with higher nicotine producing varieties of Tobacco. Now you have a new form of Cannabis that the world has never had before. It's not just an enjoyment, but you physically feel sick when you skip a day from getting high instead of just wishing you had some to get high.
> ...


Thanks for supporting my proposal to
Make marijuana legal to possess and grow
Illegal to sell

No money in it
Monsanto and the Government won't be involved


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 26, 2013)

Situation420 said:


> One little fact about the green revolution is that scientists took advantage of forced mutations by exposing plants to un-natural growing environments and causing plants to exhibit traits that are not found naturally. These frankenstein plants were then bred for agriculture and sustain the booming global population. GMO is defined as "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology" by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosaftey so forcing these plants to grow the way they did unnaturally back in the 50's, 60's and 70's was a primitive form of GMO but is still legally classified as such.


Lol don't muddy the waters here "transgenics" is the discussion of the day


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> OK so better is the wrong word to use, what is the right word to use when describing GMO foods attributes and reason for existance
> 
> 
> and why is it not ok to ask for transparency in our supermarkets . . .



well . . any answer or thoughts

do we not have a right to know the our food is genetically engineered . . . . or is it not advertised for another reason

all i can say is fuck the next PINK SLIME aka GMO'ed food

some how some way civilization managed to get us here without being GM'ed in a lab . . . so i dont see it as a nessecity

maybe it is for the cooperation's that need to profit on it . . . .but i can do just fine eating the food i grow or the food that my community grows, no GMO needed


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> The real stuff is right here where bad science is de-bunked.
> 
> http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/


wow why did you delete all that info you posted


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> OK so better is the wrong word to use, what is the right word to use when describing GMO foods attributes and reason for existance


I think you'll find "better in every way" are the wrong words.....

As to your question it changes GMO TO GMO.


> and why is it not ok to ask for transparency in our supermarkets . . .


Sure not a problem.... however I have some concerns myself, I want to know if my food at any point was processed by a person of Jewish descent, if my food passed close to an Indian burial ground, if the factory was ever claim to be haunted, I also observe Luna cycles so I demand everything in the supermarket very clearly shows the time in Luna cycle it was processed

I mean it should be ok to have supermarkets transparent shouldn't it?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

transgenics . .cool . .. . do all the lab work you want . . . .just tell me that my corn or corn by product was created from GMO material . . .. what is wrong in this

Organic is labeled FDA has rating for beef and such, top of the line beef is no less safe then low grade chuck . . . .. . i just wondering what that logical reasons besides profit loss their is to not labeling GMO foods as such


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 26, 2013)

I want a plant with really high thc and cbd that you can harvest in 30 days that is smooth and tastes great. Tell me you wouldn't buy it


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so general consensus is they are better in every way
> 
> GMO crops
> 
> ...




One reason is that so many people have a knee jerk/fear based reaction to *GMO* based on nothing.
It would almost be like labeling a carrot with a warning that it may be really bad for you. 

What studies could you show me that show that GMO crops are not safe? There are plenty of studies going back to the 1980s that demonstrate that GMO crops are not safe. 

How is it exactly that we turn a food crop into something dangerous to eat?
Besides DDT.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> I think you'll find "better in every way" are the wrong words.....
> 
> As to your question it changes GMO TO GMO.
> 
> ...


what does genetically modified have to do with the ancestry of the person who processed the food or ran the machine . . talk about a loaded statement . . .

IF its safe we deserve to knwo its origins and its content . . . .that includes GMO

common sense to know whats in your food, like nutritional attributes . . or infused with vitamins vs natural . . . and so forth

10% juice vs 100%

all natural vs natural food flavors

your comparative example falls far short of what is industry standards all ready

organic or not . . .. . we are already promised we are to know whats in our food . . .who washed my lettuce or if it traveled by a cemetery had nothing to do with its composition . .


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Situation420 said:


> Do you own a doomsday bunker?


What business is that of yours?


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> OK so better is the wrong word to use, what is the right word to use when describing GMO foods attributes and reason for existance
> 
> 
> and why is it not ok to ask for transparency in our supermarkets . . .


You are still stuck in right and wrong. You were raised into a cultural myth. It is OK to ask and is OK if WE say no?


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> transgenics . .cool . .. . do all the lab work you want . . . .just tell me that my corn or corn by product was created from GMO material . . .. what is wrong in this
> 
> Organic is labeled FDA has rating for beef and such, top of the line beef is no less safe then low grade chuck . . . .. . i just wondering what that logical reasons besides profit loss their is to not labeling GMO foods as such


There is a list of products, sophist. You will not say what you really want. NO GMO PERIOD.....the Devil Monsanto?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

so theirs no reason for their existence other then to add another tax to farmers . . aka another hand in the honey pot . . .so ya lets complicate the oldest form of business since, the chicken and egg argument, agriculture . .some how phfizer and monsanto . .will get it right where 1000's of years go tit wrong


man you guys must travel with lube . . you love to get fucked, better that you do though so you can pass some on to me as i get raped


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> There is a list of products, sophist. You will not say what you really want. NO GMO PERIOD.....the Devil Monsanto?


i have said it over and over , advertise GMO

im not some idealist hippy who thinks i can return to the earth and live of the land, 

i am a realist

i think its realistic to expect a company's product to be marketed responsible and ethically


let the cooperation's mop their money around where ever they want, like a stain on the floor they cant get rid of.....don't force feed people your shit if you can look em in the eye and go its really good for you, my shit!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> what does genetically modified have to do with the ancestry of the person who processed the food or ran the machine . . talk about a loaded statement . . .


it's not about GMO I want food labelled properly

It's deliberately loaded to show the ridiculous notion that everything should be labelled on food


> IF its safe we deserve to knwo its origins and its content . . . .that includes GMO


If it's safe to eat food prepared by a Jew we deserve to know it's origins or contents


> common sense to knwo whats in your food, like nutritional attributes . . or infused with vitamins vs natural . . . and so forth


And for both non gmo class and gmo the nutritional data is the same




> 10% juice vs 100%
> 
> a;ll natural vs natural food flavors


¿¿¿¿¿


> your comparative example falls far short of what is industry standards all ready


There is no industry standard to label food prepared by a Jew because there is no harm involved so no reason

There is no industry standard to label GMO food as there is no harm involved so no reason...

I got that right didn't I?


You want organic food go buy 100% organic and stop bothering the rest of us


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so theirs no reason for their existence other then to add another tax to farmers . . aka another hand in the honey pot . . .so ya lets complicate the oldest form of business since, the chicken and egg argument, agriculture . .some how phfizer and monsanto . .will get it right where 1000's of years go tit wrong
> 
> 
> man you guys must travel with lube . . you love to get fucked, better that you do though so you can pass some on to me as i get raped


I don't know if it's the bottle or the bong or even a deep personal breakdown

But your rants are making less and less sense


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> i have said it over and over , advertise GMO
> 
> im not some idealist hippy who thinks i can return to the earth and live of the land,
> 
> ...


Buy organic


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so theirs no reason for their existence other then to add another tax to farmers . . aka another hand in the honey pot . . .so ya lets complicate the oldest form of business since, the chicken and egg argument, agriculture . .some how phfizer and monsanto . .will get it right where 1000's of years go tit wrong
> 
> 
> man you guys must travel with lube . . you love to get fucked, better that you do though so you can pass some on to me as i get raped



You have no evidence of this either. It is all going just fine, is the evidence. But, you have fear, uncertainty and doubt. And you think the govt is a big screw job instead of protecting us from you. Self rule, fuck yeah.

Oh do you like carrots? Nice organic carrots? How about carotenemia? You like that? Did they warn you about it?

http://www.livescience.com/35430-seven-good-foods-you-can-overdose-on-110201.htmlCarrots are full of vitamins, minerals and fibers that are good for your health. But eating too many carrots can bring in too much beta-carotene the molecule responsible for carrots' bright orange hue and a precursor of vitamin A. This can lead to excess blood carotene which can discolor the skin.

Known as carotenemia, the condition occurs because carotene is a fat-soluble molecule. Excessive quantities of it tend to accumulate in the outermost layer of skin, resulting in yellow- or orange-pigmented skin, particularly in the palms, soles, knees and nasal area.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> it's not about GMO I want food labelled properly
> 
> It's deliberately loaded to show the ridiculous notion that everything should be labelled on food
> If it's safe to eat food prepared by a Jew we deserve to know it's origins or contents
> ...


 Dude

their are tons of labels on food, they dont show intent to harm . . . . .they let the consumer know what they are buying adn choose what they want based on the contents of that food

GMO is no different it is not religions pretense . . . . .did you really just stand behind your comparison of kosher to GMO . . . . . .talk about apples and oranges

and to be honest i dont think you can answer me, just that fact that you bring up Kosher being alike to GMO makes me wonder about why your here in this discussion OP is a fool . . but you jst matched him 

ethical and moral advertising of products based on their composition . . .this is basic and is apart of every facet of teh food industry . . but somehow GMO deserves to be treated different...?


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 26, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> This is nothing but a spamming thread for the natural news. Reported as spam.





ginjawarrior said:


> Good plan Seconded


It's sure looking that way. Around and around and around we go.

<edit> reading up on the last pages, i see useful debate as well as the spam. Thread reopened.


----------



## Situation420 (Aug 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> What business is that of yours?


You just seem like the type that would have one. A dumbass


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> Dude
> 
> their are tons of labels on food, they dont show intent to harm . . . . .they let the consumer know what they are buying adn choose what they want based on the contents of that food
> 
> ...


Yawn...

Ten characters


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 26, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> It's sure looking that way. Around and around and around we go.
> 
> <edit> reading up on the last pages, i see useful debate as well as the spam. Thread reopened.


What about the self admitted spambot?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

so basically what it coems down to . .is that you could care less, and you find no reason to advertise GMO 


im glad you are so sure of what you want, 

thing is

what i want

doesn't have any negative effects on you in any way, your GMO food and such will be the exact same

but those who did not know and would prefer to not eat GMO foods now have a choice

what is it about that you find issue with, cause for the life of me i cant see any logical reason so have GMO foods labeled as such like 

every other food product we can buy, as to its contents composition nutritional value and its origins or a very super simple GMO green check mark

GMO food deserve to be labeled as a part of responsible consumer advertising . . . id love to hear why you think otherwise, but im sure another yawn post is coming . . . . super classy


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

WAIT!! Why open it back?


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Situation420 said:


> You just seem like the type that would have one. A dumbass


You seem like someone I would have hold off slapping to the ground. So what?


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so basically what it coems down to . .is that you could care less, and you find no reason to advertise GMO
> 
> 
> im glad you are so sure of what you want,
> ...


WE voted against you. Self rule.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

ya not sure if thats an answer . . . . . not sure what thsi self rule thing is your going on about either

so GMO foods are so holly and god like they dont have to be labeled . . . .got it . . . have fun with your pizza as a vegetable . . . .makes just as much sense 

got to love the pied piper

and technically the vote is still in my favor for GMO labeling, and no GMO weed here as well,, to bad WE dont get to vote on it . .WE hope our representatives act accordingly to those who vote them in . .but the all mghtly dollar sign sway his/her ethics and politics resumes as usual

*The New York Times, 07/27/13
*A recent _New York Times_ poll found that *93% of Americans favor labeling of GE food:* http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html?_r=0 

*MSNBC, 2/25/11*
Do you believe genetically modified foods should be labeled?
Yes &#8211; *96%* of over 45,000 voters believe genetically modified foods should be labeled
http://health.newsvine.com/_question/2011/02/25/6131050-do-you-believe-genetically-modified-foods-should-be-labeled

*Reuters / NPR, 10/10*
Poll conducted by Thompson Reuters and National Public Radio finds *93% of
Americans believe all GE foods should be labeled as such*; only 35% willing to
eat GE fish

*Washington Post, 9/17/10*
Should genetically-modified food be labeled?
Yes &#8211; *95%*
http://views.washingtonpost.com/post-user-polls/2010/09/should-genetically-modified-food-be-labeled.html 

*KSTP &#8211; St. Paul/Minneapolis, 9/21/10*
Should Genetically Modified Salmon Carry a Different Label?
Yes, Should be labeled as genetically modified fish &#8211; *95%*
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S1754678.shtml?cat=1

*Consumer Reports, 11/11/08*
2008 Food Labeling Poll found that* 95 percent* of respondents said they thought
food from genetically engineered animals should be labeled, and 78 percent
strongly agreed with this.
http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/foodpoll2008.pdf

*ABC News, 6/19/01*
An ABC News poll found that *93% of the American public wants the federal government to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods*.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&page=1


&#9657;
Older Polls


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> ya not sure if thats an answer . . . . . not sure what thsi self rule thing is your going on about either
> 
> so GMO foods are so holly and god like they dont have to be labeled . . . .got it . . . have fun with your pizza as a vegetable . . . .makes just as much sense
> 
> got to love the pied piper



Of course you don't know about self rule. You don't believe the Manual is valid, I guess. You represent the anti-con which rejects that. You project it is we, not you, who follows done the primrose path.

The self rule around here says we can ignore your angst for a lack of science. You can only spin sophistry.

soph·ist·ry (säf&#601;str&#275
noun: *sophistry*
*1*. the use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving.

No one but you has said they are Gods against your Earth First religion. You say that, Sophie.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so basically what it coems down to you find no reason to advertise GMO


Slightly edited for truth



> im glad you are so sure of what you want,
> 
> thing is
> 
> ...


**edited for truth

And back atchya "champ"


> but those who did not know and would prefer to not eat GMO foods now have a choice


Buy 100% orgAnic, it's not allowed to be GMO


> what is it about that you find issue with, cause for the life of me i cant see any logical reason so have GMO foods labeled as such like


I have issue with hysterical idiots that demand we confirm to their view of the world based on nothing but hokum



> every other food product we can buy, as to its contents composition nutritional value and its origins or a very super simple GMO green check mark


 100% organic already serves that purpose for those that give a duck


> GMO food deserve to be labeled as a part of responsible consumer advertising . . . id love to hear why you think otherwise, but im sure another yawn post is coming . . . . super classy


Show harm in gmo I'll agree with you

Otherwise your right "yawn" your just repeating the hysterical sound bite you heard sometime in past ?


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so basically what it coems down to . .is that you could care less, and you find no reason to advertise GMO


Again, why don't we label carrots as potentially bad for you?
If you eat to many carrots you can have some problems.
Labeling something as GMO just does not make sense. 




Samwell Seed Well said:


> im glad you are so sure of what you want,
> 
> thing is
> 
> ...


Buy organic then you do not have to worry about eating vegetables that are _potentially_ unhealthy, even though there is no evidence and hundreds of studies that demonstrate the contrary. I beleive the score is 600-0 and the gap is widening. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> but those who did not know and would prefer to not eat GMO foods now have a choice


Buy organic. That is a choice. shop at Whole Foods. They like junk science and fear based lies because it helps them sell more food. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> what is it about that you find issue with, cause for the life of me i cant see any logical reason so have GMO foods labeled as such like


You are not using logic or reason. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> every other food product we can buy, as to its contents composition nutritional value and its origins or a very super simple GMO green check mark
> 
> GMO food deserve to be labeled as a part of responsible consumer advertising . . . id love to hear why you think otherwise, but im sure another yawn post is coming . . . . super classy


The main reason is because it is not logical to label it so. 
If you don't want it, buy organic.

Can you tell me why GMO fruits, vegetables and grains are not good for people to eat?
I have never heard of unhealthy fruits, vegetables and grains. 

Have you heard of Golden Rice?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

http://bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/gmo-poll-results-and-more/?_r=0

[h=1]"GMO Poll Results (and More)[/h] By MARK BITTMAN Clearly this is something I&#8217;ll be writing about for years to come; emotions are high and many pro-GMO people are *industry boosters in disguise.* Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but fake impartiality is obnoxious......."".......In short, in last week&#8217;s blog poll, about 83 percent of you are bothered by the presence of GMOs in food; 89 percent want to see labeling of such foods, and about 85% percent would like to see stricter regulations...."

and here is why you dont want it, as i assume since you wont talk about your real reason just personal views(aka you dont think it shoudl be labeled cause kosher food has no law to be labeled-GanjaW good fallacy but still not an excuse)

"The Facebook and Twitter polls were similar: between *82 and 85 percent of those responding would choose not to buy foods with GMOs if they were so labeled."*


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> ya not sure if thats an answer . . . . . not sure what thsi self rule thing is your going on about either
> 
> so GMO foods are so holly and god like they dont have to be labeled . . . .got it . . . have fun with your pizza as a vegetable . . . .makes just as much sense
> 
> ...


See, you label polls to be technically voting. And technically they are not. You are anti-con and proposing we go by mob rule.

And that is so you hippies can tamper the mob. DENIED.

Yeah, buy organic they don't have to label either.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> ya not sure if thats an answer . . . . . not sure what thsi self rule thing is your going on about either
> 
> so GMO foods are so holly and god like they dont have to be labeled . . . .got it . . . have fun with your pizza as a vegetable . . . .makes just as much sense


You are not arguing logically. It is weird. You would think that there would be a study that shows that GMO crops are not safe. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> got to love the pied piper
> 
> and technically the vote is still in my favor for GMO labeling, and no GMO weed here as well,, to bad WE dont get to vote on it . .WE hope our representatives act accordingly to those who vote them in . .but the all mghtly dollar sign sway his/her ethics and politics resumes as usual


You are not arguing logically.
Almost half of the country think marijuana should be illegal.
Should we post meaningless statistics now?

For what reason would you label a vegetable as GMO? 
How do you make a vegetable bad for you?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers said:


> Can you tell me why GMO fruits, vegetables and grains are not good for people to eat?
> I have never heard of unhealthy fruits, vegetables and grains.



can you tell me why they are, over existing fruit vegetables and grains . . . .???



infused vitamins were all teh rage in the 50's on . . .oh but are bodies only adsorb 10-18% of vitamins in that form(powder) .. but they sold em to us as the cure anyway . . .golden rice you say . . . the band-aid don't fix the stroke . .eat healthy and you dont need GE food monopolized by a singular company


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> See, you label polls to be technically voting. And technically they are not. You are anti-con and proposing we go by mob rule.
> 
> And that is so you hippies can tamper the mob. DENIED.
> 
> Yeah, buy organic they don't have to label either.


you believe, do what your told . . .and i believe in democracy(majority rule) . .its ok . . you dont have to hate me, and i aint a hippy . .. .

and agreed voting they are not, our representatives shoudl care and people shoudl care its not happening . . more then a poll .. but they dont . . . . not sure why i dont deserve an opinion . . .


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> can you tell me why they are, over existing fruit vegetables and grains . . . .???
> 
> 
> 
> infused vitimins were all teh rage in the 50's on . . .oh but are bodies only absord 10-18% of vitimins in that form(powder) .. but they sold em to us as the cure anyway . . .golden rice you say . . . the badnaid dont fix the stroke . .eat healthy and you dont need GE food monopolized by a singular company


There is no difference at all. GMO is not monopolized by one company, Sophie. Don't you get tired of lying to yourself?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

ok sorry a few companies . . .its not like i can go GMO my own foods . . . . i can grow my own though . . .

this splitting hairs thing is petty . . . . . maybe you all shoudl just go create your own Pro GMO thread and i can read what you have to say/think on the subject . . . . ..

im sure GMO has more to offer then beating up the status que(aka most polls stiull in favor of less GMO ,more restricted, then more, or unrestricted, GMO)


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> http://bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/gmo-poll-results-and-more/?_r=0
> 
> *"GMO Poll Results (and More)*
> 
> ...


I'm an industry booster in disguise?

I have not once given a fuck about food being labelled kosher in this thread (please provide quotes)

I was asking for food to be labelled if a Jewish*** person even looked in its general direction 


***Jewish Muslim Christian dribbling fucking idiot who cares I want it labeled


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> can you tell me why they are . . . .???


There a link posted in this thread numerous times that has 600 independently funded studies some dating back to the 1980s that show that GMO crops are safe. 

Now it is your turn. You tell me why vegetables, grains and fruits are not safe. 




Samwell Seed Well said:


> infused vitimins were all teh rage in the 50's on . . .


Some say cucumbers taste better pickled. 
Try to focus. 




Samwell Seed Well said:


> oh but are bodies only absord 10-18% of vitimins in that form(powder) .. but they sold em to us as the cure anyway . . .












Samwell Seed Well said:


> golden rice you say . . . the badnaid dont fix the stroke . .eat healthy and you dont need GE food monopolized by a singular company


You ignorance is pretty astounding. You do not understand what GMO means. 

Seriously, you do not understand what you are talking about.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

no . . .i want my food labeld stop trying to make me say things i dont intend or have not . .that is manipulative and directly intentionaly deceptive


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

People should not get lost in this hippy shit. All these false arguments are only one thing. It is the ranting of Luddites that intend to block progress.

The progress here, Sophie, is to get better and more consistent yield. THAT IS ALL. It is not making God-fruit or whatever else the baby minds can conjure.

It does work for more consistency, but this approach, so far, is a wash for yield. But, 85% of all corn is already GMO based on consistancy for the equipment and a steady predicable yield.

Don't listen to the stupid hippies.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> ok sorry a few companies . . .its not like i can go GMO my own foods . . . . i can grow my own though . . .
> 
> this splittign hairs thing is petty . . . . . maybe you all shoudl jus tgo create your own Pro GMO thread and i can read what you have to say . . . . ..



It is more than a few companies, or corporations. 
You should educate yourself about golden rice, then you would take back your douchey statement about "eating right."


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers said:


> There a link posted in this thread numerous times that has 600 independently funded studies some dating back to the 1980s that show that GMO crops are safe.
> 
> Now it is your turn. You tell me why vegetables, grains and fruits are not safe.
> 
> ...




ya infused vitamins aka powdered vitamins are not easily absorbed by your body as naturally occuring ones . . . . . .i cant make you learn

and ya that 600 studie4s study . . that keeps gettign not linked correctly . . . its somewhere . . . . 

not sure how you just proved yourself . . but . . please proceed to give yourself a high five for the effort


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> no . . .i want my food labeld stop trying to make me say things i dont intend or have not . .that is manipulative and directly intentionaly deceptive


Sammy Sophistry is appealing to emotion.
You will give me control of your brain. Resistance is futile. 
emotional appeals do not work on me. I am a robot, built by an evil corporation set on destroying the world. 

Could you show me something, anything that is a good reason to label foods as being GMO?

Again, if you do not want to eat GMO stuff, buy organic and shop at Whole Foods. 
Whole Foods has jumped on the GMO bandwagon and is happy to sell you very expensive non-GMO foods.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers said:


> It is more than a few companies, or corporations.
> You should educate yourself about golden rice, then you would take back your douchey statement about "eating right."


so you fix a bad socioeconomic conditions with golden rice . . . got it . . . ill have to remember that


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> no . . .i want my food labeld stop trying to make me say things i dont intend or have not . .that is manipulative and directly intentionaly deceptive


I am putting your words back on you. Unlike others I prefer dark mind influence to arguments you can't hear.

You have not address directly a single point I'm making.

You want labels of some kind, but what about labels that would have destroyed the Organic business still born.

*This juice contains not less that .001% animal feces. Any less in not possible.*

Is that what you want? You can't be honest with us yet, can you?

How many young and dumb vegans would drink that?

Hey sam, you are a smart guy I can tell. So listen to ole Doer who is only trying to help, not debate.

The thing is those same laws under self rule that protect the organic farmer are the same that protect all the farmers. And the same that protect the entire Industry.

The Farm Bill. The Farm Bill was specifically changed to block the very idea put forward by the OP.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers said:


> Sammy Sophistry is appealing to emotion.
> You will give me control of your brain. Resistance is futile.
> emotional appeals do not work on me. I am a robot, built by an evil corporation set on destroying the world.
> 
> ...


people deserve a right to knwo what they are eating . . . .pretty basic . . . .

do you have a good reason to not label foods as being GMO?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> I am putting your words back on you. Unlike other I prefer dark mind influence to arguments you can't hear.
> 
> You have not adress directly a single point I'm making.
> 
> ...


those labels are national standards . . .. . . how is that the same as . . this product contains GMO or this products is 10% juice

or natural additives or flavours . . .being labeled . . . . . .how is it any different

its not national standards to GMO food . . . . 


also let snot forget

a larger majority, like 80%+ in every poll wants it and it serves no purpose other then to inform people of what they are eating . . . .

not sure why you all are so obtuse


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

http://idc-america.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/One_Straw_Farming_Fukuoka.pdf

No need for chemicals, or fucking with our food if we learned how to do things properly. Plants, and the microbes in the soil that work symbiotically with them have found the best approach through millions of years of trial and error. Are we so egotistical as a species to believe that we know better?

The "progress" that companies like Monsanto lay claim to will be the death of this planet.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> ya infused vitamins aka powdered vitamins are not easily absorbed by your body as naturally occuring ones . . . . . .i cant make you learn


This has nothing to do with GMO. Try to focus. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> and ya that 600 studie4s study . . that keeps gettign not linked correctly . . . its somewhere . . . .
> 
> not sure how you just proved yourself . . but . . please proceed to give yourself a high five for the effort


You are terrible at the interwebs. How does the google work?





> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoiID3EuxBOYdExZSF9VQk1iR0pBXzlzaTFQYWp3SVE#gid=0





> http://www.biofortified.org/genera/guide/



Now it is your turn, again.


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so you fix a bad socioeconomic conditions with golden rice . . . got it . . . ill have to remember that


Go look in the mirror when you dump this shit. Golden rice to supplement an important vitamin that helps us think. Thinking better is what fixes.

Sophistry is to say the rice can't change the system.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

the issue for pro GMOers is that they are fighting two fronts . . . . .the never never never GMO crowd

and the 

ethical moral obligations GMO crowd

label your products . . . so teh consumer knows its called transparency 

and if their food is safe and cheaper then theirs no issue . . .fuck walmart is growing every year . . .cheaper products and more of em


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> Go look in the mirror when you dump this shit. Golden rice to supplement an important vitamin that helps us think. Thinking better is what fixes.
> 
> Sophistry is to say the rice can't change the system.


oh so all of a sudden we need golden rice is your prerogative now 

no one ever got by before without golden rice . . . .and you truly believe this . .that we will "think " better cause of golden rice(oh theirs that word agian) how about this it helps us think( totally subjective but ok it helps)

like i said earlier a band aid dont fix a stroke

ill break that down for you 

golden rice's innovation doesn't trump the unhealthy individuals responsibility to take care of them selves . . . . .and have proper nutrition

and in third world countries . . .golden rice and "thinking" help , wont fix the conditions and economy that contributed to the current socioeconomic issues at hand . . . a band aid dont fix a stroke . . .but please proceed with your god send golden rice


golden rice is going to help me spell


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> those labels are national standards . . .. . . how is that the same as . . this product contains GMO or this products is 10% juice
> 
> or natural additives or flavours . . .being labeled . . . . . .how is it any different
> 
> its not national standards to GMO food . . . .


Why label foods GMO? Do you thin they are harmful?
"Just wanting to know" is not a good reason. Why do you just want to know?





Samwell Seed Well said:


> also let snot forget
> 
> a larger majority, like 80%+ in every poll wants it and it serves no purpose other then to inform people of what they are eating . . . .
> 
> not sure why you all are so obtuse


You are like a child calling scientists dumb. It is weird. 
Can you find me those studies that show the harm of GMO vegetables, fruits and grains?

Why do you want them labled?


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> the issue for pro GMOers is that they are fighting two fronts . . . . .the never never never GMO crowd
> 
> and the
> 
> ...


Why label?
Do you believe that GMO vegetables, grains and fruits are harmful?




Samwell Seed Well said:


> and if their food is safe and cheaper then theirs no issue . . .fuck walmart is growing every year . . .cheaper products and more of em


Are you drunk?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers said:


> Why label foods GMO? Do you thin they are harmful?
> "Just wanting to know" is not a good reason. Why do you just want to know?
> 
> 
> ...


what i think doesn't matter . . about safety . . i dont think lack of evidence is evidence so that my thoughts on that


i want them labeled like every other product on the market . . .so consumers know what they are purchasing with their hard earned money

why is it you dont think they should be labeled?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers said:


> Why label?
> Do you believe that GMO vegetables, grains and fruits are harmful?
> 
> 
> ...


my opinion on safety is that , time will tell, i have doubts uncertainties like Doer said . . . .and i do not foolishly put stock in science that is new as , being unequivocally infallible . . . . . do you

and i dont feel that lack of evidence is evidecne

cigarettes were healthy

weed is still not medical federally . . .you can cling to your prescribed opinions all you want . .. i still choose to keep an open mind about it all


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers said:


> *Why label foods GMO? Do you thin they are harmful?
> "Just wanting to know" is not a good reason. Why do you just want to know?*
> 
> 
> ...



Why not?? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't know what it is we're eating? Just dump whatever these for-profit companies are selling down your yapper no questions asked?


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> oh so all of a sudden we need golden rice is your prerogative now
> 
> no one ever got by before without golden rice . . . .and you truly believe this . .that we will "think " better cause of golden rice(oh theirs that word agian) how about this it helps us think( totally subjective but ok it helps)


You are arguing against something you know very little about. 
Golden Rice can help lessen blindness caused by malnutrition.
It would indeed help those thta avoided blindness. 




Samwell Seed Well said:


> like i said earlier a band aid dont fix a stroke


Why do you hate children in poorer countries and want them to be blind?
The people behind Golden rice are powerless to change the politics, so they are trying to help children. 
Your comments are ignorant and a little offensive.



Samwell Seed Well said:


> ill break that down for you


You have offered nothing factual, so this will be more bullshit, I imagine. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> golden rice's innovation doesn't trump the unhealthy individuals responsibility to take care of them selves . . . . .and have proper nutrition


That is such a tremendously ignorant statement. You have entered into the 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> and in third world countries . . .golden rice and "thinking" help , wont fix the conditions and economy that contributed to the current socioeconomic issues at hand . . . a band aid dont fix a stroke . . .but please proceed with your god send golden rice


Have you come up with a good reason to label foods GMO?




Samwell Seed Well said:


> golden rice is going to help me spell


Or help you quit using sophistry instead of logic.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> people deserve a right to knwo what they are eating . . . .pretty basic . . . .
> 
> do you have a good reason to not label foods as being GMO?



How people can argue ^^THAT^^, is beyond me.

If Monsanto took a shit in a brown paper bag and told you that it was safe to eat, apparently there are some on this thread that would dig in.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> what i think doesn't matter . . about safety . . i dont think lack of evidence is evidence so that my thoughts on that


We have actual evidence that eating carrots can be unhealthy. Why don't we put warning lables on carrots?
Your thinking is not even reasonable, much less logical. 

Did you look at the 600 studies? That is evidence. 

There is not a lack of evidence. Just because you are ignorant does not mean there is a lack of evidence. 




Samwell Seed Well said:


> i want them labeled like every other product on the market . . .so consumers know what they are purchasing with their hard earned money


Hard earned money, lol. You sound like a politician.
There is no reason to label fruits, grains and vegetables as unhealthy when there is no evidence to support it. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> why is it you dont think they should be labeled?


I have explained it to you numerous times, as have others. It does not make sense. There is no reason to do so. 
Why do you think vegetables, fruits and grains are unhealthy?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers said:


> You are arguing against something you know very little about.
> Golden Rice can help lessen blindness caused by malnutrition.
> It would indeed help those thta avoided blindness.
> 
> ...


band aid cant fix a stroke, mal nutrition is caused by the conditions people live in . . . . . .not lack of golden rice . . .your fallacy is huge . . .careful yo might poke a eye out with that thing

ya i have, so people knwo what they are eating( now can you explain to me why that is unreasonable.........). . . .have you come up with a reason to not label . .yet . .. your clown party needs you back . . .someone posted a picture with no comedy in teh LOL thread


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> my opinion on safety is that , time will tell,


Read the studies. Some go back to the 1980s.




Samwell Seed Well said:


> i have doubts uncertainties like Doer said . . . .and i do not foolishly put stock in science that is new as , being unequivocally infallible . . . . . do you


I take stock in the best available evidence. You like rumors and blogs. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> and i dont feel that lack of evidence is evidecne


There is tons of evidence that you are ignoring willfully. It is weird, like a 5 year covering her ears and saying, "nah nah nah, I can't hear you."



Samwell Seed Well said:


> cigarettes were healthy


lol



Samwell Seed Well said:


> weed is still not medical federally . . .you can cling to your prescribed opinions all you want . .. i still choose to keep an open mind about it all


Ignoring the best available evidence is not keeping an open mind.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Why not?? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't know what it is we're eating? Just dump whatever these for-profit companies are selling down your yapper no questions asked?


Can you read?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

ok then well . .. .i guess everything every study finds true must be true . . .trousers said so . . . . .

science is never wrong-trousers . . . 


got it . . but not really . .

oh and the best one

lack of evidence is proof of no evidence - trousers


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers said:


> *We have actual evidence that eating carrots can be unhealthy. Why don't we put warning lables on carrots?*
> Your thinking is not even reasonable, much less logical.
> 
> Did you look at the 600 studies? That is evidence.
> ...



That's not up to the company. Most of us feel that eating McDonalds isn't healthy either, but it's not up to McDonalds to tell you that. What IS their responsibility is to tell you *what* it is you're eating ..... not whether it's healthy or not. That can be subjective.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> band aid cant fix a stroke, mal nutrition is caused by the conditions people live in . . . . .


So they should not be helped? It doesn't matter. You still haven't come up with a good reason to label fruits, grains and vegetables as unhealthy. 




Samwell Seed Well said:


> .not lack of golden rice . . .your fallacy is huge . . .careful yo might poke a eye out with that thing


Your ignorance is huge. It is a wonder you can feed yourself. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> ya i have, so people knwo what they are eating( now can you explain to me why that is unreasonable.........). . . .


Why is it unreasonable to label carrots as dangerous? If you eat too many you could have health problems.
Have you looked at the studies? Have you found anything that shows that GMO stuff is bad? 






Samwell Seed Well said:


> have you come up with a reason to not label . .yet . .. your clown party needs you back . . .someone posted a picture with no comedy in teh LOL thread


Is that English?

Do you want to call me names because you can not understand logic?


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers said:


> Can you read?


Can you? You have yet to lay out one good reason why consumers should not be made aware of what it is that they're eating. It's completely irrelevant whether you, Doer, or Monsanto feels that it's safe. 

If your city started dumping arsenic in to your water supply, should you be made aware of that or do roll through life with the ignorance-is-bliss approach to everything?


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> ok then well . .. .i guess everything every study finds true must be true . . .trousers said so


are you mad because you can not understand logic?



Samwell Seed Well said:


> science is never wrong-trousers . . .


You do not understand science, the scientific method, logic and reason.




Samwell Seed Well said:


> got it . . but not really . .
> 
> oh and the best one
> 
> lack of evidence is proof of no evidence - trousers


600 studies that you ignore is evidence. You have provided nothing but childish, incoherent insults. 
Go read the studies, that is the evidence you are asking for. 

Where is the evidence I am asking for?


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> That's not up to the company. Most of us feel that eating McDonalds isn't healthy either,


So you do not eat there. Problem solved. 





st0wandgrow said:


> but it's not up to McDonalds to tell you that. What IS their responsibility is to tell you *what* it is you're eating ..... not whether it's healthy or not. That can be subjective.


Pay attention, go back, check out the studies. I could show you 128 independently funded studies if you want.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

same logic as- if you don't like how it is where you live you should move . . no need to effect life 

aka 90% of America wants labeling of GMOs so you better just move trousers or get on board

show away . . . . . i like to read . . .and i like even more to try to objectivity see both sides

aka

progress is unavoidable GMO will be more prevalent in the future, so having stringent and technical regulations and ethical production and sales of products this includes lableing honestly


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Can you? You have yet to lay out one good reason why consumers should not be made aware of what it is that they're eating.


Then you haven't read and understood what is going on. I am not going to repeat myself for someone that just wanders in without context and starts spouting off about things that were just covered. 




st0wandgrow said:


> It's completely irrelevant whether you, Doer, or Monsanto feels that it's safe.


Exactly. But the best evidence we have says that GMO crops are perfectly safe.
can you tell me how a vegetable is made unsafe to consume?
Show me a study that backs up what ever reason you think GMO crops are not safe.



st0wandgrow said:


> If your city started dumping arsenic in to your water supply, should you be made aware of that


That is completely different. You are comparing arsenic with vegetables? there is arsenic in your tap water, btw. 



st0wandgrow said:


> or do roll through life with the ignorance-is-bliss approach to everything?


Read the studies boy, then talk shit.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> ok then well . .. .i guess everything every study finds true must be true . . .trousers said so . . . . .
> 
> science is never wrong-trousers . . .
> 
> ...


sweet Sheb Nigguroth

sammy, trousers is arguing that there has been *NO FINDING OF HARM* from GMO's, which is the standard science uses to determine whether a product is safe or not. 

even aspirin, when overused can result in harm,, but thus far nobody has been able to link GMO's to any harm whatsoever to people or animals (except of course those animals who are intended harm by the product.)

while he is arguing that thus far you have provided ZERO evidence for your demands of labeling and withdrawal from the market, you are demanding proof positive of harmlessness, which is an impossible standard. 

unless The Moving Finger comes down from Zion and inscribed *"Gmo's are pure natural and healthy"* on a stone tablet you will NEVER accept any evidence that does not fit your already accepted view that GMO's are harmful. 

the labeling flap is beyond bullshit since it would require entirely separate facilities to process GMO's and "Real" crops, ensuring that there WILL be failures, then you and the eco-nauts can scream about "contamination" based on the simple fact that segregation is required by law so there must be SOMETHING behind it...

until somebody comes up with ANY real proof that corn from traditional cultivars and GMO's are nutritionally different or that GMO's have ANY risk to people, labeling is just a weak ass attempt to create the illusion of harm where none has yet been found


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

still waiting for 128 independently funded studies

cool

his opinion is noted . . . .i dont agree lack of evidence is evidence, and yes even in face of studies . . . 


i demand labeling like any other product . .very simple and most of America agrees with me . . . i have yet to hear a valid reason to not label

the ins and outs of owning a business are not my concerns, it is theirs, i am a consumer, and like every other differentiating product on the market

their are reasons for regulations that require labeling, all varying but the end result is the same . . .so the consumer knows it is different then the other product

your blanket generalization" labeling is an illusion to infer harm"

is funny as hell comign from the guy who doesnt believe in multi cultural ism but thats another thread

labeling is so the consumer knows what they are buying . . .its not a one way tool . . .for advertising it has other intended uses like informing the consumer of its pedigree or its class . . . . Grade A Beef is no less harmfull then kobe but we all know one is preferred if it was a toss up choice, and obviously value and cost come into play . . . . . .nice fallacy please proceed


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> the issue for pro GMOers is that they are fighting two fronts . . . . .the never never never GMO crowd
> 
> and the
> 
> ...



Don't have to bow to the will of a tiny fraction?

You want it to be a fight but it is not.

See the farm bill of 2013. WE won in self rule.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> same logic as- if you don't like how it is where you live you should move . . no need to effect life


You do not understand logic, nor use it when engaged in a debate. It is weird. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> aka 90% of America wants labeling of GMOs so you better just move trousers or get on board


If 90% of Americans told you to jump into the Grand Canyon would you do it? (Please do it) 
What if 90% of Ameircans said we should eat your Grandma? Is she GMO?




Samwell Seed Well said:


> show away . . . . . i like to read . . .and i like even more to try to objectivity see both sides


lol, you are such a precious little liar. 


Why haven't you read the studies that show that GMO crops are safe?



Samwell Seed Well said:


> aka
> 
> progress is unavoidable GMO will be more prevelent in the future,


What is your point? GMO has been going on for thousands of years. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> so having strigint and trechnical regulations and ethical production and sales of products this includes lableing honestly


No it does not as there is no reason to label fruits, vegetables and grains as unhealthy when there is no evidence what so ever to back up that insane proposition. 

Read an article about the 600 studies then find me one study that shows that GMO crops are not safe to eat. 




Pretty please?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

still waiting for those 128 studies . . ..

one Orwellian move to another . . . . .apparently labeling is just to much . .for these companies who create new foods . . .

politicians says its cool . . . winning


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> still waiting for 128 independently funded studies
> 
> cool


They have been linked numerous times by myself and others. You can not be this obtuse.

cool





Samwell Seed Well said:


> his opinion is noted . . . .i dont agree lack of evidence is evidence, and yes even in face of studies . . .


Then read the studies, buy organic and stop being so dense. 








Samwell Seed Well said:


> i demand labeling like any other product . .


Based on nothing. I demand you stop being willfully ignorant.
I demand that cats and dogs get together harmoniously. 





Samwell Seed Well said:


> very simple and most of America agrees with me . . . i have yet to hear a valid reason to not label


Because you are too dumb to understand what is being discussed. It is fun and funny. 




Samwell Seed Well said:


> the ins and outs of owning a business are not my concerns, it is theirs, i am a consumer, and like every other differentiating product on the market


Carrots can be harmful to your health. Why don't we label them as such?
Why don't you want to do that when the best evidence says that GMO crops are perfectly safe?





Samwell Seed Well said:


> their (sic) are reasons for regulations that require labeling, all varying but the end result is the same . . .so the consumer knows it is different then the other product


Then why not label carrots as potentially unhealthy?


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> still waiting for 128 independently funded studies
> 
> cool
> 
> ...


Those studies are a part of the 600 studies you have been linked to. They are all there. 

Why no labeling? Because none of this has been met:

-If a bioengineered food is significantly different from its traditional counterpart such that the common or usual name no longer adequately describes the new food, the name must be changed to describe the difference.


-If an issue exists for the food or a constituent of the food regarding how the food is used or consequences of its use, a statement must be made on the label to describe the issue.


-If a bioengineered food has a significantly different nutritional property, its label must reflect the difference.


-If a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present based on the name of the food, the presence of that allergen must be disclosed on the label.

I will again post a source you will probably not read:

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm059098.htm


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Can you? You have yet to lay out one good reason why consumers should not be made aware of what it is that they're eating. It's completely irrelevant whether you, Doer, or Monsanto feels that it's safe.
> 
> If your city started dumping arsenic in to your water supply, should you be made aware of that or do roll through life with the ignorance-is-bliss approach to everything?


if you suddenly declared "Soft Winter" to be an forbidden cultivar of wheat, for whatever crazy ass reason you came up with, would flour millers, bakers, food processors and shops fell any burning need to acquiesce to your demands that "Soft Winter" wheat be removed from all their products, or labeled with big red warning stickers?

*FUCK NO!*

your "common sense" demand for labeling is a shabby attempt to create an illusion of danger, despite all the evidence that the danger is entirely in your mind. 

your local community almost certainly dumps sodium fluoride in your water, and despite this product being PROVED dangerous, and despite the fact sodium fluoride MUST BE LABELED during shipping with cute little warnings like POISON, Inhalation Hazard, Explosion Hazard...

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927595

but saying "fluoridation is bad" means im crazy and a Bircher. 

if im crazy for wanting sodium fluoride left out of my water, how motherfucking crazy do you have to be to demand that particular cultivars of corn be removed from your Doritos?


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> still waiting for those 128 studies . . ..


You should have a nice, hot cup of bleach while you are waiting.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers, you keep telling us that GMO food is "safe". You're missing the point. You can cite a million studies to the same effect, and it won't change a thing.

People should know what they are eating! Flour is "safe", but yet on the back of every product that contains flour it's listed as an ingredient. What is so different about genetically modified products?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

oh ok. .so the general consensus is . . do what your told . . . and obey any law no matter what . .got it . . .


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

how many of you own stock in bio tech firms?


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> if you suddenly declared "Soft Winter" to be an forbidden cultivar of wheat, for whatever crazy ass reason you came up with, would flour millers, bakers, food processors and shops fell any burning need to acquiesce to your demands that "Soft Winter" wheat be removed from all their products, or labeled with big red warning stickers?
> 
> *FUCK NO!*
> 
> ...


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 26, 2013)

No. It's to stop freaking out over something that's not there. To stop telling people lies and giving them misinformation.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Trousers, you keep telling us that GMO food is "safe". You're missing the point. You can cite a million studies to the same effect, and it won't change a thing.


Can you cite one (1) study that says they are unsafe?



st0wandgrow said:


> People should know what they are eating!


So we should label carrots as potentially unhealthy? Too much water can kill you. should we label drinking water?
You obviously do not understand why we label stuff. you should investigate that. There is a link on this page. 





st0wandgrow said:


> Flour is "safe",


You sure about that? Flour can cause huge problems if inhaled. It is highly flammable and explodes all the time. Yuo can see it on youtube. 




st0wandgrow said:


> but yet on the back of every product that contains flour it's listed as an ingredient. What is so different about genetically modified products?


If the flour is made from genetically engineered wheat, then you label it as "flour" because that is what it is.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> how many of you own stock in bio tech firms?


I own ZERO stock in any firm of any kind. I can just read and interpret scientific studies.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

"

your local community almost certainly dumps sodium fluoride in your water, and despite this product being PROVED dangerous, and despite the fact sodium fluoride MUST BE LABELED during shipping with cute little warnings like POISON, Inhalation Hazard, Explosion Hazard..."


And guess what, water reports are provided to me yearly, telling the levels of dissolved solids in my water. I read it, and chose to buy a RO unit. Problem solved! The same thing should apply to the food that I eat. If think GMO products are safe, then I will buy them. If I don't, then I won't buy them. But I should be made aware of it via labeling.​


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> You miss the point as well. I'm not here arguing whether or not GMO foods are "safe". I don't give a fuck what your thoughts, or any one else's are on the foods safety. I'm simply saying that consumers should be aware of exactly what it is that they are ingesting. Period. Then THEY can make a decision whether to buy it or not.


Check out the guidelines for labeling food. If you do not have a problem with GMO, then you are in the wrong thread. You should start a thread about changing the way the government mandates food labeling (to include crazy fantasies).



st0wandgrow said:


> To take issue with that is breathtakingly stupid.


Really? If you want this to devolve to name calling, I'll kick your butt at that as well. 




st0wandgrow said:


> Do you make a habit out of dumping random things down your throat without knowing what the fuck it is that you're eating?


Do you make a habit of blabbering about nothing?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Trousers, you keep telling us that GMO food is "safe". You're missing the point. You can cite a million studies to the same effect, and it won't change a thing.
> 
> People should know what they are eating! Flour is "safe", but yet on the back of every product that contains flour it's listed as an ingredient. What is so different about genetically modified products?


"flour is safe"

you probably think flour is made by grinding a big pile of wheat into a fine powder. 

do you know whats in flour? all the constituents, not just the wheat from multiple different cultivars? 

plain old all purpose flour like mommy used to bake with, is made form NOT JUST WHEAT, but also barley, talc, iron sulfate, ground up animal bones and potassium sulfate. 

whaaaaaaaaat? ground up animal bones? 

yep. ground up animal bones. 

there is no such thing as "vegetarian". 

"vegan" is just a self-delusion. 

you can NEVER know whats in anything you eat unless you have it analyzed in a lab. 

perhaps they should label everything found in a hot dog too. 

if you want to eat natural holistic Hourk 'n' Fiber Chunks, move to an amish community or retreat to the woods and start writing your manifesto. the rest of us arent interested in your demands.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> And guess what, water reports are provided to me yearly, telling the levels of dissolved solids in my water. I read it, and chose to buy a RO unit. Problem solved! The same thing should apply to the food that I eat. If think GMO products are safe, then I will buy them. If I don't, then I won't buy them. But I should be made aware of it via labeling.​


Buy organic and shop at Whole Foods. They are fully behind the GMO hysteria and will be happy to sell you non-GMO foods at an inflated price, of course. 

Problem solved!


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> how many of you own stock in bio tech firms?


How many of you actively use sophistry as a debate tactic?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> "
> 
> your local community almost certainly dumps sodium fluoride in your water, and despite this product being PROVED dangerous, and despite the fact sodium fluoride MUST BE LABELED during shipping with cute little warnings like POISON, Inhalation Hazard, Explosion Hazard..."
> 
> ...


"dissolved solids" doesnt tell you shit about sodium fluoride levels, and your precious RO device will NOT remove all the sodium fluoride, or even all the arsenic. 

the illusion of safety.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

LOL!! Trousers, I'll type this really slow for you .....

I'm not taking a position on the "safety" of GMO products. They may be 100% safe, and healthy, and nutritious, and yummy, and make your pecker grow 2 inches over night. That is not my issue.

My issue is with them balking at informing the end user of exactly what it is they are ingesting. Put it on the label, and let individuals make up their own mind. Is that too much to ask for? What specifically do you take issue with concerning that? If you were to buy a used car, would you not want to know all about it? Would you not want to know that it had been totaled, and re-built 2 years ago ..... or would you just accept the used car salesman telling you that it's safe?


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> "dissolved solids" doesnt tell you shit about sodium fluoride levels, and your precious RO device will NOT remove all the sodium fluoride, or even all the arsenic.
> 
> the illusion of safety.



The water analysis does indeed tell you parts per billion of sodium fluoride, along with disolved solids, chloramine, etc

And I never said my RO unit removes all of it. Quit putting words in my mouth.

Does being a know-it-all on a pot forum help with your farm hand inferiority complex?


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> LOL!! Trousers, I'll type this really slow for you .....


Listen boy. You are implying I do not understand what is going on. You do not understand why the labeling should not take place. It is because the current regulations do not require it. Go read why it is not required. If you do not like it, lobby your congressman. 



st0wandgrow said:


> I'm not taking a position on the "safety" of GMO products. They may be 100% safe, and healthy, and nutritious, and yummy, and make your pecker grow 2 inches over night. That is not my issue.
> 
> My issue is with *them* balking at informing the end user of exactly what it is they are ingesting.


Who is "them"?

Your uissue is with the government, your argument here is not relevant. 



st0wandgrow said:


> Put it on the label, and let individuals make up their own mind.



Lobby the government to change the regulations to force crazy stuff and stop whining about it here. 



st0wandgrow said:


> Is that too much to ask for?


Yes.
You have to change government regulations. How many times do I have to say it?




st0wandgrow said:


> What specifically do you take issue with concerning that?


I take issue with you implying that I am dumb when you have no idea what is going on. 




st0wandgrow said:


> If you were to buy a used car, would you not want to know all about it? Would you not want to know that it had been totaled, and re-built 2 years ago ..... or would you just accept the used car salesman telling you that it's safe?


Some say cucumbers taste better pickled.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> "
> 
> your local community almost certainly dumps sodium fluoride in your water, and despite this product being PROVED dangerous, and despite the fact sodium fluoride MUST BE LABELED during shipping with cute little warnings like POISON, Inhalation Hazard, Explosion Hazard..."
> 
> ...


buy 100% organic labeled foods. Problem solved.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> The water analysis does indeed tell you parts per billion of sodium fluoride, along with disolved solids, chloramine, etc
> 
> And I never said my RO unit removes all of it. Quit putting words in my mouth.
> 
> Does being a know-it-all on a pot forum help with your farm hand inferiority complex?


if in fact you receive a DETAILED ANALYSIS why did you claim it was just a report on "dissolved solids" 

does making deceptive comments and pretending ignorance so you can later declare how awesome you are on a pot forum help you forget about your microphallus? 

as usual you have decided to pretend that an analogy is beyond your comprehension, and seek to sidetrack the argument with picayune bitching over irrelevant details and pointless ad-hominems. 

you want everything labeled, but you couldnt even label your RO water as free of contamination by your standards and you admit such, yet we still have to have more motherfucking labels to satisfy your petulant demands. 

way to be a moron. 

NOTHING is safe, and you know this, NOTHING is pure and you know this too, yet you persist inn demanding more and more pointless labels knowing full well that the only purpose those labels would serve is to create the illusion of hazard. 

i guess we should assume that you have NO IDEA that your dumbass labels would be nothing but fearmongering, and would simply be translated in the minds of the moron populace from "GMO" to "POISON". 

yeah, you clearly dont know anything about deception, and clearly have no idea that "labeling" is just a shortcut for the clowns who know they cant get a ban on GMO's based on SCIENCE.

so ill close out in a manner you can understand, whether you're playing dumb or pretending intelligence: 

EAT A DICK.


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> LOL!! Trousers, I'll type this really slow for you .....
> 
> I'm not taking a position on the "safety" of GMO products. They may be 100% safe, and healthy, and nutritious, and yummy, and make your pecker grow 2 inches over night. That is not my issue.
> 
> My issue is with them balking at informing the end user of exactly what it is they are ingesting. Put it on the label, and let individuals make up their own mind. Is that too much to ask for? What specifically do you take issue with concerning that? If you were to buy a used car, would you not want to know all about it? Would you not want to know that it had been totaled, and re-built 2 years ago ..... or would you just accept the used car salesman telling you that it's safe?


Sort of like forcing a woman to have an Ultrasound before she can get an abortion


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> if in fact you receive a DETAILED ANALYSIS why did you claim it was just a report on "dissolved solids"
> 
> does making deceptive comments and pretending ignorance so you can later declare how awesome you are on a pot forum help you forget about your microphallus?
> 
> ...



LOL!! "picayune bitching"

What an impressive vocabulary, cowpoke.


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> LOL!! "picayune bitching"
> 
> What an impressive vocabulary, cowpoke.


Have to agree. The only reason you want labeling is to imply hazard, when there is none


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> if in fact you receive a DETAILED ANALYSIS why did you claim it was just a report on "dissolved solids"
> 
> does making deceptive comments and pretending ignorance so you can later declare how awesome you are on a pot forum help you forget about your microphallus?
> 
> ...


And take Franks picture down, your not worthy.


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> still waiting for those 128 studies . . ..
> 
> one Orwellian move to another . . . . .apparently labeling is just to much . .for these companies who create new foods . . .
> 
> politicians says its cool . . . winning


Only you say it is new food. WE looked at it and WE say it is not. It is the same. Self rule.


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> oh ok. .so the general consensus is . . do what your told . . . and obey any law no matter what . .got it . . .


You are free to dis-obey. That is not the subject. WE do have penalties if WE catch you.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

a ha the level of butthurt is impressive . . you even started your own thread for validation .....


----------



## echelon1k1 (Aug 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> Only you say it is new food. WE looked at it and WE say it is not. It is the same. Self rule.


Who's WE? the FDA?


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> a ha the level of butthurt is impressive . . you even started your own thread for validation .....


See now you are spinning into playground and exhibiting homophobia. You think you hurt my feeling or you think you reamed me?

Why do I need validation when this thread was actually closed as spam for a time today? I can move that all here if you like.

The thread was reopened, Sophie.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

does if hurt that bad . .wow . . .well you did it to yourself . . .. WE decided. Self rule.

it was down for less then 15 mIn . . .is your anus that starved for attention . .


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

echelon1k1 said:


> Who's WE? the FDA?


I'm sorry. Just an abbreviation, of course. WE the People. 

It is a little know fact that the election of a critter is just the beginning of understanding the will of voters.

Every member is contacted constantly by WE. I have been trying to find out a number that would say how many times per year per member do they get email? Or a handwritten fax. Just two avenues right?

I think this is what we don't understand about self rule. Vote and forget.

There are millions of people pestering these folks every day. That is the job. Money does not buy the votes. Votes are traded for votes and other considerations. What is the will? Very deadly to ignore it.

Money buys access in person. But, I pester them for free. Self rule is for that. Write your Congress. They need to hear it.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> a ha the level of butthurt is impressive . . you even started your own thread for validation .....


Were you able to unlock the secrets behind internet links?
Is that pesky scientific method still pissing you off?


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Sam has had a hard on for me for quite a while. I never understood why. 
Now he seems to be obsessed with Doer. 

The flightiness of youth I guess.


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Sorry, Charlie. Starkist has more taste.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> Have to agree. The only reason you want labeling is to imply hazard, when there is none


No. I want to know what's in my food. I also want to know if it's been genetically modified. Why not leave the decision making up to the individual? If you feel it's safe and have no issue with it, then dig in. If I choose not to eat a product because it's gmo, then what's the rub?

Also, you don't know that there is "no hazard". Thus far there is nothing conclusive to suggest that there is, but that's a pretty small sample size. This is the same company that assured us that agent orange was a safe defoliant, and decades later we have hundreds of thousands of fucked up vets that were exposed to it.


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> does if hurt that bad . .wow . . .well you did it to yourself . . .. WE decided. Self rule.
> 
> it was down for less then 15 mIn . . .is your anus that starved for attention . .


No but I would say you are afraid of being seen as gay.


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> No. I want to know what's in my food. I also want to know if it's been genetically modified. Why not leave the decision making up to the individual? If you feel it's safe and have no issue with it, then dig in. If I choose not to eat a product because it's gmo, then what's the rub?
> 
> Also, you don't know that there is "no hazard". Thus far there is nothing conclusive to suggest that there is, but that's a pretty small sample size. This is the same company that assured us that agent orange was a safe defoliant, and decades later we have hundreds of thousands of fucked up vets that were exposed to it.


What about mammal feces and hunta virus? There has never been shown any evidence that can't be transmitted into our food.


----------



## Sire Killem All (Aug 26, 2013)

jus pop in for this... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/japan-halts-some-u-s-wheat-imports-on-gene-altered-crops.html..... i say no to any GMO label it, shit i can even get any good ole' TRANS FAT anymore wtf.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> No. I want to know what's in my food. I also want to know if it's been genetically modified.


This has been covered and you still do not understand it. 
The government can not force labels that imply a hazard when there is no hazard. 
If you want to change that, call your congressman.
If you want to avoid GMO, buy organic and shop at Whole Foods.

Remember when you implied that I was dumb? that was pretty funny. 




COindy said:


> Why not leave the decision making up to the individual?


The government can not force labels that imply a hazard when none exists. 




COindy said:


> If you feel it's safe and have no issue with it, then dig in. If I choose not to eat a product because it's gmo, then what's the rub?


There is none. Why do you want to force labels that imply a hazard where none exists?
By your logic, we will have to mandate the labeling of a lot of things. One of them is carrots. Eat too many carrots and you can hurt your self. drink too much water and you could die. these are facts, not paranoid dreams.



COindy said:


> Also, you don't know that there is "no hazard".


Then prove there is a hazard. You also said you didn't care if they were healthy or not. 
Change your mind about that?



COindy said:


> Thus far there is nothing conclusive to suggest that there is, but that's a pretty small sample size.


Over 600 studies some dating back to the 1980s is a pretty good body of evidence.
Why didn't one of those studies find the problems GMO haters are imagining? 



COindy said:


> This is the same company that assured us that agent orange was a safe defoliant, and decades later we have hundreds of thousands of fucked up vets that were exposed to it.



That is completely irrelevant and a dumb appeal to emotion. 
You are arguing like a politician, avoiding reality. 


Monsanto does not have the market on GMO cornered. Check out Golden Rice and tell me what their motives are.


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers said:


> This has been covered and you still do not understand it.
> The government can not force labels that imply a hazard when there is no hazard.
> If you want to change that, call your congressman.
> If you want to avoid GMO, buy organic and shop at Whole Foods.
> ...


Yeah well
Vaccines cause Autism
I have junk science studies from the best aromatherapy and homeopaths to back up my assertion
Your 600 studies were all done by intellectual elites that were peer reviewed
Screw you and your bogus double blind studies


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> What about mammal feces and hunta virus? There has never been shown any evidence that can't be transmitted into our food.


Are the manufactures purposefully adding that to their product? No, they wouldn't be. So why on earth would they have to put that on the label? Give your head a shake.


----------



## Sire Killem All (Aug 26, 2013)

GMO jus cost Wheat farmers a shit ton of money..... i see a hazard.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers said:


> This has been covered and you still do not understand it.
> *The government can not force labels that imply a hazard when there is no hazard. *
> If you want to change that, call your congressman.
> If you want to avoid GMO, buy organic and shop at Whole Foods.
> ...



So does labeling a product as containing red dye #5 and wheat germ, imply a hazard? 

I'm not asking the government to force companies to label their GMO products with "CAUTION: this product may kill you". No, I'm suggesting that products that are, or use, gmo products should be labelled as such. Period.

Now, completely disregard what I just said and carry on with your nonsense.


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> So does labeling a product as containing red dye #5 and wheat germ, imply a hazard?
> 
> I'm not asking the government to force companies to label their GMO products with "CAUTION: this product may kill you". *No, I'm suggesting that products that are, or use, gmo products should be labelled as such.* Period.
> 
> Now, completely disregard what I just said and carry on with your nonsense.


if they arent hazardous why?
And nothimg is stopping a producer from adding the label
"GMO Free"

As a matter of Fact i am going to give you a million dollar idea for free

Come up with a simple logo for GMO free food
Promote your label to food producers who will pay you to use your logo
have a full time department flogging fear into the the general public with unsubstantiated faux science studies about the dangers of GMOs 

Profit!


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

does 10% juice . .mean its harmful . . . ., or 100% juice . . . lol

how about grade A and Kobe

or natural flavors or artificial flavors . . . . 

what about artificial sugars . . zero calories . . . . . .

oh man i hear ya though without common sense how could any know what all these labels mean . . . . .oh lordy 



your argument is as tired , let it rest from shadow boxing itself


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 26, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> *if they arent hazardous why?*
> And nothimg is stopping a producer from adding the label
> "GMO Free"
> 
> ...


Are you suggesting that everything a company is forced to include on their labels deals exclusively with how hazardous the product is? Eh? 

Bottle return rates=hazard?


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> does 10% juice . .mean its harmful . . . ., or 100% juice . . . lol
> 
> how about grade A and Kobe
> 
> ...


If it is labeled fruit juice but is in fact
10% fruit juice
90% high fructose corn syrup

Yes it can kill you if you are a diabetic


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 26, 2013)

so why 100% juice . . . .then . . .is that harmful too

how about grade a beef or USDA prime, choice or select

hose labels must also be a warning . . but what of i wonder???

the Duke strikes out again


----------



## Sire Killem All (Aug 26, 2013)

Trousers said:


> Over 600 studies some dating back to the 1980s is a pretty good body of evidence.
> Why didn't one of those studies find the problems GMO haters are imagining?


i love studies from the 1980's..... so conclusive......


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> So does labeling a product as containing red dye #5 and wheat germ, imply a hazard?
> I'm not asking the government to force companies to label their GMO products with "CAUTION: this product may kill you". No, I'm suggesting that products that are, or use, gmo products should be labelled as such. Period.


Where would you put this on an ear of corn? Are you going to stamp it in purple ink GMO?
You are still not making any sense. 

I do not make the rules and the rule you are suggesting is ridiculous. It would force the labeling of every thing.





st0wandgrow said:


> Now, completely disregard what I just said and carry on with your nonsense.


You're a towel.


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Are the manufactures purposefully adding that to their product? No, they wouldn't be. So why on earth would they have to put that on the label? Give your head a shake.


You just missed the entire point. Good job.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Sire Killem All said:


> i love studies from the 1980's..... so conclusive......


Run along and find some studies that show that GMO fruits, vegetables and grains are harmful.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so why 100% juice . . . .then . . .is that harmful too
> 
> how about grade a beef or USDA prime, choice or select
> 
> ...



Find anything yet? Maybe some anecdotal evidence of a GMO potato sexually assaulting a cow?


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2013)

I don't think that has ever been proven to be impossible by independent researchers and strict scrutiny over many decades. We never did prove we are indeed, 100% safe from that even ever happening. We cannot take the government's word on this. And pffftt. The FDA? I hear they are actually own by Satan incarnate. Yes. Monsanto.

In fact how can we prove we can every really be safe from such a horror?

I have it. A LABEL.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 26, 2013)




----------



## cannabineer (Aug 26, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> No. I want to know what's in my food. I also want to know if it's been genetically modified. Why not leave the decision making up to the individual? If you feel it's safe and have no issue with it, then dig in. If I choose not to eat a product because it's gmo, then what's the rub?
> 
> Also, you don't know that there is "no hazard". Thus far there is nothing conclusive to suggest that there is, but that's a pretty small sample size. This is the same company that assured us that agent orange was a safe defoliant, and decades later we have hundreds of thousands of fucked up vets that were exposed to it.


I will give you one reason why I am not enthusiastic about labeling for GM content.
Look at the studies Samwell posted. They show an overwhelming distaste by polled consumers against GM products of any stripe. Imo this is a consequence of a sustained campaign to impugn GM foods as Unnatural, and in today's socio-philosophical climate that is a damnation.

So I hold that requiring GM content to be labeled is an undeclared attempt to ruin GM as an economically viable proposition, while plausibly denying just that intention/objective.

I have seen zero credible evidence that GM food products are actually harmful. i HAVE seen flawed studies (like the Seralini or the hog feeding study) spun and respun and re-re-respun in the natural foods advocacy blogosphere as proof that GM is bad. Sadly, look at the precentages of polled people who uncritically buy the conclusion from a logically untenable set of bases and premises.

So while I am not saying GM is spotless, I am saying that (unlike tobacco, some pesticides etc.) GM's case is so far entirely emotional, based on the twin pillars of widespread aversion to the not completely natural (ignoring that modern nonGM bred/hybrid cultivars are no more natural) and spite for a company with a spotty safety/stewardship track record. To me it is a baby/bathwater problem. Don't picth the GM baby out with the corporate-greed bathwater, is my suggestion.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 27, 2013)

When a GMO product meets all the criteria I listed earlier, you will get a label. 

Curret GMO products meet none of those criteria.


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I will give you one reason why I am not enthusiastic about labeling for GM content.
> Look at the studies Samwell posted. They show an overwhelming distaste by polled consumers against GM products of any stripe. Imo this is a consequence of a sustained campaign to impugn GM foods as Unnatural, and in today's socio-philosophical climate that is a damnation.
> 
> So I hold that requiring GM content to be labeled is an undeclared attempt to ruin GM as an economically viable proposition, while plausibly denying just that intention/objective.
> ...


Nailed it...


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I will give you one reason why I am not enthusiastic about labeling for GM content.
> *Look at the studies Samwell posted. They show an overwhelming distaste by polled consumers against GM products of any stripe. *Imo this is a consequence of a sustained campaign to impugn GM foods as Unnatural, and in today's socio-philosophical climate that is a damnation.
> 
> So I hold that requiring GM content to be labeled is an undeclared attempt to ruin GM as an economically viable proposition, while plausibly denying just that intention/objective.
> ...


So, you're basically saying that people are too stupid to think for themselves, and do some research, and you and Monsanto know better. You would sooner keep people ignorant of what they're eating just in case genetically modified foods serve some greater purpose on the planet.

Whether people choose not to eat it for perceived health reasons, or because they feel that fucking with nature has unforeseen ramifications, they should have that choice. This is America. Monsanto is free to roll out an advertising campaign disproving the myths, and touting their genetics, telling us all how they are going to save the world and keep us healthy. They have deep pockets.


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I will give you one reason why I am not enthusiastic about labeling for GM content.
> Look at the studies Samwell posted. They show an overwhelming distaste by polled consumers against GM products of any stripe. Imo this is a consequence of a sustained campaign to impugn GM foods as Unnatural, and in today's socio-philosophical climate that is a damnation.
> 
> So I hold that requiring GM content to be labeled is an undeclared attempt to ruin GM as an economically viable proposition, while plausibly denying just that intention/objective.
> ...



This is ROBOCOP! You have 10 secs to return the White Bear. 9...8...7....whirrrrrrr....


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> So, you're basically saying that people are too stupid to think for themselves, and do some research, and you and Monsanto know better. You would sooner keep people ignorant of what they're eating just in case genetically modified foods serve some greater purpose on the planet.
> 
> Whether people choose not to eat it for perceived health reasons, or because they feel that fucking with nature has unforeseen ramifications, they should have that choice. This is America. Monsanto is free to roll out an advertising campaign disproving the myths, and touting their genetics, telling us all how they are going to save the world and keep us healthy. They have deep pockets.


Well, you have the same problem that many here do. Confused by the Anti-Con. You think you know what America is.

WE cannot and do not, and never have proceeded in this way. WE would have nothing. Life is an experiment. But, what you feel is religion when you try to force it. Maybe you don't see the consequences for the Entire Organic Business, but I do.

That is an experiment in large scale production. Anything you do to Monsanto about this, they can take it. But, if they want to turn on the Oraganix business, they can and they will.

*Whether people choose not to eat it for perceived health reasons, or because they feel that fucking with nature has unforeseen ramifications, they should have that choice. *


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> So, you're basically saying that people are too stupid to think for themselves, and do some research, and you and Monsanto know better. You would sooner keep people ignorant of what they're eating just in case genetically modified foods serve some greater purpose on the planet.


Yes people are that stupid. Take anti's like yourself, your perfectly capable of buying 100% organic food which can't contain GMO

Yet here you are crying that you don't know what's in your food



> Whether people choose not to eat it for perceived health reasons, or because they feel that fucking with nature has unforeseen ramifications, they should have that choice. This is America. Monsanto is free to roll out an advertising campaign disproving the myths, and touting their genetics, telling us all how they are going to save the world and keep us healthy. They have deep pockets.


100% organic what's stopping you from buying?


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> So, you're basically saying that people are too stupid to think for themselves, and do some research, and you and Monsanto know better. You would sooner keep people ignorant of what they're eating just in case genetically modified foods serve some greater purpose on the planet.
> 
> Whether people choose not to eat it for perceived health reasons, or because they feel that fucking with nature has unforeseen ramifications, they should have that choice. This is America. Monsanto is free to roll out an advertising campaign disproving the myths, and touting their genetics, telling us all how they are going to save the world and keep us healthy. They have deep pockets.


We are saying in self rule, no tiny minority that can jack polling phrases into fear and action can ever succeed. The system is not an instant voting *mob rule* as you want. This is no Democracy beyond the state level. Don't be confused. Read the manual. It is specifically designed to block* mob rule*.

It is so obvious in the Farm Bill. We elect and train decision makers. And those vote against and for each other. Citizen are constantly pestering and molding and threatening the jobs of the elected. And any issue can either jail him or elect him President one day.

So, in self rule we plainly see a few things. You don't, but our elected saw this clearly and voted against you.

1) the agenda of fear and panic of the Luddites.

2) the attempt to stop the 2013 planting season

3) the constant lying sophistry of those that, devil worship, Monsanto as pure evil

4) the totally un-scientific emotion tamper of the public

So, to protect us, WE the People, had our elected put para:756 or whatever in the Farm Bill.

This entire thread is mis-named. And look at the thread title and these 4 points and you should see what we mean.

You say it is wrong. WE say WE blocked you, in self rule. Tough luck for you. But we didn't have to hunt you down, like in Warlord, so there is that.

If you weren't a bunch of 1-4s above, you might get somewhere with some important issue. But, as it is you have written yourselves off with stupidity. FAIL. And that is what hurts. You have Sophia over there telling us it is such an overwhelming opposition we fight. 2 classes of opposition. All these polls. Micro-miniscule and LOUD. LOUD is nothing.

2013 Farm Bill. You lose.

The Hippies are the mind killer. The hippies are the Fear and nothing else.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 27, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Yes people are that stupid. Take anti's like yourself, *you're *perfectly capable of buying 100% organic food which can't contain GMO
> 
> Yet here you are crying that you don't know what's in your food
> 
> ...



Fixed that for you. Call others stupid, and then proceed to spell like a kid in third grade.

Eating an exclusively 100% organic diet is not feasible for everyone. It's cost prohibitive. 

Some people, myself included, are concerned about the ramifications of this from an environmental standpoint. Me buying organic products does little to address that.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> So, you're basically saying that people are too stupid to think for themselves, and do some research,


You have been told over and over and you still can not seem to grasp the concept.

You said you do not care about the health ramifications (I think you are lying about that and believe that vegetables will cause you to have butt tumors) you just want it labeled.

GMO crops, including *vegetables, fruits and grains *have not been shown to be unhealthy.
*Therefore the government can not compel anyone to label their products as containing GMO. *

I am sorry you are unable to grasp this simple point. I am embarrassed for you. 

Even if I agreed with your insane fantasy, I can not change the government's stance on food labeling. 
If you would like to try, go for it. There are much more important things to worry about when dealing with food, but if you want to fight a windmill, go for it. Again, for the 20th time, if the government mandated GMO be labeled, then they would have to label every vegetable as potentially dangerous. 




st0wandgrow said:


> and you and Monsanto know better.


Again, for the 20th time, monsanto does not have the market on GMO cornered. There are many companies that produce GMO seeds/crops some of them are nono-profits. 

I am amazed that you have been p[resented with such a large volume of factual information and all you do is cover your ears and say, "la la la I can't hear you."

How many times do you need to hear facts before they seem reasonable to you?




st0wandgrow said:


> You would sooner keep people ignorant of what they're eating just in case genetically modified foods serve some greater purpose on the planet.


You would have labels put on because their is a very slight chance that they are bad for you?
I thought you said you did not care about the potential health issues?

You are not arguing logically. 



st0wandgrow said:


> Whether people choose not to eat it for perceived health reasons,


The perception of GMO is the problem. The people behind the perception of GMO products are for the most part liars. 

You along with 80-90% of the country has been duped by idiots. 

You have been duped, you accepted a turd sandwich and are still chomping away on it, smiling. 




st0wandgrow said:


> or because they feel that fucking with nature has unforeseen ramifications, they should have that choice.


Yes, you have the choice to ignore science, but why mandate labeling for your brand of crazy?





st0wandgrow said:


> This is America.


You can not force companies to label a product for hazards that do not exist. 
If you do not like it, work to change it. 

As has been said 57 times, *you have the choice to buy organic food and shop at Whole Foods.* 



st0wandgrow said:


> Monsanto is free to roll out an advertising campaign disproving the myths, and touting their genetics, telling us all how they are going to save the world and keep us healthy. They have deep pockets.



Again, monsanto does not produce all the GMO stuff in the world. 


You are hopelessly ignorant about the subject and you refuse to see how flawed your argument is.


Maybe you will understand this time, lol?
*1. You do not have top buy GMO foods, no one does.
B. Buy organic and shop at Whole Foods.
3. Work for change. Make the government change their labeling rules. *


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

If you think banggout spilin had anytohg to do withi inteleict


----------



## Trousers (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Fixed that for you. Call others stupid, and then proceed to spell like a kid in third grade.


Yes, excellent point. You have forced me to re-examine my views on science and the scientific method. (Did you smell the sarcasm in that post?) 




st0wandgrow said:


> Eating an exclusively 100% organic diet is not feasible for everyone. It's cost prohibitive.


You should make more money then. 



st0wandgrow said:


> Some people, myself included, are concerned about the ramifications of this from an environmental standpoint.


Finally, he clarifies his insane opinion a little bit. 
If that is true, cotton should be labeled as bad for the environment.
There are many fruits and vegetables that are bad for the environment. 

Where do you think the fresh fruit comes from that you buy in the Winter?
It is flown in from the Southern hemisphere. that is not good for the environment. 

We would have to label every fruit and vegetable as such. your little GMO label would get lost in the shuffle. 




st0wandgrow said:


> Me buying organic products does little to address that.


That is your opinion. 

You really want it your way and you do not seem to care about the ramifications.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 27, 2013)

> cotton uses 2.5 percent of the world&#8217;s cultivated land yet uses 16 percent of the world&#8217;s insecticides&#8212;more than any other single major crop
> 
> Three of the most acutely hazardous insecticides, as determined by the World Health Organization, are well represented among the top 10 most commonly used in producing cotton.




Label it?..


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

Yes, yes. We can start a campaign of fear and get Haines to put the labels back on. So what if they irritate the neck?

*WARNING: Cotton uses 2.5 percent of the worlds cultivated land yet uses 16 percent of the worlds insecticidesmore than any other single major crop. *


----------



## Trousers (Aug 27, 2013)

Protect your anus from GMO carrots, zucchini and cucumbers.


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

Should be pretty each to grow those with that label spelled out in cellular structures.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 27, 2013)

Trousers, you keep repeating the same shit as if you've stumbled upon some revelation.

Yes, we get it. If you want something labelled, you need to lobby politicians to get it done. Fascinating info there captain-obvious.

My position remains, and as Doer has pointed out a good majority of people feel the same way. Maybe they should start hanging out on a pot forum 24/7 like you two and become enlightened.


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Trousers, you keep repeating the same shit as if you've stumbled upon some revelation.
> 
> Yes, we get it. If you want something labelled, you need to lobby politicians to get it done. Fascinating info there captain-obvious.
> 
> My position remains, and as Doer has pointed out a good majority of people feel the same way. Maybe they should start hanging out on a pot forum 24/7 like you two and become enlightened.


You mean a meager and ignorant MINORITY. Typo?

So, nice post count envy as well.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Trousers, you keep repeating the same shit as if you've stumbled upon some revelation.


You keep repeating the same shit as if it were logical at all. 



st0wandgrow said:


> Yes, we get it.


You sure? It doesn't seem like you do. If the government forced labeling like you want, that would open the door to the point each banana would come with a thumb drive full of labels and warnings. 




st0wandgrow said:


> If you want something labelled, you need to lobby politicians to get it done. Fascinating info there captain-obvious.


I don't think you understand the ramification of what you are proposing, Captain dubious. 



st0wandgrow said:


> My position remains,


Enjoy that hot mess.



st0wandgrow said:


> and as Doer has pointed out a good majority of people feel the same way.


So you are brainwashed, just like them. 
Sweet for you, enjoy being a slave to lies and junk science. 



st0wandgrow said:


> Maybe they should start hanging out on a pot forum 24/7 like you two and become enlightened.


Maybe you should make more money so you can afford organic foods. 
Perhaps you should look into a class at the adult learning annex on logic and critical thinking.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 27, 2013)

"*Maybe you should make more money so you can afford organic foods."



*
I do buy organic foods. Where have I said that I don't? Are you that butthurt over this that you've resorted to making stuff up about people's financial situations that you don't even know? Weak sauce, skippy. lol


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> So, you're basically saying that people are too stupid to think for themselves, and do some research, and you and Monsanto know better. You would sooner keep people ignorant of what they're eating just in case genetically modified foods serve some greater purpose on the planet.
> 
> Whether people choose not to eat it for perceived health reasons, or because they feel that fucking with nature has unforeseen ramifications, they should have that choice. This is America. Monsanto is free to roll out an advertising campaign disproving the myths, and touting their genetics, telling us all how they are going to save the world and keep us healthy. They have deep pockets.


In California we had a ballot initiative, Prop 35 if i remember correctly. It was nominally about limiting sexual predation, but if you looked under the surface it was a way to increase confiscation/forfeiture by and for police. It was written in such a way to provide no real protection to the nominal class of victims. It had the widest margin by far of Yes to No votes. (Six to one! when nothing else even rose to two to one in either direction.) So, speaking for my state alone, I do believe that the great majority of voters don't do their homework and simply go with the flow, which is very manipulable. The conclusion: public support does NOT always correlate with sound thinking, especially when we as a collective are so easily and cynically manipulated. 

Requiring "contains GMOs" labeling has one and only one objective: to tie into the mass perception of "unclean!" and torpedo GMOs as a viable commercial option, quite independent of what the facts may be.

Not labeling does not remove the choice. Requiring the labeling is an abdication imo. I is just another way to say "someone else do my homework; I'm bored." 

The red does not follow from the blue. That is using fallacy to manipulate the argument. You are enthusiastically, swing-that-scimitar on board with doctrinaires in this issue. The streets will flow with the blood of the unbelievers.


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

And if you look at the sexual predator maps....these persecuted individuals are EVERYWHERE. You never go off the list. And what can get you on that list is much more than you think. They live, I believe under a very bogus stigma that they can never reform. May as well be Jews, right? Wear a big patch of Shame?

But, we let these slap drunk drivers kill people before we do anything. The drunk killers most often have a long DUI rap sheet.

Where is my list of DUIs around here?

So, people were in a fake panic about this and it is useless, same as Prop 65. Same as Prop 8. So marking with Shame for later abuse got past the very few court challenges, if any.

Who will stick up for me after they have taken the Jews and kid lovers, the merchants and the artists?


----------



## Trousers (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> I do buy organic foods. Where have I said that I don't?



You have ignored every practical and logical answer to your questions and balked at purchasing organic foods. 





st0wandgrow said:


> Are you that butthurt over this that you've resorted to making stuff up about people's financial situations that you don't even know? Weak sauce, skippy. lol


I thought you were done repeating your silly opinions and moved on to name calling. 
Fine, let's get back to you making no sense and others trying to explain to you why your opinion doesn't make any sense. 









You can get carotenemia from eating too many carrots. 

Why don't we label carrots to warn people of the possible health risks?
Why would we label foods as GMO when no one can substantiate a risk?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 27, 2013)

labels are not only for risk or warnings . . derp derp . . . .this is too funny

and watching you two parrot each other with no substance to your words is even more entertaining ill come back tonight and check in on how the two stooges are bouncing back and forth off each others self proclamations of labels=risk vs information

i have never seen two people fight so hard to keep people intentionally uninformed . . very Obama of you both


----------



## Trousers (Aug 27, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> labels are not only for risk or warnings . . derp derp . . . .this is too funny
> 
> and watching you two parrot each other with no substance to your words is even more entertaining ill come back tonight and check in on how the two stooges are bouncing back and forth off each others self proclamations of labels=risk vs information
> 
> i have never seen two people fight so hard to keep people intentionally uninformed . . very Obama of you both


Sammy Sophistry, how's tricks Big Guy? Am I kicked out of your head now to make room for Doer, or do I still get to live there rent free?
Go lobby the government. I don't have the power to change their rules, but we can talk about how dumb your opinion about labeling is.

Shouldn't we have all the information available about each vegetable we buy? 
Thumb drives with every banana, spreadsheets for your mangoes...


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

Hey Trouser Trout, I'm glad you brought that up. 

Water overdose will kill you and it only takes about 8 gallons. DJ contest in Sacto, killed a woman.

And you know, Monsanto secretly owns all the water on the Planet...so....LABEL.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 27, 2013)

Cannabineer. I disagree with you on this, but you do make a compelling argument.

Trousers, you just don't get it, or you're being intentionally obtuse. Labels don't=health risks. They can, but not always. You are trying your damnedest to frame this a certain way, and in the process ignoring simple logic. Food manufacturers are required to list ingredients of their products on labels. Most of those ingredients are perfectly safe, but it's a requirement none the less. I don't view GMO products/ingredients any differently. It wouldn't require a special label, or a warning tag ..... just full disclosure that the soy contained in this product is derived from gmo crops. 

You act as though people wanting to know what's in their food is a ridiculous proposition. If I decide that red dye #5 is bad for me and my family, shouldn't I have the right to know what products contain it? Even if my fear is unfounded?

I have a healthy distrust of Corporate America, and our government which is in bed with them. I don't care what studies are trotted out by either group. People should have a right to know exactly what they are eating. For you to wish for anything less than that is mind boggling.


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

Thank you. You left me out. I like you too. 

But, there is nothing "in" this food.

And you are ignoring how the Organix business would never exist if the opposition got their way with Labels.

And I will recognize that you don't seem to be such a Luddite that you wish to kill the GMO industry.

But, guys like youse are few and far between seems to me.

So, GLY can understand the widely place fake here, as well as, the widely placed block.

Label is just a battleground for the attempt to stamp out GMO. You are simply inconvenienced if you really are GLY.

If you are not the few GLY, then shame on you for trying to block science with lies.

And for the Sophies, that think AOrange, a war material, or DDT, a European invention, has any similarity to this you are wrong and under educated on subject.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 27, 2013)

Doer, Trousers, Canabineer. Let me ask you a question:

What is your fear here? Let's assume that the feds acquiesce to the demands of people, and force companies to label GMO products. Let's further assume that due to this labeling mandate, people refuse to buy these products and companies like Monsanto go out of business. What is the downside? Will farming cease to exist? Will we no longer have soy, corn, wheat, etc?


----------



## Trousers (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Trousers, you just don't get it, or you're being intentionally obtuse.


You do not get it and you are being intentionally illogical. 
You do not understand the can or worms you would open by forcing products to be labeled as having GMO. Every thing would have to be labeled and not just for warnings. I am sorry you can not wrap your head around this concept. 



st0wandgrow said:


> Labels don't=health risks. They can, but not always.


When the majority of the public are misinformed about GMO, forcing companies to label GMO is the same thing as a warning label. It is very easy to avoid GMO vegetables, fruits and grains if you want to. 



st0wandgrow said:


> You are trying your damnedest to frame this a certain way,



No, I am making light of your illogical opinion. You are not arguing logically, So I do not really know how to counter except to make fun of you. 





st0wandgrow said:


> and in the process ignoring simple logic.


That is part of your problem, you do not understand what you are talking about.
if you were some how able to persuade the government to force labeling of GMO products, how would you write the new rule?
What is the reason behind it?

If your reason is that is because GMO may be potentially hazardous to the environment, then you are going to have to label other foods that are bad for the environment. 

Besides being a bad idea, it is impractical, unless you can clarify your stance.




st0wandgrow said:


> Food manufacturers are required to list ingredients of their products on labels.



GMO is not an ingredient.






st0wandgrow said:


> Most of those ingredients are perfectly safe, but it's a requirement none the less.


There is no requirement to source where the seeds come from or what the genetic make up is. 






st0wandgrow said:


> I don't view GMO products/ingredients any differently.


that is what you claim. 





st0wandgrow said:


> It wouldn't require a special label, or a warning tag ..... just full disclosure that the soy contained in this product is derived from gmo crops.


To do this a rule would have to be written. Could you tell me how this would be worded?



st0wandgrow said:


> You act as though people wanting to know what's in their food is a ridiculous proposition.


No, that is just you talking out of your ass again. 
I do not want vegetables, frutis and grains to be labeled for something that the general public would view as a hazard, when there is no hazard. 

I also would not like all the unnecessary labeling that such a rule would require. 




st0wandgrow said:


> If I decide that red dye #5 is bad for me and my family, shouldn't I have the right to know what products contain it? Even if my fear is unfounded?


Red dye is not the same as fruit, vegetables and grains. There is a specific rule that says it must be included in the ingredients. I think you have a lot of unfounded fears. 




st0wandgrow said:


> I have a healthy distrust of Corporate America,


Says the guy who is typing on a machine made by a corporation, sitting in clothes probably purchased from a corporation that were made by a corporation...

Do you distrust 501(c)(3) corporations?




st0wandgrow said:


> and our government which is in bed with them.


Good for you. This is irrelevant. 
Did you look at the 600 studies?



st0wandgrow said:


> I don't care what studies are trotted out by either group.


You do not care that there is not one study that shows GMO fruits, vegetables and grains are bad, while there are 600 studies that say GMO crops are perfectly safe?

That is your hot mess. 

You talk about limiting information to the general public, yet you do not care about the best evidence that is available. 
You are a hypocrite. 




st0wandgrow said:


> People should have a right to know exactly what they are eating.


They have the choice to buy organic if they wish to avoid GMO crops. 




st0wandgrow said:


> For you to wish for anything less than that is mind boggling.


Your mind is easily boggled, go take a nap. 


You want people to have a tiny bit of bad information and you do not care about the best information that is available.


It is really hard to argue with someone that is so illogical. 


Could you rewrite the labeling procedure?
Can't wait to see it.


Here is the FDA guidelines on food labeling:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm2006828.htm

I have many issues related to it, but they involve facts, not junk science based fear.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Doer, Trousers, Canabineer. Let me ask you a question:
> 
> What is your fear here?


I fear labeling foods based on fear based junk science. I fear people like you and your willingness to ignore the best evidence available instead of bullshit lies. 

I fear you and the fact that you are allowed to vote. 




st0wandgrow said:


> Let's assume that the feds acquiesce to the demands of people, and force companies to label GMO products. Let's further assume that due to this labeling mandate, people refuse to buy these products and companies like Monsanto go out of business. What is the downside? Will farming cease to exist? Will we no longer have soy, corn, wheat, etc?


That is a lot of assuming. Rewrite the food labeling rules that the FDA has come up with and I will let you know what I think. 
It is cute how you still cling to the notion about Monsanto having the GMO market to themselves.

Is forcing a corporation out of business because of lies really fair? Is that how you operate? Using lies and deception to get what you want? People say that evil corporations do that. 

You can talk all you want about how evil monsanto is, but using evil to destroy them is evil.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 27, 2013)

Trousers said:


> I fear labeling foods based on fear based junk science. I fear people like you and your willingness to ignore the best evidence available instead of bullshit lies.
> 
> I fear you and the fact that you are allowed to vote.
> 
> ...


*

"I fear labeling foods based on fear based junk science. I fear people like you and your willingness to ignore the best evidence available instead of bullshit lies."*

So, you have nothing. No rational reason to take the position that you have. You just like to hear yourself blather.

I'll tell you what I fear. A world full of farmers that have abandoned sustainable practices for the easy approach of planting magic seeds and spraying the fuck out of them with harmful chemicals thereby killing the fertility of the soil and contaminating water supplies .... and all of the ramifications that come with that. I'm sure you dump all sorts of shit on your marijuana plants too. Check out the One Straw Revolution pdf I posted a few pages back. You might learn something.

*"I fear you and the fact that you are allowed to vote."*

Yes, we know. You're the only one with a clue from your endless hours of bickering on a weed forum. 
*
"It is cute how you still cling to the notion about Monsanto having the GMO market to themselves."*

I didn't say that. I said "companies like Monsanto". Learn to read. If you weren't so busy running your mouth your reading comprehension might be a bit better.
*
"Is forcing a corporation out of business because of lies really fair? Is that how you operate? Using lies and deception to get what you want? People say that evil corporations do that."*

What lies? If a product is genetically modified, is labeling it as such a lie? Again, I'm not suggesting that GMO's are unsafe. People are free to come to their own conclusion on that, and Monsanto et al are free to market their product as safe, backed up what ever data they can provide. What's the rub?

Once again, you bring little to the discussion. You've repeated the same nonsense a dozen times, and all you've accomplished is clarifying that your are an opinionated half-wit. I bet you have the same stunned look on your face as that kid in your avatar.


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Doer, Trousers, Canabineer. Let me ask you a question:
> 
> What is your fear here? Let's assume that the feds acquiesce to the demands of people, and force companies to label GMO products. Let's further assume that due to this labeling mandate, people refuse to buy these products and companies like Monsanto go out of business. What is the downside? Will farming cease to exist? Will we no longer have soy, corn, wheat, etc?


It seems a reasonable question. But, it isn't. It assumes again you have anything like enough Citizens to force the fed's acquiesce to the demands of people.

That is pure sophistry. The demands of the people in these United States blocked it, blocked you, and blocked all labeling pleas, etc.

OTOH, let's say you did have enough people convinced, even in the lack of evidence and by fear, it would mean the end of GMO in self rule. The Luddites blocked progress with fear.

OTOF, let's say some real science did emerge. Well then, WE the Peps will stop GMO in this country like we did DDT and CFC and any other bit of alphabet soup in the list.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 27, 2013)

Doer said:


> It seems a reasonable question. But, it isn't. It assumes again you have anything like enough Citizens to force the fed's acquiesce to the demands of people.
> 
> That is pure sophistry. The demands of the people in these United States blocked it, blocked you, and blocked all labeling pleas, etc.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I appreciate the response, but I guess what I was getting at is what do you feel the potential negatives of not having GMO products on our shelves would be? Do you have a position on that, or are you neutral?

Are there any substantiated down sides to GMO's going the way of the dinosaur?


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 27, 2013)

Increased pesticide and herbicide use. Less food. More expensive food. More deaths due to hunger in other countries.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 27, 2013)

(IMO) For the industry in general 'labeling' merely serves as a diversionary negotiations/debate tool (diverting from discussions on patenting life etc and the possible repercussions of messing with equations when you dont know all the numbers etc(genetic sequencing and its domino fall out)) and ultimately serves as a delaying tactic...by the time the 'labeling debate' is through we will have become far to dependent on genetically engineered crops to afford any discussion pertaining to the more critically relevant issues at stake...(imo)


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 27, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> (IMO) For the industry in general 'labeling' merely serves as a diversionary negotiations/debate tool (diverting from discussions on patenting life etc and the possible repercussions of messing with equations when you dont know all the numbers etc(genetic sequencing and its domino fall out)) and ultimately serves as a delaying tactic...by the time the 'labeling debate' is through we will have become far to dependent on genetically engineered crops to afford any discussion pertaining to the more critically relevant issues at stake...(imo)


Which is what?
Because nothing you say is relevant or critical
Sell your snake oil someplace else


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 27, 2013)

lol...looked in a mirror lately sweathog?


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 27, 2013)




----------



## Trousers (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> So, you have nothing. No rational reason to take the position that you have. You just like to hear yourself blather.


You are being illogical and as noted before, using sophistry.
You are not attacking my ideas or the reality of the situation.

You admitted to not caring about the best information available, but you want people to be given a tiny bit of bad information? 
I offer links and explanations and you say I have nothing. 

Have you read the labeling guidelines yet? 
How would you write the new GMO rule?




st0wandgrow said:


> I'll tell you what I fear. A world full of farmers that have abandoned sustainable practices for the easy approach of planting magic seeds and spraying the fuck out of them with harmful chemicals thereby killing the fertility of the soil and contaminating water supplies .... and all of the ramifications that come with that.


This is not really on topic. Sustainable practices were widely abandoned long before monsanto existed. You are just rambling now. 




st0wandgrow said:


> I'm sure you dump all sorts of shit on your marijuana plants too.


You must enjoy being wrong, you are very good at it. I grow soil organic and only feed with homemade teas, brah. 



st0wandgrow said:


> Check out the One Straw Revolution pdf I posted a few pages back. You might learn something.


I have forgotten more about farming than you will ever know. What is your point?



st0wandgrow said:


> Yes, we know. You're the only one with a clue from your endless hours of bickering on a weed forum.


Yawn, personal attacks. Is that the best you can do? 




st0wandgrow said:


> I didn't say that. I said "companies like Monsanto". Learn to read. If you weren't so busy running your mouth your reading comprehension might be a bit better.


I think you can do better than that. I can. 
*
*


st0wandgrow said:


> What lies?


Really? They are everywhere. 

How about GMO causes cancer?
http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/gmo-safety-zmgz13amzsto.aspx#axzz2dCoZYWCp







You can go to the Natural News if you want to read a bunch of lies. 
There are lies like this everywhere. Most people, you included, do not really understand what GMO actually means. Most people think that GMO vegetables, fruits and grains are bad for you based on propaganda and lies. 

Labeling foods GMO would be a negative warning label, based on propaganda, lies and misinformation.





st0wandgrow said:


> If a product is genetically modified, is labeling it as such a lie?


It implies a hazard where none exists. We've been through this. 




st0wandgrow said:


> Again, I'm not suggesting that GMO's are unsafe.



Then why do they need to be labeled?
There are foods that are unsafe and not labeled. Why not worry about those foods?
We've been through this. 




st0wandgrow said:


> People are free to come to their own conclusion on that,


The general public is dangerously misinformed. Mob rule should not prevail over reason. 
You still have not come up with a practical way to insert the rule in the FDA labeling regulations. 




st0wandgrow said:


> and Monsanto et al are free to market their product as safe, backed up what ever data they can provide. What's the rub?


We've been through this. 





st0wandgrow said:


> Once again, you bring little to the discussion.



You bring sophistry. you change the subject and go off on tangents. You ignore the best available information.





st0wandgrow said:


> You've repeated the same nonsense a dozen times, and all you've accomplished is clarifying that your are an opinionated half-wit. I bet you have the same stunned look on your face as that kid in your avatar.


You act like a child and you argue like one.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 27, 2013)

soph·ist·ry
&#712;säf&#601;str&#275;/
_noun_
noun: *sophistry*
*1*. 
the use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving.


Products that contain GM foods shouldnt be labeled as such, labels only purpose is to infer warning 


some labels on packaging are their as a warning( like: this product was processed in a factory that also process peanuts beware of possible cross contamination)

so that means all labels are a warning to infer possible harm or risk

Informal fallacy^


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 27, 2013)

Trousers
Just ended the thread


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Fair enough. I appreciate the response, but I guess what I was getting at is what do you feel the potential negatives of not having GMO products on our shelves would be? Do you have a position on that, or are you neutral?
> 
> Are there any substantiated down sides to GMO's going the way of the dinosaur?


As far as I and many have looked, and I am a professional reader of peer review, there is no established downside, at all. And that is all the way back to the dinosaurs in fact.

We know now, from blood extracted from insects in amber, virus was busy with GM since then and presumably before.

So, the negative is not slightly lower yield, per se. If the US planting season was shut down by Court injunction based on fear alone, 85% of the corn crop would not be planted and a similar amount of soya, cotton, wheat, etc would not be grown. 85%.

So, that *had* to be written into the Farm Bill, sadly to protect the farmers. Yet, hippy lawyers cynically made $$ millions opposing it as the Monsanto Protection Act. The Farmer's Protection and WE were not fooled.

It does not make it any less shameful or make Sophia, over there, any less culpable in attempting to rip off the American Farmer.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 27, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> soph·ist·ry
> &#712;säf&#601;str&#275;/
> _noun_
> noun: *sophistry*
> ...








ChesusRice said:


> Trousers
> Just ended the thread


huh self proclaimed as usual


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 27, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> huh self proclaimed as usual


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 27, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> soph·ist·ry
> &#712;säf&#601;str&#275;/
> _noun_
> noun: *sophistry*
> ...



yall can keep mis using all teh words you like . .and try to dis credit without substance all you like

i have no doubt GMO will be a label i could care less if they stop GMing food . . . .just like i quit eating at fast food places a long time ago . . i dont boycott them and i dont tell you to . . . .but if they tried to package Mc D's in my local deli as ready made deli food . . .id def have something to say about it . .so cry all you want my moral objective is sound . . yall got nothing when it comes to reasons . . just excuses baseless personal attacks . . .as usual ...if you cant come up with a idea or point attack those who oppose you with slang and deceptive wording . . . like sophistry that keeps being tossed around by mini me and the parrot 

to funny you dont even have a grasp of English language you use . . .


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> (IMO) For the industry in general 'labeling' merely serves as a diversionary negotiations/debate tool (diverting from discussions on patenting life etc and the possible repercussions of messing with *equations when you dont know all* the numbers etc(genetic sequencing and its *domino fall out*)) and ultimately serves as a delaying tactic...by the time the 'labeling debate' is through we will have become far to dependent on genetically engineered crops to afford any discussion pertaining to the more *critically relevant issues at stake*...(imo)


No. Backwards. It is not the way this works in self rule so you must construct this fantasy. Such a sad Sophie. You can't know all about okra or anything else. 

And there is no domino blah blah. Nice fail. You can't speak about this without lying thru your teeth for your Luddite agenda.

There are not any critical relevant issues at stake and that is your problem you big fat liar.


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 27, 2013)

Ever seen the movie contagion


Alan Krumwiede (Jude Law), a conspiracy theorist, posts videos about the disease, and in one of them appears sick and later claims that he recovered using a homeopathic cure derived from forsythia. People attempting to obtain forsythia overwhelm pharmacies, accelerating the contagion as infected and healthy people congregate. Krumwiede leaps to national attention and, during a television interview, accuses Dr. Cheever of informing friends and family to leave Chicago before a quarantine is imposed. It is later revealed Krumwiede was never sick with the virus, but was attempting to boost demand on behalf of investors in the companies producing and distributing the homeopathic treatment. He is arrested for conspiracy and fraud, but is soon released after his 12 million blog readers collect and pay his bail.


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> yall can keep mis using all teh words you like . .and try to dis credit without substance all you like
> 
> i have no doubt GMO will be a label i could care less if they stop GMing food . . . .just like i quit eating at fast food places a long time ago . . i dont boycott them and i dont tell you to . . . .but if they tried to package Mc D's in my local deli as ready made deli food . . .id def have something to say about it . .so cry all you want my moral objective is sound . . yall got nothing when it comes to reasons . . just excuses baseless personal attacks . . .as usual ...if you cant come up with a idea or point attack those who oppose you with slang and deceptive wording . . . like sophistry that keeps being tossed around by mini me and the parrot
> 
> to funny you dont even have a grasp of English language you use . . .


So foolish in that you are engaging in false argument even now. An in-capability? Fix it? You are attacking us to imply that we are hurt and cry or have anus pain or what ever your repressions lead you to. All false. You have a moral objective? So fucking what?

That is the point.


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> Ever seen the movie contagion
> 
> 
> Alan Krumwiede (Jude Law), a conspiracy theorist, posts videos about the disease, and in one of them appears sick and later claims that he recovered using a homeopathic cure derived from forsythia. People attempting to obtain forsythia overwhelm pharmacies, accelerating the contagion as infected and healthy people congregate. Krumwiede leaps to national attention and, during a television interview, accuses Dr. Cheever of informing friends and family to leave Chicago before a quarantine is imposed. It is later revealed Krumwiede was never sick with the virus, but was attempting to boost demand on behalf of investors in the companies producing and distributing the homeopathic treatment. He is arrested for conspiracy and fraud, but is soon released after his 12 million blog readers collect and pay his bail.


I did see that. And snake oil is as old as hills. Yeah, this is a crazy system that can be taken advantage of. And that why we don't depend on no law breaking. What about a GM snake that exudes canola oil? We hit the burgeoning gold regions of Developing world with real Snake oil.. make a fortune and move on.  It's coming.

Wasn't that the one where the punks took over Edinburgh? I don't want to spoil it.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 27, 2013)

*soph·ist·ry
&#712;säf&#601;str&#275;/
noun
noun: sophistry
1. 
the use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving.


Products that contain GM foods shouldnt be labeled as such, labels only purpose is to infer warning 


some labels on packaging are their as a warning( like: this product was processed in a factory that also process peanuts beware of possible cross contamination)

so that means all labels are a warning to infer possible harm or risk

Informal fallacy^*


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 27, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> *soph·ist·ry
> &#712;säf&#601;str&#275;/
> noun
> noun: sophistry
> ...


You are correct sir
Some labels confer beneficial information
Like nutrional value and calories
So how is GMO foods different nutritionally than non GMO foods?
if there is not difference why would you have to Label the foods as GMO?


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

So you are playing like girl. I see. HA HA HAHA HA. Is that it, Sophie? Incapable of proposing a position because all you have is false argument. So you repeat yourself. 

Go to all CAPS and cry?


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 27, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> Ever seen the movie contagion
> 
> 
> Alan Krumwiede (Jude Law), a conspiracy theorist, posts videos about the disease, and in one of them appears sick and later claims that he recovered using a homeopathic cure derived from forsythia. People attempting to obtain forsythia overwhelm pharmacies, accelerating the contagion as infected and healthy people congregate. Krumwiede leaps to national attention and, during a television interview, accuses Dr. Cheever of informing friends and family to leave Chicago before a quarantine is imposed. It is later revealed Krumwiede was never sick with the virus, but was attempting to boost demand on behalf of investors in the companies producing and distributing the homeopathic treatment. He is arrested for conspiracy and fraud, but is soon released after his 12 million blog readers collect and pay his bail.


That wasnt a movie, its very similar what the drug companies do every single day.


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> That wasnt a movie, its very similar what the drug companies do every single day.


Well, really? Good topic. Give me an example. I'll go first. Thalidomide. Your turn.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 27, 2013)

got nothing to say with substance so you ad hominen . . . . .

my argument stands . .you got nothing as usual

labeling so consumers know what they are purchasing . . .. pretty basic . . . .

go back to your validation thread and bitch about labels being anti-con . . .thats was funny

but tbh i love to see you post, your ironic and dubious command of the English language is quite amusing, and then to see parrot magee doing the same was priceless

sophistry . . lol . .whats the saying cant see the forest for the trees. . . . .


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 27, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *Arrogant GMO promoter Professor Bruce Chassy embarasses himself at major Food Scientist's Institute *
> 
> Tuesday, August 27, 2013 by: Lance Devon
> 
> ...


REported as spam


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 27, 2013)

and tbh this GMO act spam doesnt help . .but it does do a good job and red flagging the crazies . . . traps in their own facades(that goes both ways OP)


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 27, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> You are correct sir
> Some labels confer beneficial information
> Like nutrional value and calories
> So how is GMO foods different nutritionally than non GMO foods?
> if there is not difference why would you have to Label the foods as GMO?


labels tell us info like calories and nutritional values, GMO foods have been shown to have similar in not the same nutritional values as non GMO, therefore GMO doesn't need to be labeled to differential between the two

formal fallacy^


their is no reasonable reason anyone of you can come up with to not label GMO products . . .as such...GMO


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 27, 2013)

*NaturalNews.com* (formerly *Newstarget*) is a website founded by *Mike "the Health Ranger" Adams*. The site promotes almost every sort of medical woo known, though it specializes in vaccine denialism,[SUP][1][/SUP] AIDS/HIV denial,[SUP][2][/SUP] quack cancer medicine[SUP][3][/SUP] and conspiracy theories about modern medicine.[SUP][4][/SUP] Even other quacks think it's a quack site.[SUP][5][/SUP] The site has recently expanded its outlook to become an outlet for extreme environmentalism and conspiracy theorizing about Obama and gun control.
If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong.

Health beliefs
Adams is a flat-out opponent[SUP][6][/SUP] of modern medicine and opposes any medication[SUP][7][/SUP] or doctor visits.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] Adams calls himself a "holistic nutritionist"[SUP][10][/SUP] and is a raw food proponent[SUP][11][/SUP] who opposes food that contains sugar,[SUP][12][/SUP] food that was cooked[SUP][13][/SUP] or made to last,[SUP][14][/SUP] "red" meat,[SUP][15][/SUP] sweeteners,[SUP][16][/SUP] glutamate,[SUP][17][/SUP] homogenized milk,[SUP][18][/SUP] bread,[SUP][19][/SUP] "white" flour,[SUP][20][/SUP] washing powder,[SUP][21][/SUP] deodorants,[SUP][22][/SUP] shampoo[SUP][23][/SUP] and fluoride.[SUP][24][/SUP]
A recurring theme is the contrast between the site's exacting criticism of evidence-based medicine and its unquestioning acceptance of the appeal to nature, New Age and alternative medicine.[SUP][25][/SUP] This often involves rejection of the scientific method's application to medicine as "inherently flawed",[SUP][26][/SUP] repudiating the entire philosophy of modern medicine post-Pasteur.[SUP][27][/SUP] Adams is a firm germ theory denialist.[SUP][28][/SUP][SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP] Adams also conflates evidence-based medicine in general, the failings of Big Pharma and the US health insurance system: to him, it's all a monolithic entity called "mainstream medicine".[SUP][31][/SUP] The site blames the pharmaceutical industry for all vaguely drug-linked celebrity deaths rather than looking at any surrounding factors.[SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP][SUP][34][/SUP][SUP][35][/SUP]
The response to any alternative medicine claim, however, is blind acceptance, whether the topic at hand is homeopathy,[SUP][36][/SUP] chiropractic,[SUP][37][/SUP] dental woo,[SUP][38][/SUP] aspartame scares,[SUP][39][/SUP] vitamin woo,[SUP][40][/SUP] anti-vaccination panic[SUP][41][/SUP][SUP][42][/SUP] or detox diets.[SUP][43][/SUP]
[h=2][edit] Medical conspiracy theories[/h]NaturalNews also features many Big Pharma conspiracy theories.[SUP][44][/SUP][SUP][45][/SUP] There is no depth Big Pharma will not sink to, no lie too big for them to tell, in order to poison American citizens and cover up their "junk science."[SUP][46][/SUP] Adams claims that the &#8220;pharmaceutical industry&#8221; is creating HIV vaccines with the _sole purpose_ of creating as many &#8220;HIV positive people&#8221; as possible to sell anti-retroviral drugs to at a huge profit.[SUP][47][/SUP] Mammographic screening creates cancer, which is then expensively treated for big profit.[SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][50][/SUP][SUP][51][/SUP] He considers that chemotherapy warrants criminal prosecution.[SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP][SUP][54][/SUP]
There's also usually a front page article about how some loophole in an obscure new law or regulation will enable alternative medicine or natural supplements to *be banned forever!*
More recent conspiracy theories claim that Bill Gates and Microsoft are in the process of developing weaponized, ethnically-targeted influenza viruses as part of a sinister eugenics plot.[SUP][55][/SUP] Adams also manages to misinterpret attempts to develop reversible forms of male contraceptives as deliberate attempts to permanently sterilize minorities.[SUP][56][/SUP]
His reaction to Angelina Jolie's preventive double mastectomy due to having the BRCA1 gene mutation was predictable; the quoted 87% probability that she would come down with breast cancer was irrelevant, since diet and lifestyle changes can magically suppress BRCA1 expression. And of course, _oncologists_ are cast as the quacks here, not fine upstanding people like Adams.[SUP][57][/SUP][SUP][58][/SUP]
[h=2][edit] Non-medical conspiracy theories[/h]Adams' love for woo isn't restricted to medicine. Cold fusion and so-called free energy ideas and devices like the Energy Catalyzer are presented on his website with the same enthusiasm as the latest alternative medicine fad.[SUP][59][/SUP][SUP][60][/SUP] He collects news about chemtrails.[SUP][61][/SUP] He is a 9/11 truther[SUP][62][/SUP], birther,[SUP][63][/SUP] and pretty much everything else-er. And a Sandy Hook denialist.[SUP][64][/SUP] He considers Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, and David Icke to be "REAL heroes"[SUP][65][/SUP] and Icke[SUP][66][/SUP] and whale.to[SUP][67][/SUP] to be reliable sources. Naturally, he supports Ron Paul and "health freedom",[SUP][68][/SUP] despite simultaneously supporting health care reform and Cuba's health care system. [SUP][69][/SUP]
He thinks Scientology (of which he is an ex-member) is treated unfairly.[SUP][70][/SUP][SUP][71][/SUP][SUP][72][/SUP] According to Adams, this is due to attempts by anti-religious bigots and (you guessed it) Big Pharma to oppress their belief system in order to protect their profits. 
Adams has also issued his informed opinion of the 2012 Aurora, Colorado "Batman" shootings, declaring that they were "obviously" staged, or perhaps that the killer, James Holmes, was involved in "experimental" neuroscience that got out of hand.[SUP][73][/SUP] Furthermore, also the 2013 attacks on the Boston marathon is reported to be a false flag operation by "private military contractors".[SUP][74][/SUP]
Also, "conventional physics" is a conspiracy of the same sort as conventional medicine.[SUP][75][/SUP]
[h=2][edit] 2013 predictions[/h]At the end of 2012, Adams put up a list of 20 "dark" predictions about 2013, which he believes to be "1984 on steroids". Watch out, because if Adams is right (and that's a big _if_, considering his predictions for 2012[SUP][76][/SUP]), the following were predicted to happen:[SUP][77][/SUP]


 Global economic collapse: "When record-low tax revenues are reported in April because of Obama's planned destruction of the U.S. economy, ratings organizations will downgrade U.S. debt, setting off a global selloff that could thrust America into a "nightmare" scenario of being unable to sell more debt"
 "Obama administration attempts to gut the Second Amendment".
 "Martial Law declared across America"
 "Extreme shortages of guns, ammo, magazines as their barter value skyrockets"
 "Tactical weapon strikes target Iran"
 "Massive false flag attack carried out in USA and blamed on patriots"
 "DHS arms the TSA and begins insane abuses of Americans on roadway checkpoints"
 "Secret resistance groups begin to form across America" (which will be easy to verify, given that secret groups are usually well-documented, right?)
 "Attacks on the First Amendment accelerate as government seizes websites" (at least, the government will shut down NaturalNews and Alex Jones' Infowars site, apparently)
 "The rise of violent rhetoric among the population as disagreements turn to threats"
 "Global government makes its move" &#8211; "Expect to see UN troops in U.S. cities before the end of 2015. The planned rollout of conflict in the USA is going to be followed by UN troops arriving on the scene to "rescue" the USA."
 "Accelerated mainstream media attacks on patriots, preppers and veterans" &#8211; because self-declared patriots are all peaceful people.
 "Disagreement with the government characterized a "mental disorder""
 "Continued rise in unemployment, food stamps, welfare as Obama accelerates deliberate destruction of U.S. economy"
 "Criminalization of preparedness activities as government outlaws ammo storage of private citizens"
 "Riots in the streets, followed by Martial Law"
 "Deliberate food shortages used as a weapon of government control"
 "Weather becomes even more radicalized, with droughts, floods, freezes"
 "Solar weather gets nasty: Solar flares threaten communications"
 "You will be told the answer to all our problems is "MORE government!""


Twitter silliness In 2010, Adams was in the running for the Shorty Awards, basically a popularity contest for Twitter users. He had the most votes in the health category, and his fellow lunatic Joseph Mercola was closely behind. Skeptics decided to vote up Rachel Dunlop, a skeptic and doctor based in Australia.[SUP][82][/SUP][SUP][83][/SUP]
Eventually, Dunlop got to the top of the health charts. Adams and Mercola threw an Internet shit-fit and went vote-canvassing. Hundreds of their supporters turned up and set up new accounts to vote. Those votes were promptly disqualified as only _existing_ accounts were allowed to vote. Adams was briefly put back into pole position, but then was disqualified after the fraudulent votes were removed. He got really angry about this.
Shortly thereafter, Adams childishly posted a list of all the terrible things he believes that skeptics believe on NaturalNews, including:

*&#8220;**&#8221;*Skeptics believe that many six-month-old infants need antidepressant drugs. In fact, they believe that people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs all at the same time: Antidepressants, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping drugs and more -- simultaneously!

Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections are vaccines


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 27, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> labels tell us info like calories and nutritional values, GMO foods have been shown to have similar in not the same nutritional values as non GMO, therefore GMO doesn't need to be labeled to differential between the two
> 
> formal fallacy^
> 
> ...


Should we start labeling greenhouse grown vegtables and farm grown vegtables as well?


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> got nothing to say with substance so you ad hominen . . . . .
> 
> my argument stands . .you got nothing as usual
> 
> ...


Hey, that's cool. But, I can highlight your outrageous false argument and I do. You say, the equivalence of na nany boo boo, you do it to.

Like a little kid. Regressed. So, go ahead. Let us discuss this. What specifically are the words I use, you claim is sophistry?

Man up.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 27, 2013)

my personal opinion of lack of evidence is not evidence(also a fallacy) is absent to the fact that labeling has no intention other then to inform

go ahead an back peddle all you want now . . .and source and cite all the opinion pieces and post i made.

my opinion that labeling for consumers is so WE are able to make a informed decision on what *exactly* WE are purchasing

your attempt to connect one argument that cannot be proven to another argument that is sound is a fallacy as well 

you should change your name to Doer of facades

cause thats all your act has
[video=youtube;WPuuloP8Zao]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPuuloP8Zao[/video]


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

No backing of your claims of sophistry. Fine. See. I do not indulge, thank you very much. It cheapens ones approach.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 27, 2013)

Doer said:


> No backing of your claims of sophistry. Fine. See. I do not indulge, thank you very much. It cheapens ones approach.


cant you read . .to funny man . . . .next!

*soph·ist·ry
&#712;säf&#601;str&#275;/
noun
noun: sophistry
1. 
the use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving.


*Products that contain GM foods *shouldnt be labeled *as such, *labels only purpose is to infer warning (Doers argument all day)*


some labels on packaging are their as a warning( like: this product was processed in a factory that also process peanuts beware of possible cross contamination)

so that means all labels are a warning to infer possible harm or risk*

Informal fallacy^*or a fallacious argument


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 27, 2013)

How so?



ChesusRice said:


> REported as spam


reported as Custer logic...


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2013)

Quote me. You cannot. You are soft sophie and won't own up. I point it out, word for word. And foolishly you are tap dancing even now.

Is this the second verse, same as the first?


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 27, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> Should we start labeling greenhouse grown vegtables and farm grown vegtables as well?


also reported as Custer logic


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 27, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> Doer, Trousers, Canabineer. Let me ask you a question:
> 
> What is your fear here? Let's assume that the feds acquiesce to the demands of people, and force companies to label GMO products. Let's further assume that due to this labeling mandate, people refuse to buy these products and companies like Monsanto go out of business. What is the downside? Will farming cease to exist? Will we no longer have soy, corn, wheat, etc?


If I may reposition "fear" as "distaste" ...
the idea that the majority is always right. I view that with profound distaste. 
GM crops/stock are not synonymous with Monsanto, despite that firm's deep involvement with them. To me it's a baby/bathwater problem.

And I salute you for disagreeing politely.


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 28, 2013)

Addendum to the question "what would be the consequence"

At this time, not much that could be discerned or demonstrated.

If i may indulge in an extended metaphor however ... GM is an enabling technology in its infancy imo.
Like the jet engine in 1943, or the four-stroke internal combustion engine in 1895.
From each historical perspective, there could be no way to really show the effect of stifling either technology.
But imagine a world without cars or airplanes, both of which needed the four-stroke engune.
And imagine a world served by slow prop aircraft, killing the tourism and air transport boom of the last half century.
These things could not be imagined in a world where a steam-driven Zeppelin is the cutting-edge hawtness. 

So we really need time to develop GM into the enabling technology i have faith it will become. We have the power to kill it dead now with the labeling requirement, world opinion being what it is. But I suggest we may be killing the next Green Revolution. Greedy companies like Monsanto don't last; they get soft or are otherwise rendered obsolete. But the enabling tech remains and might just free up enough human potential for the next act of glory, be it real access to space or an unprecedented bid for world harmony. To me, THESE are the stakes of the game, and Luddism is invariably the loser's gambit. Jmo.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 28, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> If I may reposition "fear" as "distaste" ...
> the idea that the majority is always right. I view that with profound distaste.
> *GM crops/stock are not synonymous with Monsanto*, despite that firm's deep involvement with them. *To me it's a baby/bathwater problem.
> 
> And I salute you for disagreeing politely*.


spots where we agree...would of given a rep star but was denied


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 28, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Addendum to the question "what would be the consequence"
> 
> At this time, not much that could be discerned or demonstrated.
> 
> ...


There in lays my concern. This technology is in it's infancy.

Despite the studies that have suggested no harmful side effects, I feel that it's too new to really know. Just as it's too new for me to write it off, it's too new to assume that there won't be any unforeseen (by some) negative consequences to this technology. With that in mind, I feel that it's reasonable to label products as having genetically modified ingredients. 

I see your point though, and it is a fair one.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Aug 28, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Increased pesticide and herbicide use. Less food. More expensive food. More deaths due to hunger in other countries.


*"Increased pesticide and herbicide use."*

How so? I think it's just the opposite. Sustainable farming practices encourages the use of organic fertilizers and pesticides. GMO seeds are "Round-Up ready", meaning that farmers can spray the shit out of the plant with pesticides and the plants are the only thing that survive. Insects, both detrimental and beneficial are nuked, along with every other type of plant/weed and the trillions of beneficial microorganisms in the soil.
*
" Less food. More expensive food." *

Maybe, maybe not. You don't know that to be true.


*"More deaths due to hunger in other countries."*

Again, you don't know that to be true. Are there less deaths due to hunger right now with the use of GMO crops? I would argue that there are many other more relevant factors to why certain countries have a shortage of food.


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 28, 2013)

The Nuking of insects bothers me. I remember a lot more of them when I was a kid


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 28, 2013)

You dumb fucks still don't understand the difference between a herbicide and a pesticide...


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 28, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> *"Increased pesticide and herbicide use."*
> 
> How so? I think it's just the opposite. Sustainable farming practices encourages the use of organic fertilizers and pesticides. GMO seeds are "Round-Up ready", meaning that farmers can spray the shit out of the plant with pesticides and the plants are the only thing that survive. Insects, both detrimental and beneficial are nuked, along with every other type of plant/weed and the trillions of beneficial microorganisms in the soil.
> *
> ...


You can't feed everyone growing organically. 

More people + no GMO crops = less food. Less food means higher prices. Means some people will starve. 

We can only feed all we do now because of GMO. 

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/need-GMOs.html

Check out that study. It's fairly decent and explains it better than I.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 28, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Addendum to the question "what would be the consequence"
> 
> At this time, not much that could be discerned or demonstrated.
> 
> ...


I like and agree with what you are saying with one caveat:

GMO has been going on for 30 years now. Not much of an infant anymore.


----------



## Doer (Aug 28, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Addendum to the question "what would be the consequence"
> 
> At this time, not much that could be discerned or demonstrated.
> 
> ...


Since we both love the word play and you will usually do me the favor.....

You mean hautness, don't you? Like Haughty?

To even more extend to train travel. Back then, the panic and the Luddite horror at the time was that you could not breath if you were going 40 mph.

And there were some folks using these same emotion tampering techniques that managed to convince a serious number of decision makers that this was the case. And in fact, that like the Organix business, there was a hidden agenda from the opposition.

The horse and buggy Magnates had real reasons to oppose it, so that did. The Organix industry has a real reasons to oppose it and they have a lot dirty tricks and dirty lawyers these days. But, we have our elected and the experts in the Depts (that are sneered at and pooped upon by these dirty lawyers,) and the Congressional staffs.

The loud tyranny of these fakers and charlatans belies the fact that they are a micro-minority.

So, can a train take everyone's breath away? No. Could it take someones? That was never proven. We cannot conduct science by trying to prove something can never happen.

I also want to thank sd0 for promoting good, calm discussion and study of this subject.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 28, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> yall can keep mis using all teh words you like . .and try to dis credit without substance all you like
> 
> i have no doubt GMO will be a label i could care less if they stop GMing food . . . .just like i quit eating at fast food places a long time ago . . i dont boycott them and i dont tell you to . . . .but if they tried to package Mc D's in my local deli as ready made deli food . . .id def have something to say about it . .so cry all you want my moral objective is sound . . yall got nothing when it comes to reasons . . just excuses baseless personal attacks . . .as usual ...if you cant come up with a idea or point attack those who oppose you with slang and deceptive wording . . . like sophistry that keeps being tossed around by mini me and the parrot
> 
> *to funny you dont even have a grasp of English language you use * . . .


Seriously?

You are like a child, avoiding logic and attacking the person instead of the instead of the idea. 
You haven't offered anything of substance.

You do not understand the labeling rules the FDA uses nor the repercussions of such a stupid rule. 

Then you come along use the "I'm rubber you are glue" argument. 





Samwell Seed Well said:


> got nothing to say with substance so you ad hominen . . . . .


I'm rubber you're glue?




Samwell Seed Well said:


> got nothing to say with substance so you ad hominen . . . . .
> 
> my argument stands . .you got nothing as usual


You keep saying that but you haven't argued anything. 





Samwell Seed Well said:


> labeling so consumers know what they are purchasing . . .. pretty basic . . . .


According to the rules the FDA has set, mandatory labeling for GMO would not work. It is not rational or reasonable.
Keep saying the same crap over and over and it is still crap. 




Samwell Seed Well said:


> go back to your validation thread and bitch about labels being anti-con . . .thats was funny


Learn how to spell and use ellipses properly, escpecially when you accuse someone of not knowing english very well, lol. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> but tbh i love to see you post, your ironic and dubious command of the English language is quite amusing, and then to see parrot magee doing the same was priceless


lol

Learn how to spell. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> sophistry . . lol . .whats the saying cant see the forest for the trees. . . . .



You are still saying nothing and attacking people instead of ideas like a child. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> my personal opinion of lack of evidence is not evidence(also a fallacy) is absent to the fact that labeling has no intention other then to inform


lol

Is that English?

You are still adding nothing. you want to label vegetables. It is weird. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> go ahead an back peddle all you want now . . .and source and cite all the opinion pieces and post i made.
> 
> my opinion that labeling for consumers is so WE are able to make a informed decision on what *exactly* WE are purchasing



You can avoid GMO by buying organic foods. GMO is not an ingredient. Go yell at the government, they will laugh at you too. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> your attempt to connect one argument that cannot be proven to another argument that is sound is a fallacy as well
> 
> you should change your name to Doer of facades



Puff your chest out some more and keep on avoiding logic. 
You are a part of a flock of misinformed sheep. Keep eating your turd sandwich and thinking it is GMO free, organic, free trade.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 28, 2013)

st0wandgrow said:


> There in lays my concern. This technology is in it's infancy.


No it isn't. Genetic engineering has been going on since before the dawn of written history. 
The type of GMO that terrifies you has been around since 1983. 
GMO crops have been studied since then. Why haven't we found a problem yet?




st0wandgrow said:


> Despite the studies that have suggested no harmful side effects, I feel that it's too new to really know.


You feel that?
That is not a logical argument. 
It has been around for over 30 years. 
When is it going to be long enough for you to feel, lol, better about it?

How many more studies do you need?




st0wandgrow said:


> Just as it's too new for me to write it off, it's too new to assume that there won't be any unforeseen (by some) negative consequences to this technology.



30 years is too new for you?
600+ studies not enough for you?




st0wandgrow said:


> With that in mind, I feel that it's reasonable to label products as having genetically modified ingredients.



I disagree, it is not reasonable, rational or plausible.


----------



## Doer (Aug 28, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> I like and agree with what you are saying with one caveat:
> 
> GMO has been going on for 30 years now. Not much of an infant anymore.


It has been going on for millions of years without our help. Now we direct these same virus instead of only depending on other GM techniques, like making Mules.

The infancy Bear means I think is not GM food. GMing everything directly instead of wait on hit and miss virus that can kill the entire host species as well as modding them.

We have been GMed from beginning. And now we are doing it purposely within the Method, and we are building on all those experiences with DDT and Thalidomide, etc. We don't wait for random viral change we make it happen. You know for a fact this Maize will develop it's own resistance to these insects and these will develop resistance to that. And that is nature. We are nature and Luddite is a fantasy WE will never allow.

And WE won't let panic out in Label about this harmlessness. It is the same as irradiated food. And the Luddites have the same objections though it cuts salmonella poisoning to Zero. They still have the same non-science about it. It is belief and moral objective and is therefore useless.

What we are doing here is methodical science so we don't go back. WE don't keep re-inventing the wheel.

Science only has one purpose. Don't make the same mistakes again and again. Pass down actual knowledge and grow the understanding of how to do that.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 28, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> You can't feed everyone growing organically.
> 
> More people + no GMO crops = less food. Less food means higher prices. Means some people will starve.
> 
> ...





Good read. It is funny how people hate logical answers in the face of disturbing their paradigm.


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 28, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> I like and agree with what you are saying with one caveat:
> 
> GMO has been going on for 30 years now. Not much of an infant anymore.


 I concede that point. However i have the somewhat unformed and subjective feeling that since genetic engineering is much more complex in concept and execution than those other enabling technologies i mentioned, I consider it justifiable to ascribe to it ... a longer development/milestone timeline than is appropriate to the previous examples of heavy-industry techs.

<add> Doer, what i mean is enzyme-driven _in vitro_ gene splicing (and reintroducing the chosen DNA sequences to target germ lines by direct manipulation) as opposed to selective breeding.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 28, 2013)

dont argue here without a strong fallacy . . . .

modern or neo influences on technology has nothing on what is or was considered known . . .. . . . world is flat . .. . .and so on
science never changes . . .

lack of evidence is evidence . .. . say the fallacious duo . . .


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 28, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> dont argue here without a strong fallacy . . . .
> 
> modern or neo influences on technology has nothing on what is or was considered known . . .. . . . world is flat . .. . .and so on
> science never changes . . .
> ...


Did I run afoul of this? Could I ask you to elaborate?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 28, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Did I run afoul of this? Could I ask you to elaborate?


read back on trout and long DOnE's quest to discredit at any cost even to their own argument . . all on the cuffs of the word sophistry

im convinced (and if that was their intentoin . .checkmate) they both own stock in bio firms . . 



Possible GMO labels on products are not ok, because labels infer warning or risk-trouters/DOnERS

and this is thier srguemnt . . .GM foods will exist . . .i would like to knwo which is what

thier sophistry is pathetic and parroted so . . its funny to see Doer/trouters still in here trying to claim some sort of status . . other then liar for cause


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 28, 2013)

proceed . . . .


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 28, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> read back on trout and long DOnE's quest to discredit at any cost even to their own argument . . all on the cuffs of the word sophistry
> 
> im convinced (and if that was their intentoin . .checkmate) they both own stock in bio firms . .
> 
> ...


My argument is distinct, but it is also an argument against mandatory labeling. While it doesn't follow by a first-order application of reason, I hold that in simple human terms labeling for GM content _does _infer a warning or statement of risk. Fairly andor rationally? No. But if you look at the overwhelmingly negative public opinion you showed us in an earlier post _in re_ GM, it is a damnation, and a plausibly deniable one to boot. "All we're asking is labeling." Combine those contexts, and seeking mandatory labeling becomes ... effective intent to kill GM as a commercial option. Eighty to ninety-plus per cent of consumers will read it as "don't buy this stuff!", and the labeling advocates are aware of and counting on that. My opinion.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 28, 2013)

Id be down with labeling , along side of re education . . . if the general public needs to learn, what positive choices GMO is . .im 100% down with . .. that campaing

dispel with certainty the myths . .

but just like 100% juice and 10% jiucie

id like to know


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 29, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> Id be down with labeling , along side of re education . . . if the general public needs to learn, what positive choices GMO is . .im 100% down with . .. that campaing
> 
> dispel with certainty the myths . .
> 
> ...


We have labelling here, does fuck all. 

"Modified corn" or "modified soya" written on the ingredients isn't even noticed, the whole No-GM thing was cool for about 6 months, now noone cares.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 29, 2013)

mules are sterile . .sounds like it worked . . .


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 29, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> We have labelling here, does fuck all.
> 
> "Modified corn" or "modified soya" written on the ingredients isn't even noticed, the whole No-GM thing was cool for about 6 months, now noone cares.


perfect . . im not sure why these sods ,opps . . im moving to new zealand soon, . .these cunts .. . are so threatened by industries identity .. . with GMO or in yalls case modified . .


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 29, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> We have labelling here, does fuck all.
> 
> "Modified corn" or "modified soya" written on the ingredients isn't even noticed, the whole No-GM thing was cool for about 6 months, now noone cares.


If that was the outcome, "nobody really cares", my worries have less grip.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 29, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> but just like 100% juice and 10% jiucie
> 
> id like to know


You do know that 100% juice and 10% juice labels are not mandatory?

The have to be truthful if labelled but nobody is forcing companies to put it on their labels

It's like 100% organic on your label you have to show your using organic methods and have GMO free product. But your not forced to label it organic


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 29, 2013)

damnit i didnt know that . . . 


well i woulds still prefer GMO labels vs not

but i guess it is a un realistic as well as un fulfilling goal . . .i live in hippy ville so most my food is organic or grown by locals/ as close too. . . 

i do wish it was mandatory . . . .for GMO products they are so new(30 years is nothing) . . .just my 2 cents . . beaten into a rail road penny


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 29, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> If that was the outcome, "nobody really cares", my worries have less grip.


If the campaigners for it were honest too instead of the hysterical bullshit we have on here


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 29, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> damnit i didnt know that . . .
> 
> 
> well i woulds still prefer GMO labels vs not
> ...


Well if your wishing for it to be mandatory then your falling back to the "warning label" aren't you?

Companies can put "GMO FREE" labels if they desire that would be analogous to your 100%/10% juice 




I still have not seen a good reason from you about why 100% organic falls short of your desired GMO free diet


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Aug 29, 2013)

it has less to do with my own organic diet and my belief( yup a belief) that a product that is GM should be marketed as such . . not because its a risk, but because it is different . . i know it sounds weird . .. reasonable labels vs . . . zero calories . . or this product may cuase munchies . . . its just how i feel . . . . .im not afraid of GMO my concerns are not for safety but for consumer transparency . . .. GMO is different from non . .some one owns its genetics . .no one owns natural seed genetics . . . their is no patent


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 29, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> it has less to do with my own organic diet and my belief( yup a belief) that a product that is GM should be marketed as such . . not because its a risk, but because it is different . . i know it sounds weird . .. reasonable labels vs . . . zero calories . . or this product may cuase munchies . . . its just how i feel . . . . .im not afraid of GMO my concerns are not for safety but for consumer transparency . . .. GMO is different from non . .some one owns its genetics . .no one owns natural seed genetics . . . their is no patent


GMO and non GMO is like saying a vaccinated human is fundamentally different to an unvaccinated human. 

There is no difference to how those people are, except one is virtually immune to a type of disease and the other isn't. 

Same with roundup ready crops, they just have an immunity to a specific herbicide. 

Functionally as a food they are exactly the same with no risks, peer reviewed studies confirm this. 

Don't all foods have to list their ingredients anyways? If it contains maize (GM or not) and the ingredients list maize...what's the difference? 

Either way, we have labelling, noone cares about it. In the 90's we'd a brief populist "say no to GM" thing but it fizzled out as quickly as it came about.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 29, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I concede that point. However i have the somewhat unformed and subjective feeling that since genetic engineering is much more complex in concept and execution than those other enabling technologies i mentioned, I consider it justifiable to ascribe to it ... a longer development/milestone timeline than is appropriate to the previous examples of heavy-industry techs.
> 
> <add> Doer, what i mean is enzyme-driven _in vitro_ gene splicing (and reintroducing the chosen DNA sequences to target germ lines by direct manipulation) as opposed to selective breeding.


I can see your point. It is a very high tech product we are discussing.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 29, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> dont argue here without a strong fallacy . . . .


Are you trying to save face? You are just repeating things that are not relevant. 
You do not understand what you are avoiding arguing about. 

Did you read the FDA labeling rules yet?
Why not?
You said people should judge for themselves.
So why are you denying yourself information?



Samwell Seed Well said:


> modern or neo influences on technology has nothing on what is or was considered known . . .. . . . world is flat . .. . .and so on
> science never changes . . .



Sam trying to sound smart and not saying anything relevant or incisive.



Samwell Seed Well said:


> lack of evidence is evidence . .. . say the fallacious duo . . .


You are arguing the same thing.
How many studies back your opinion?

Zero. 

I can cite over 600 studies. 

Keep flopping around like a fish on the kitchen floor.


----------



## Doer (Aug 29, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> mules are sterile . .sounds like it worked . . .


Yes, it worked. Why would we want breeding mules? Not necessary for this GM. But, if you are saying mules will always be sterile? No. Not with these techniques in full swing.

If we decide we want breeding mules we can have them because we can ignore the loud minority of fear.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 29, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> read back on trout and long DOnE's quest to discredit at any cost even to their own argument . . all on the cuffs of the word sophistry
> 
> im convinced (and if that was their intentoin . .checkmate) they both own stock in bio firms . .


That is irrelevant. Why don't you attack the ideas instead of the person?
You are adding nothing but immaturity. 





Samwell Seed Well said:


> Possible GMO labels on products are not ok, because labels infer warning or risk-trouters/DOnERS


They absolutely do infer risk. When 80-90% of the population mistakenly believes that GMO products are dangerous, then a GMO label will seem to them to be a warning label. 

You still do not understand that the FDA rules would have to be radically changed and you do not understand the repercussions involved. 

If you beleive that GMO is not unhealthy for people then why in the world would you want a label? It does not make any sense. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> and this is thier srguemnt (sic) . . .GM foods will exist . . .i would like to knwo which is what


Then you will have to do your own research, lol. Why do you want to know if there is GMO in a product? Are you concerned about your health? 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> thier sophistry is pathetic and parroted so . .]



You are still not saying anything. 
If you are not worried about GMO and health, why do you want a label? (Saying, "I just want to know," is not a valid answer.)



Samwell Seed Well said:


> its funny to see Doer/trouters still in here trying to claim some sort of status . . other then liar for cause



You are calling me a liar?
You are like a child. You do nort want to debate, you want to talk about the people you are debating. 

If you are not worried about GMO and health, why do you want a label? (Saying, "I just want to know," is not a valid answer.)

Go ahead and ignore me and keep whining about _how_ people argue instead of _what _they argue.


----------



## Trousers (Aug 29, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> Id be down with labeling , along side of re education . . .


You absolutely need some re-education. A lot of it. 




Samwell Seed Well said:


> if the general public needs to learn, what positive choices GMO is . .im 100% down with . .. that campaing


You want to spend millions to educate the people that believe the lies the Anti-GMO people have pushed for all these years?



Samwell Seed Well said:


> dispel with certainty the myths . .


If the anti-GMO people are spreading myths, then why is a label necessary?
If there is no need to worry, why do we need labels? ("I want to know" blah blah blah.)



Samwell Seed Well said:


> but just like 100% juice and 10% jiucie
> 
> id like to know



Why?

With GMO you are getting 100% vegetable, not 10%. 
*


Why do you want to know?*


----------



## Trousers (Aug 29, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> perfect . . im not sure why these sods ,opps . . im moving to new zealand soon, . .these cunts .. .




Is this the best you can do? Call people "sods" and "cunts"?
You can not argue logically so you resort to name calling. I hope some one does not report you for those blatant rules violations. This soddy cunt will not tell on you though. 

Do you want to continue to push your illogical stance or do you just want to continue to fail at name calling instead?





Samwell Seed Well said:


> are so threatened by industries identity .. . with GMO or in yalls case modified . .


Is English your first language?


----------



## Trousers (Aug 29, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> damnit i didnt know that . . .


We could write a book.




Samwell Seed Well said:


> well i woulds still prefer GMO labels vs not
> 
> but i guess it is a un realistic as well as un fulfilling goal . . .i live in hippy ville so most my food is organic or grown by locals/ as close too. . .
> 
> i do wish it was mandatory . . . .for GMO products they are so new(30 years is nothing) . . .just my 2 cents . . beaten into a rail road penny


How long is long enough?
Why do you want to know?


----------



## Trousers (Aug 29, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> it has less to do with my own organic diet and my belief( yup a belief)


If your diet is really organic, then you do not have to worry about GMO in your food.





Samwell Seed Well said:


> that a product that is GM should be marketed as such . . not because its a risk, but because it is different . .



That is not a logical reason or enough to make the FDA change their rules.




Samwell Seed Well said:


> i know it sounds weird . ..


Yes it is weird and exactly why labeling is not mandatory.



Samwell Seed Well said:


> reasonable labels vs . . . zero calories . . or this product may cuase munchies . . . its just how i feel . . . . .



Your feeling do not matter in a an argument like this. 
Did you read the labeling rules yet?
I haven't either. 




Samwell Seed Well said:


> im not afraid of GMO my concerns are not for safety but for consumer transparency . . ..


Then you are barking up the wrong tree. If GMO is not a safety issue, then no label is needed. 



Samwell Seed Well said:


> GMO is different from non . .


How so? 




Samwell Seed Well said:


> some one owns its genetics . .no one owns natural seed genetics . . . their is no patent


are we changing the topic now?


----------



## Trousers (Aug 29, 2013)

Sammy testifies to the head of the FDA




> SS-Ms. Hamburg, I have a feeling about GMO. I would like it labled.
> 
> Ms. Hamburg: You want us to label a food because you have a feeling?
> 
> ...


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 29, 2013)

Re-education is a dirty Commie/Facist word...

Don't be either of the above, or I'll repeatedly call you it. 

Repeatedly.


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 29, 2013)

I believe greenhouse grown vegtables are hazardous. I think there should be labels saying if a vegtable is grown in a greenhouse. I have a lot of studies done by the aromatherapy institute to back me up. Becuase these crops are not grown outside they are unhappy and that depression can spread to the people who consume these greenhouse vegtables.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 29, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> I believe greenhouse grown vegtables are hazardous. I think there should be labels saying if a vegtable is grown in a greenhouse. I have a lot of studies done by the aromatherapy institute to back me up. Becuase these crops are not grown outside they are unhappy and that depression can spread to the people who consume these greenhouse vegtables.


did you try loving whispers of endearment? Mozart maybe?
wait a second, is this more Custer logic? 
reported!

goldencheesrice please make amends...

An apology is a statement of remorse that you make when you've done something wrong. It can be difficult to apologize, but it can do a lot to heal relationships and rebuild trust. Follow these steps when you make an apology:
Express remorse.
Admit responsibility.
Promise that it won't happen again.
Don't offer excuses when you apologize. Otherwise, you'll sound as if you're trying to shift blame away from yourself and on to someone or something else.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 29, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> GMO and non GMO is like saying a vaccinated human is fundamentally different to an unvaccinated human.
> 
> There is no difference to how those people are, except one is virtually immune to a type of disease and the other isn't.
> 
> ...


i do personally have concerns over the BT food crops.

BT is relatively benign, has a short duration and degrades quickly when used as a spray, but if it is an integral part of the plant the eater would be steadily dosed with the stuff, especially in staple crops like corn or wheat.

BT is practically harmless to people and animals when used as a spray, but if consumed directly it can be quite toxic. 

likewise, a spray made from tomatoe leaves can keep deer from nibbling your crops, and is harmless to people, but eating things which contain the tomatoe plant's natural toxin can be deadly.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 29, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i do personally have concerns over the BT food crops.
> 
> BT is relatively benign, has a short duration and degrades quickly when used as a spray, but if it is an integral part of the plant the eater would be steadily dosed with the stuff, especially in staple crops like corn or wheat.
> 
> ...


Thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard, do you really expect us to even waste our time reading the whole thing?


----------



## Doer (Aug 29, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i do personally have concerns over the BT food crops.
> 
> BT is relatively benign, has a short duration and degrades quickly when used as a spray, but if it is an integral part of the plant the eater would be steadily dosed with the stuff, especially in staple crops like corn or wheat.
> 
> ...


It isn't all that long or difficult to understand. Why don't you re-post again when you reply?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 30, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard, do you really expect us to even waste our time reading the whole thing?


so, four short sentences is too long for you to handle, you must have been a superstar in school. 

eat a dick.


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 30, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i do personally have concerns over the BT food crops.
> 
> BT is relatively benign, has a short duration and degrades quickly when used as a spray, but if it is an integral part of the plant the eater would be steadily dosed with the stuff, especially in staple crops like corn or wheat.
> 
> ...


Well I'll agree with you on that point, a plant that produces a toxin "naturally" would need far more serious review than a plant with a gene sequence to simply resist a herbicide. 

Im not saying I agree with ALL GMO's being used for human food supplies, but these Luddite fools propose an end to all genetic engineering which I personally find offensive to human advancement.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 30, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so, four short sentences is too long for you to handle, you must have been a superstar in school.
> 
> eat a dick.


Its wasnt the length it was the content, maybe you need to really go to med school, i would start out with a decent first aid class, them maybe work your way up to male masseuse ,happy ending optional, then maybe branch out to nails etc, its going to be a long road since you are already as smart as your ever going to get, after all,,,,,,,,,,,,,you already know it all, pop your pimples and let the grown ups talk junior.


----------



## Doer (Aug 30, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Its wasnt the length it was the content, maybe you need to really go to med school, i would start out with a decent first aid class, them maybe work your way up to male masseuse ,happy ending optional, then maybe branch out to nails etc, its going to be a long road since you are already as smart as your ever going to get, after all,,,,,,,,,,,,,you already know it all, pop your pimples and let the grown ups talk junior.


Why do you just shut the fuck up while you are ahead? I think you also fear being seen as gay.

Content was fine and your shit does indeed, stink. You see this as grown up talk. It is juvenile.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 30, 2013)

Doer said:


> Why do you just shut the fuck up while you are ahead? I think you also fear being seen as gay.
> 
> Content was fine and your shit does indeed, stink. You see this as grown up talk. It is juvenile.


Well if you want to get in the act i can talk stupid to you too, im not the one who started cursing at people and calling them names, why dont you and dr dickhead shut up, while your at it, give the gerbil some air, you ass holes say whatever you want and talk to people who disagree with your fucked up viewpoint, you two need to grow up, so far none of you have had a decent reply, why BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING, .
Really sad, you two are indeed stupid, since you can neither defend your opinion nor express yourself in a mature manner, dont blame me, you zeros started this not me, for awhile i thought it was a contest to see who could say the stupidest things, ok, you win, really nice doer, you are no different than the rest. And you people call other liberals, you are the intollerant ones, you guys need to get a life, stop trolling and maybe get laid every once in awhile, not by your hand.


----------



## Doer (Aug 30, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Well if you want to get in the act i can talk stupid to you too, im not the one who started cursing at people and calling them names, why dont you and dr dickhead shut up, while your at it, give the gerbil some air, you ass holes say whatever you want and talk to people who disagree with your fucked up viewpoint, you two need to grow up, so far none of you have had a decent reply, why BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING, .
> Really sad, you two are indeed stupid, since you can neither defend your opinion nor express yourself in a mature manner, dont blame me, you zeros started this not me, for awhile i thought it was a contest to see who could say the stupidest things, ok, you win, really nice doer, you are no different than the rest. And you people call other liberals, you are the intollerant ones, you guys need to get a life, stop trolling and maybe get laid every once in awhile, not by your hand.


You have fat mouth and do not like to be opposed. You are content free. You continue to say the MOST stupid things. Like now.

All I am taking about is your pure bullshit and crap mouthing another member. And you are a hiding little fist shaking worm to me. You are just a fly to swat when you are like this. And happily you are hardly ever like this. Buck up. 

I never said I was tolerate. I will not be tolerant of anyone when they get like this. Go over to T & T or Spirit Sex, for that.

But, face to face?....well, as I said. You hide. Remember that.


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 30, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Its wasnt the length it was the content, maybe you need to really go to med school, i would start out with a decent first aid class, them maybe work your way up to male masseuse ,happy ending optional, then maybe branch out to nails etc, its going to be a long road since you are already as smart as your ever going to get, after all,,,,,,,,,,,,,you already know it all, pop your pimples and let the grown ups talk junior.


What side are you even on, dumbass?

Kynes is pro-GM, just not pro-poisoning people. 

If a plant is designed to produce the BT toxin I believe the effects are systemic...in other words all tissues contain certain levels of the BT toxin (which is an insecticide, distinct from herbicides like Roundup btw). 

Ingesting a plant that produces a toxin is concerning and definitely warrants more substantial research than other non-toxin producing crops.


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 30, 2013)

if space head bungles, it probably only hurts space head...so shine on harvest moon...
yet if genetic engineering bungles we might all end up screaming 'help me mr wizard'...therefor 
the cautionary approach is extremely warranted imo...

[video=youtube;f4tD0_GjEtY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4tD0_GjEtY[/video]


----------



## Doer (Aug 30, 2013)

good...sounds like the na-nammy-boo-boo is all ya got left. And that's because you feel the cliff edge with your heels.

It's OK...shhh....shuuushh. OK. Pretend you are a leaf in the wind.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 30, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Its wasnt the length it was the content, maybe you need to really go to med school, i would start out with a decent first aid class, them maybe work your way up to male masseuse ,happy ending optional, then maybe branch out to nails etc, its going to be a long road since you are already as smart as your ever going to get, after all,,,,,,,,,,,,,you already know it all, pop your pimples and let the grown ups talk junior.


the "content" of my statement was an expression of my poersonal concerns over BT crops, anda 100% factual representation of the related details. 

BT spray is generally regarded as safe for use on foods even up to the week of harvest, but the stuff is harmful if ingested directly, thus logically a plant which produces significant quantities of BT is suspect in my personal opinion.

meanwhile, unripe tomatoes, and tomatoe foliage contain large quantities of a toxin (called Tomatiine) which has caused deaths among persons foolish enough to ignore it's strongly bitter flavour. 

curiously tomatoe greens are used as a seasoning in some recipies but only in tiny quantities. 

if you believe tomatine is fictional then i encourage you to eat a big bowl of tomatoe leaves. 

so, what part of this statement is lacking in "content", you blithering dolt? 

meanwhile you should continue to insist that comfrey is banned, cuz thats fucking hilarious.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 30, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> What side are you even on, dumbass?
> 
> Kynes is pro-GM, just not pro-poisoning people.
> 
> ...


actually im GMO agnostic, i think the research and development is super important, but any "release" (thats Ag speak for allowing farmers to plant it, not broadcasting the seeds over national forests, prairies of the tropical jungles) should be preceded by extensive study, and a cost/benefit analysis by government regulators, the producing company, and the individual farmer who may choose to plant that cultivar, or any other. 

the dipple-dink's previous ignorant comments regarding farmers being "forced" to plant GMO crops (or any other) is patently false, his repeated insistence that comfrey is "Illegal" and his obvious lack of even the basic science behind agricultural issues marks him as a BEEF HEAD with many assumptions but no informed opinions on the matter at hand. 

honestly his witless ramblings are even less informed than DNAprotection's copy/paste idiocy.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 30, 2013)

This thread is so much better with those two phucks on ignore, lifes to short to waste it on people who curse at you and call you names etc simply because you hold a different opinion, my apologies to all the good people out there,carry on.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 30, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> This thread is so much better with those two phucks on ignore, lifes to short to waste it on people who curse at you and call you names etc simply because you hold a different opinion, my apologies to all the good people out there,carry on.


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 30, 2013)

*

[h=2]This message is hidden because Dr Kynes is on your ignore list.[/h]


*


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 30, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> *
> 
> This message is hidden because Dr Kynes is on your ignore list.
> 
> ...


Hugbox Mode engaged.

Prepare for Maximum Petulance. 







Next Move: "Imma Hold My Breath Till I Die" or "Imma Run Away And Then You'll Be Sorry""


----------



## Someacdude (Aug 30, 2013)

*



This message is hidden because Dr Kynes is STILL on your ignore list
​
​

*


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 31, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*



This message is hidden because Someacdude is STILL an irrelevant dolt, who is 100% wrong on every one of his retarded assertions. 
​​
*
Citation Provided: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dildo*


----------



## Doer (Aug 31, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> This thread is so much better with those two phucks on ignore, lifes to short to waste it on people who curse at you and call you names etc simply because you hold a different opinion, my apologies to all the good people out there,carry on.


Hey, get lost. You are bringing nothing but strife. You bring the fire and can't stand the heat.

Withdraw in valor or not.


----------



## Doer (Aug 31, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> *
> 
> This message is hidden because Dr Kynes is on your ignore list.
> 
> ...


The Mods say keep your damn ignore list to yourself. I agree. This is not a girl fight.


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 31, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> lol beware the laws of attraction doc...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Old story, get some new material. 

I also don't see how it is relevant in the slightest...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 31, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> lol beware the laws of attraction doc...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that "article" rambles about what other "sources" say, but provides no quotes to support their assertions beyond the entire judicial watch website and ALEX MOTHERFUCKING JONES!

any literary endeavour which cites Inforwars as a source is absolutely idiotic. 

"natural news" is barely more credible than Infowars itself, but when it cites alex jones, it becomes nothing more than a retarded idiot child eating it's own feces. 

seriously, INFOWARS????

why not dip all the way into crazy and post quotes from Glenn Beck, Ted Kaczynski or Isis.org?


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 31, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> lol beware the laws of attraction doc...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not going to your whackjob website


----------



## DNAprotection (Aug 31, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> I'm not going to your whackjob website


my web site?
Custer logic!
reported!!!

goldencheesrice please make amends...

An apology is a statement of remorse that you make when you've done something wrong. It can be difficult to apologize, but it can do a lot to heal relationships and rebuild trust. Follow these steps when you make an apology:
Express remorse.
Admit responsibility.
Promise that it won't happen again.
Don't offer excuses when you apologize. Otherwise, you'll sound as if you're trying to shift blame away from yourself and on to someone or something else.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 31, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> my web site?
> Custer logic!
> reported!!!
> 
> ...


why should he kowtow to your pretentious demand for "ammends" for refusing to go to YOUR retarded website? 

i went to YOUR website and was stunned at how obviously ignorant it was, and appalled at the way YOUR website cites *ALEX MOTHERFUCKING JONES AS A SOURCE!*

YOUR website is a joke, and one which is not at all funny. 

if you dont want yourself associated with YOUR cited websites, dont cite them. 

if i cite Podblanc or stormfront as sources i risk beiong associated with those ignorant pricks, just as your repeated references to "Naturalnews" firmly established your ideological alignment with said website, which uses *ALEX SWEET JESUS CINNAMON TITTIES JONES* _*AS A SOURCE!!!!!!
*_


----------



## Pepe le skunk (Aug 31, 2013)

Back on subject about modified weed, As long as they can make the giantism gene, potency gene and smell gene improved so we can all grow huge stinky great buds I'm for it.
Imagine a bud the size of your leg or bigger that has 52% thc and smells to high heaven. That's my kind of science.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 31, 2013)

Pepe le skunk said:


> Back on subject about modified weed, As long as they can make the giantism gene, potency gene and smell gene improved so we can all grow huge stinky great buds I'm for it.
> Imagine a bud the size of your leg or bigger that has 52% thc and smells to high heaven. That's my kind of science.


or superdwarf plants with no incriminating odour, which are ALL NUG?
i would grow the shit out of that. 

or the legendary "Marijuanna Berries" of government fiction? 
i would plant acres of Dope Berries.


----------



## Pepe le skunk (Aug 31, 2013)

I remember an old article in HT about a vine like weed grown in Mass or maine or something that stayed really short but spread out on the ground. Never grew above 2 feet but crawled out in every direction to be 8 feet around. He said it was super stealth and great.


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 31, 2013)

Pepe le skunk said:


> I remember an old article in HT about a vine like weed grown in Mass or maine or something that stayed really short but spread out on the ground. Never grew above 2 feet but crawled out in every direction to be 8 feet around. He said it was super stealth and great.


That's called LST, bro.


----------



## ChesusRice (Aug 31, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> my web site?
> Custer logic!
> reported!!!
> 
> ...


If natural news is your well spring of uniformed stupidity there is no way I would apologize to you


_*NaturalNews.com* (formerly *Newstarget*) is a website founded by *Mike "the Health Ranger" Adams*. The site promotes almost every sort of medical woo known, though it specializes in vaccine denialism,[SUP][1][/SUP] AIDS/HIV denial,[SUP][2][/SUP] quack cancer medicine[SUP][3][/SUP] and conspiracy theories about modern medicine.[SUP][4][/SUP] Even other quacks think it's a quack site.[SUP][5][/SUP] The site has recently expanded its outlook to become an outlet for extreme environmentalism and conspiracy theorizing about Obama and gun control._
_If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong.


Adams is a flat-out opponent[SUP][6][/SUP] of modern medicine and opposes any medication[SUP][7][/SUP] or doctor visits.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] Adams calls himself a "holistic nutritionist"[SUP][10][/SUP] and is a raw food proponent[SUP][11][/SUP] who opposes food that contains sugar,[SUP][12][/SUP] food that was cooked[SUP][13][/SUP] or made to last,[SUP][14][/SUP] "red" meat,[SUP][15][/SUP] sweeteners,[SUP][16][/SUP] glutamate,[SUP][17][/SUP] homogenized milk,[SUP][18][/SUP] bread,[SUP][19][/SUP] "white" flour,[SUP][20][/SUP] washing powder,[SUP][21][/SUP] deodorants,[SUP][22][/SUP] shampoo[SUP][23][/SUP] and fluoride.[SUP][24][/SUP]
A recurring theme is the contrast between the site's exacting criticism of evidence-based medicine and its unquestioning acceptance of the appeal to nature, New Age and alternative medicine.[SUP][25][/SUP] This often involves rejection of the scientific method's application to medicine as "inherently flawed",[SUP][26][/SUP] repudiating the entire philosophy of modern medicine post-Pasteur.[SUP][27][/SUP] Adams is a firm germ theory denialist.[SUP][28][/SUP][SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP] Adams also conflates evidence-based medicine in general, the failings of Big Pharma and the US health insurance system: to him, it's all a monolithic entity called "mainstream medicine".[SUP][31][/SUP] The site blames the pharmaceutical industry for all vaguely drug-linked celebrity deaths rather than looking at any surrounding factors.[SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP][SUP][34][/SUP][SUP][35][/SUP]
The response to any alternative medicine claim, however, is blind acceptance, whether the topic at hand is homeopathy,[SUP][36][/SUP] chiropractic,[SUP][37][/SUP] dental woo,[SUP][38][/SUP] aspartame scares,[SUP][39][/SUP] vitamin woo,[SUP][40][/SUP] anti-vaccination panic[SUP][41][/SUP][SUP][42][/SUP] or detox diets.[SUP][43][/SUP]


Adams' love for woo isn't restricted to medicine. Cold fusion and so-called free energy ideas and devices like the Energy Catalyzer are presented on his website with the same enthusiasm as the latest alternative medicine fad.[SUP][59][/SUP][SUP][60][/SUP] He collects news about chemtrails.[SUP][61][/SUP] He is a 9/11 truther[SUP][62][/SUP], birther,[SUP][63][/SUP] and pretty much everything else-er. And a Sandy Hook denialist.[SUP][64][/SUP] He considers Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, and David Icke to be "REAL heroes"[SUP][65][/SUP] and Icke[SUP][66][/SUP] and whale.to[SUP][67][/SUP] to be reliable sources. Naturally, he supports Ron Paul and "health freedom",[SUP][68][/SUP] despite simultaneously supporting health care reform and Cuba's health care system. [SUP][69][/SUP]
He thinks Scientology (of which he is an ex-member) is treated unfairly.[SUP][70][/SUP][SUP][71][/SUP][SUP][72][/SUP] According to Adams, this is due to attempts by anti-religious bigots and (you guessed it) Big Pharma to oppress their belief system in order to protect their profits. 
Adams has also issued his informed opinion of the 2012 Aurora, Colorado "Batman" shootings, declaring that they were "obviously" staged, or perhaps that the killer, James Holmes, was involved in "experimental" neuroscience that got out of hand.[SUP][73][/SUP] Furthermore, also the 2013 attacks on the Boston marathon is reported to be a false flag operation by "private military contractors".[SUP][74][/SUP]
Also, "conventional physics" is a conspiracy of the same sort as conventional medicine.[SUP][75][/SUP]
Adams' love for woo isn't restricted to medicine. Cold fusion and so-called free energy ideas and devices like the Energy Catalyzer are presented on his website with the same enthusiasm as the latest alternative medicine fad.[SUP][59][/SUP][SUP][60][/SUP] He collects news about chemtrails.[SUP][61][/SUP] He is a 9/11 truther[SUP][62][/SUP], birther,[SUP][63][/SUP] and pretty much everything else-er. And a Sandy Hook denialist.[SUP][64][/SUP] He considers Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, and David Icke to be "REAL heroes"[SUP][65][/SUP] and Icke[SUP][66][/SUP] and whale.to[SUP][67][/SUP] to be reliable sources. Naturally, he supports Ron Paul and "health freedom",[SUP][68][/SUP] despite simultaneously supporting health care reform and Cuba's health care system. [SUP][69][/SUP]
He thinks Scientology (of which he is an ex-member) is treated unfairly.[SUP][70][/SUP][SUP][71][/SUP][SUP][72][/SUP] According to Adams, this is due to attempts by anti-religious bigots and (you guessed it) Big Pharma to oppress their belief system in order to protect their profits. 
Adams has also issued his informed opinion of the 2012 Aurora, Colorado "Batman" shootings, declaring that they were "obviously" staged, or perhaps that the killer, James Holmes, was involved in "experimental" neuroscience that got out of hand.[SUP][73][/SUP] Furthermore, also the 2013 attacks on the Boston marathon is reported to be a false flag operation by "private military contractors".[SUP][74][/SUP]
Also, "conventional physics" is a conspiracy of the same sort as conventional medicine.[SUP][75][/SUP]
Adams' love for woo isn't restricted to medicine. Cold fusion and so-called free energy ideas and devices like the Energy Catalyzer are presented on his website with the same enthusiasm as the latest alternative medicine fad.[SUP][59][/SUP][SUP][60][/SUP] He collects news about chemtrails.[SUP][61][/SUP] He is a 9/11 truther[SUP][62][/SUP], birther,[SUP][63][/SUP] and pretty much everything else-er. And a Sandy Hook denialist.[SUP][64][/SUP] He considers Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, and David Icke to be "REAL heroes"[SUP][65][/SUP] and Icke[SUP][66][/SUP] and whale.to[SUP][67][/SUP] to be reliable sources. Naturally, he supports Ron Paul and "health freedom",[SUP][68][/SUP] despite simultaneously supporting health care reform and Cuba's health care system. [SUP][69][/SUP]
He thinks Scientology (of which he is an ex-member) is treated unfairly.[SUP][70][/SUP][SUP][71][/SUP][SUP][72][/SUP] According to Adams, this is due to attempts by anti-religious bigots and (you guessed it) Big Pharma to oppress their belief system in order to protect their profits. 
Adams has also issued his informed opinion of the 2012 Aurora, Colorado "Batman" shootings, declaring that they were "obviously" staged, or perhaps that the killer, James Holmes, was involved in "experimental" neuroscience that got out of hand.[SUP][73][/SUP] Furthermore, also the 2013 attacks on the Boston marathon is reported to be a false flag operation by "private military contractors".[SUP][74][/SUP]
Also, "conventional physics" is a conspiracy of the same sort as conventional medicine.[SUP][75][/SUP]
Adams' love for woo isn't restricted to medicine. Cold fusion and so-called free energy ideas and devices like the Energy Catalyzer are presented on his website with the same enthusiasm as the latest alternative medicine fad.[SUP][59][/SUP][SUP][60][/SUP] He collects news about chemtrails.[SUP][61][/SUP] He is a 9/11 truther[SUP][62][/SUP], birther,[SUP][63][/SUP] and pretty much everything else-er. And a Sandy Hook denialist.[SUP][64][/SUP] He considers Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, and David Icke to be "REAL heroes"[SUP][65][/SUP] and Icke[SUP][66][/SUP] and whale.to[SUP][67][/SUP] to be reliable sources. Naturally, he supports Ron Paul and "health freedom",[SUP][68][/SUP] despite simultaneously supporting health care reform and Cuba's health care system. [SUP][69][/SUP]
He thinks Scientology (of which he is an ex-member) is treated unfairly.[SUP][70][/SUP][SUP][71][/SUP][SUP][72][/SUP] According to Adams, this is due to attempts by anti-religious bigots and (you guessed it) Big Pharma to oppress their belief system in order to protect their profits. 
Adams has also issued his informed opinion of the 2012 Aurora, Colorado "Batman" shootings, declaring that they were "obviously" staged, or perhaps that the killer, James Holmes, was involved in "experimental" neuroscience that got out of hand.[SUP][73][/SUP] Furthermore, also the 2013 attacks on the Boston marathon is reported to be a false flag operation by "private military contractors".[SUP][74][/SUP]
Also, "conventional physics" is a conspiracy of the same sort as conventional medicine.[SUP][75][/SUP]
_


----------



## Pepe le skunk (Sep 1, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> That's called LST, bro.


Plant would do it on it's own without any help, that is what made it so special. Think he said someone riped it and it was seeded at the time. Had pictures that showed it's growth and this was in the early 90's from what I remember. At the end of the article he said someone has a buch of seeds of these genetics that were in the bud at the time.


----------



## Doer (Sep 1, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> my web site?
> Custer logic!
> reported!!!
> 
> ...


So, go ahead get started. We are listening for the abjectness level and the lack of tap dance as you tell us you are sorry for spamming our forum.


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 1, 2013)

Pepe le skunk said:


> Back on subject about modified weed, As long as they can make the giantism gene, potency gene and smell gene improved so we can all grow huge stinky great buds I'm for it.
> Imagine a bud the size of your leg or bigger that has 52% thc and smells to high heaven. That's my kind of science.


The only problem is that would come with more government , think about it, everyone who wants weed legalized on a federal level hasnt really thought it through, put it this way, almost all the growers here would be out of business due to health dept regs, federal govern regs etc etc etc, we would become the home micro brew and those with money would become camel and marlborough , Monsanto needs to leave this area alone, it isnt going to increase anything except its bottom line.

btw, ignore undoer and dr dick, they are clueless and are only here to talk down to people and call them names.


----------



## Doer (Sep 1, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> The only problem is that would come with more government , think about it, everyone who wants weed legalized on a federal level hasnt really thought it through, put it this way, almost all the growers here would be out of business due to health dept regs, federal govern regs etc etc etc, we would become the home micro brew and those with money would become camel and marlborough , Monsanto needs to leave this area alone, it isnt going to increase anything except its bottom line.
> 
> btw, ignore undoer and dr dick, they are clueless and are only here to talk down to people and call them names.


That isn't true. In fact you rev this up. You don't like the disagreement, by facts. And you can't bring it. You feel persecuted in what amounts to religion with no science at all, and then you go all crap mouth. We respond in kind and you blame us.

This is the pattern of a sociopath. You may encounter them in day to day life. Doctor assistants are notoriously full of sociopaths, for example. You can tell because unlike me they crave company. The need someone to fuck with.

The pattern is to start the strife with passive aggression and when we respond to that aggression, the P-aggressor act like, "who me?"

I know. There is another Sr. Manager on my boss's staff. My Peer. And on Thursday he could not believe I called him on it in public in front of his peers and boss.

He was going...."I'm not arguing with you." as he raises the tone and temper. He is arguing. He has no dog in the hunt and he is interfering with me. He is being P-A in the ass. Next it is, in the middle of my sentence even more loudly...."I'm sorry I've upset you!"

OK, that is it. Doer stand up slowly and says to the room, quite calmly, "I'm not upset or arguing just because HE says I am."

So, now he needs to talk, after the meeting. "We have to discuss this." He come in shuts my door and I told him exactly this, behind closed door. "Get the fuck out of my office." He would not leave and so now I see he wants to goad a physical confrontation from me. I left in my office. I told him over my shoulder, "Get HR and we will talk about you harnessing me." I am truly without remorse.

We don't explain things to P-As. We attack them. Because that is what they are doing and are trying to hide like a coward behind florid phases, and a faked up demeanor.

I'm not fooled by you.


----------



## ChesusRice (Sep 1, 2013)

Pepe le skunk said:


> Back on subject about modified weed, As long as they can make the giantism gene, potency gene and smell gene improved so we can all grow huge stinky great buds I'm for it.
> Imagine a bud the size of your leg or bigger that has 52% thc and smells to high heaven. That's my kind of science.


Now fucking tell me who here wouldnt buy those seeds


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 1, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> If natural news is your well spring of uniformed stupidity there is no way I would apologize to you


FYI GCR, I only became aware of that site after I wrote and posted the original post starting this thread and all my 'sources' existed long before that web site and will still exist long after that web site is gone  

This may be a bit beyond your pay grade, but as I have stated before, the site your referring to and any others you can name from here till the cows come home are of little or no consideration to my particular disposition on this issue.
There's a bad moon on the rise GCR and we on this web site ain't no fortunate ones in that respect, and by the time the smoke clears on this 'issue' I predict you will be wishing your first initial was C instead of G...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbSGMRZsN4Q ;D

[video=youtube;DksGi7B5BdM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DksGi7B5BdM[/video]


----------



## ChesusRice (Sep 1, 2013)

DNAprotection[h=2]This message is hidden because *DNAprotection* is on your ignore list.[/h]


----------



## Doer (Sep 1, 2013)

OK, OK> don't go wagging that thing around! 

Is there a way we can ignore an entire thread?


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 1, 2013)

ah yes much as you ignore the numbers (or absence of such) and even the existence of the bigger equations that 'we' currently do not have the capability to comprehend in any applicable way...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 1, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> FYI GCR, I only became aware of that site after I wrote and posted the original post starting this thread and all my 'sources' existed long before that web site and will still exist long after that web site is gone
> 
> This may be a bit beyond your pay grade, but as I have stated before, the site your referring to and any others you can name from here till the cows come home are of little or no consideration to my particular disposition on this issue.
> There's a bad moon on the rise GCR and we on this web site ain't no fortunate ones in that respect, and by the time the smoke clears on this 'issue' I predict you will be wishing your first initial was C instead of G...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbSGMRZsN4Q ;D
> ...


so, Naturalnews is NOT the wellspring from which your "wisdom" flows? 

whence cometh this wisdom then? you cite naturalnews, and other anti-gmo quackery site exclusively, deferring to their articles like a sycophant (when not posting irrelevant videos of 70's sit-coms and geezer rock)

you have no reputable sources, not even the low hanging fruit of "WE NEEDZ MORE STUDIES" statements from ANY reputable scientist or scientific organization, instead you endlessly copy/paste the OPINIONS OF OTHERS, and patently flawed "studies" by "Doctors" with PhD's in aromatherapy (i shit you not) who are even discredited by the licensing board for AROMATHERAPISTS!!!

if in fact, as you claim, you have some reason beyond Naturalnews and similar bullshit websites to believe GMO's are harmful you have as yet failed to produce this information, instead you ramble on in pointless word games which only appear clever to you. 

you ARE a spammer, and not a very good one.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 1, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so, Naturalnews is NOT the wellspring from which your "wisdom" flows?
> 
> whence cometh this wisdom then? ...


Slightly different from that 'steely dan' you were playing with last night doc, but it is still inside you all the same...you apparently just don't remember...not my fault that you don't remember and I do...
After 50,000 views, 325 pages and over 300 votes (over 75% in opposition to the general opinions of the SHDT) It's ok doc if you feel as your team mates that your final solution is to use the 'ignore' option


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 1, 2013)

doc, though I love the smell of sweathogs in the morning (always smells like 'victory'), have you learned nothing from the *web of life?* have you learned nothing from space head tutor the TW?



DNAprotection said:


> if space head bungles, it probably only hurts space head...so shine on harvest moon...
> yet if genetic engineering bungles we might all end up screaming 'help me mr wizard'...therefor
> the cautionary approach is extremely warranted imo...
> 
> [video=youtube;f4tD0_GjEtY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4tD0_GjEtY[/video]


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 1, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Slightly different from that 'steely dan' you were playing with last night doc, but it is still inside you all the same...you apparently just don't remember...not my fault that you don't remember and I do...
> After 50,000 views, 325 pages and over 300 votes (over 75% in opposition to the general opinions of the SHDT) It's ok doc if you feel as your team mates that your final solution is to use the 'ignore' option


You putting any sort of weight on a poll you mislabeled on a cannabis website is sad. 

Almost (but not quite) as sad as the charlatans you put faith into for your organic bullshit lifestyle. 

Go drink a cup of crude oil, it's 100% organic.


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Sep 1, 2013)

I just want to point this out. When you read a Report/Study from "University of Blah" you should know most of them are from undergrad students.

Let me rephrase that _*undergrad students*_ Meaning they don't even have a degree yet, so their opinion wights as much as anyone else without a degree.


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 1, 2013)

RyanTheRhino said:


> I just want to point this out. When you read a Report/Study from "University of Blah" you should know most of them are from undergrad students.
> 
> Let me rephrase that _*undergrad students*_ Meaning they don't even have a degree yet, so their opinion wights as much as anyone else without a degree.


As undergrads we werent allowed publish anything, anywhere. 

The first thing you get to "publish" here is your thesis.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 1, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> You putting any sort of weight on a poll you mislabeled on a cannabis website is sad.
> 
> Almost (but not quite) as sad as the charlatans you put faith into for your organic bullshit lifestyle.
> 
> Go drink a cup of crude oil, it's 100% organic.


Oh Frank I can only imagine what a different Irish tune you'd be singing if the poll stats were reversed , never the less though I do sincerely appreciate your continued efforts to try and make this work for you truly I do...but my lil ferret faced friend I'm sorry to say it's just to lil to late...


[video=youtube;CT_08gchS8k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT_08gchS8k[/video]


----------



## ChesusRice (Sep 1, 2013)

LOL
Funny thing is this thread almost every page is just people on my ignore list.


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 1, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh Frank I can only imagine what a different Irish tune you'd be singing if the poll stats were reversed , never the less though I do sincerely appreciate your continued efforts to try and make this work for you truly I do...but my lil ferret faced friend I'm sorry to say it's just to lil to late...
> 
> 
> [video=youtube;CT_08gchS8k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT_08gchS8k[/video]


I don't really care what you think because peer reviewed, valid, reliable, repeatable science is on my side. 

Keep fellating yourself tho.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 1, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Slightly different from that 'steely dan' you were playing with last night doc, but it is still inside you all the same...you apparently just don't remember...not my fault that you don't remember and I do...
> After 50,000 views, 325 pages and over 300 votes (over 75% in opposition to the general opinions of the SHDT) It's ok doc if you feel as your team mates that your final solution is to use the 'ignore' option


and yet more LACK OF SUBSTANCE from the Crown Prince of Irrelevance. 

apparently you have forgotten that EVERY ONE of the purported sources you vomited up way back when was refuted, discredited and dismissed because NONE OF IT WAS TRUE, the votes of the hoi polloi are no more evidence of your assertions than an opinion poll which claims that "Conservatives be Dumb". 

that silly poll was touted as a "peer reviewed study" in the press for months, yet even a cursoury examination of the "data" showed it was an OPINION POLL, not a study, and it was based on erroneous assumptions on the part of the pollster, assumptions which were easily refuted, just as all of your "sources" (especially the aromatherapy doctor and alex jones) are PRE-IMPEACHED by their own retarded assertions, yet you keep going back to the tainted well for more brilliant copy/paste opportunities. 

dipping once more into your incredibly dated sack of mouldy pop-culture references doesnt bolster your case, nor does it make you appear intelligent. 

i would use the Ignore feature, but then i would miss out on many many opportunities to show what a dimwit you really are.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 2, 2013)

I gotta hand it to ya doc for at least remaining true to your hypocritical oath


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 2, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> I gotta hand it to ya doc for at least remaining true to your hypocritical oath


There is no way hes a doctor , err i mean drug dealer, hes a wanna be , i bet he wears tach clothing and old fireman's shirts to bed.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 2, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> I gotta hand it to ya doc for at least remaining true to your hypocritical oath


again, your inability to SUPPORT YOUR OWN CLAIMS is the downfall of your agenda. 

I dont have to DO anything or Prove anything for your assertions to fail. 

YOU must support your claims or your claims are invalid, and thus far you have FAILED TO DELIVER. 

Hypocrisy is claiming to posses features or characteristics that one does not possess. 

YOU profess to have proof that GMO's are harmful, cause cancer, cause disease, damage the environment etc etc etc, and you have REPEATEDLY PROVED that you have none of this. 

therefore YOU are the hypocrite.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 2, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> There is no way hes a doctor , err i mean drug dealer, hes a wanna be , i bet he wears tach clothing and old fireman's shirts to bed.


you really are as dumb as you seem.

i suppose you can prove that comfrey is illegal, so, do cite the relevant law or regulation. 
i suppose you have evidence of farmers being FORCED to grow GM crops, so im waiting for that proof. 


awww, no im not, cuz i know it is NOT TRUE. 
go lay your head on your mommy's bosom and cry your bitter bitter tears cuz im so mean to you. 
i for one am tired of hearing your whimpering cries and moronic assertions which are COUNTERFACTUAL.


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 2, 2013)

Could have sworn i heard some whimpering, kinda like a puppy sound.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 2, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Could have sworn i heard some whimpering, kinda like a puppy sound.


sweet comeback. 

i bet you spent hours plotting that witty retort. 

wait, isnt it time for you to resort to the Internet Tough Guy Routine? 

sorry,, didnt mean to throw out a Spoiler, lets all just pretend i didnt say that, and let you begin flexing your E-muscles, in what im certain will be a hilarious display of poor grammar and outrageous claims. 

here's an Excellent Example to get the ball rolling, but do feel free to improvise: 

_*"What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I&#8217;ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I&#8217;ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I&#8217;m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You&#8217;re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that&#8217;s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little &#8220;clever&#8221; comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn&#8217;t, you didn&#8217;t, and now you&#8217;re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You&#8217;re fucking dead, kiddo."* ~http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/navy-seal-copypasta


_


----------



## tokeprep (Sep 3, 2013)

I eat this claims with fictional relish, because I would never use any product called relish....


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 3, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> again, your inability to SUPPORT YOUR OWN CLAIMS is the downfall of your agenda.
> 
> I dont have to DO anything or Prove anything for your assertions to fail.
> 
> ...


Now just hold on a minute doc, when did I ever write anything about having 'proof' of any such claims?
Though I do feel that such claims are likely to be true at the end of the day, I never made such claims nor did I claim to have 'proof' of such.
The only fact I have claimed is that which is disturbingly obvious, 'we' don't know all the numbers of the equations 'we' are messing with and so 'we' should take every precaution before racing ahead in the name of money...


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Now just hold on a minute doc, when did I ever write anything about having 'proof' of any such claims?
> Though I do feel that such claims are likely to be true at the end of the day, I never made such claims nor did I claim to have 'proof' of such.
> The only fact I have claimed is that which is disturbingly obvious, 'we' don't know all the numbers of the equations 'we' are messing with and so 'we' should take every precaution before racing ahead in the name of money...


Hes not going to understand this, you didnt curse at him, call him names or speak down to him as if you where God. Oh wait, thats him and his minion undoer.


----------



## Doer (Sep 3, 2013)

What, oh insult stooper?


----------



## Trousers (Sep 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> isn't there a six in a row limit in this pond...





This might be your best argument so far. 
Congratulations!


----------



## Trousers (Sep 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> did you try loving whispers of endearment? Mozart maybe?
> wait a second, is this more Custer logic?
> reported!
> 
> ...




You need to go through the 5 stages of grief. You paradigm is dead and you are still stuck in *Denial*. 

Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance

Denial is kicking your butt.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *if* space head bungles, it *probably* only hurts space head...so shine on harvest moon...
> yet *if* genetic engineering bungles we *might* all end up screaming 'help me mr wizard'...therefor
> the cautionary approach is extremely warranted imo...




If monkeys fly out of my butt will you help me kill my toaster?


----------



## Trousers (Sep 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> FYI GCR, I only became aware of that site after I wrote and posted the original post starting this thread and all my 'sources' existed long before that web site and will still exist long after that web site is gone


That site is not much more than a glorified blog. You post lies and present them as fact. You do not even read the lies you post. Do you want to post the study that shows that GMO corn causes massive tumors in rats again?




DNAprotection said:


> This may be a bit beyond your pay grade, but as I have stated before, the site your referring to and any others you can name from here till the cows come home are of little or no consideration to my particular disposition on this issue.


So you are not a liar, you are just really ignorant and dumb?





DNAprotection said:


> There's a bad moon on the rise GCR and we on this web site ain't no fortunate ones in that respect, and by the time the smoke clears on this 'issue'* I predict* you will be wishing your first initial was C instead of G...



I predict your 13th birthday party will be fun for you, but not your guest.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 3, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> The only problem is that would come with more government , think about it, everyone who wants weed legalized on a federal level hasnt really thought it through,


Put me on ignore, you are not going to like this.

That is incredibly dumb. You have not thought much through. If you have, your brain does not work. 






Someacdude said:


> put it this way, almost all the growers here would be out of business due to health dept regs, federal govern regs etc etc etc,



Nope. Growers will still grow. I will still grow. I do not know what you are babbling about. 



Someacdude said:


> we would become the home micro brew and those with money would become camel and marlborough , Monsanto needs to leave this area alone, it isnt going to increase anything except its bottom line.


That is a pretty good paranoid fantasy. Funny you mention micro-brews. There will always be a market for well grown marijuana. Same as with well made beer. Nice try at making a point, but not really. 



Someacdude said:


> btw, ignore undoer and dr dick, they are clueless and are only here to talk down to people and call them names.


You best put me on ignore too, as you are a bit ignorant and probably not smart enough to effectively debate these issues.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Now just hold on a minute doc, when did I ever write anything about having 'proof' of any such claims?



He has got you here. He does not read the garbage he posts. He reads the headline, then posts it. Remember when he referenced the study that proves that GMO corn causes rats to get giant tumors?


That was cute.




DNAprotection said:


> Though I do feel that such claims are likely to be true at the end of the day,


Why?
You think dubious opinions are better than 600 peer reviewed studies?

That is your hot mess, don't try to infect others with it. 



DNAprotection said:


> I never made such claims nor did I claim to have 'proof' of such.


Yet you post articles from a blog site and present them as fact, even though you only read the headline?
I wish I could make you understand how ridiculous you are. 



DNAprotection said:


> The only fact I have claimed is that which is disturbingly obvious,



Post that "fact" again. I do not think you know what a fact is.



DNAprotection said:


> 'we'



Don't include me in your insane 'we.'



DNAprotection said:


> don't know all the numbers of the equations 'we' are messing with and so 'we' should take every precaution before racing ahead in the name of money...


30+ years and 600+ studies. 


Get over yourself.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Slightly different from that 'steely dan' you were playing with last night doc,


You are terrible at factual information and childish taunts. Can you do anything well?




DNAprotection said:


> but it is still inside you all the same...you apparently just don't remember...not my fault that you don't remember and I do...
> After 50,000 views, 325 pages and over 300 votes (over 75% in opposition to the general opinions of the SHDT) It's ok doc if you feel as your team mates that your final solution is to use the 'ignore' option


Denial is the first stage. You are firmly wedged in it.


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 3, 2013)

Trousers said:


> Put me on ignore, you are not going to like this.
> 
> That is incredibly dumb. You have not thought much through. If you have, your brain does not work.
> 
> ...


You are right about one thing, you are going on ignore, not because we disagree at al, thats you and your ilk technique AFTER you get personal, thats why you go on ignore, because like so many others, instead of researching you ridicule, and thats why some of you are to stupid to talk to, youre the idiots.
You think like liberals, " oh nothing will happen if the government or large corporation can mandate the quality of our seeds everything will be so much better, cause after all they are doing it for our own good".
My advise to you undoer, dr dickhead is this, grow up, start a REAL business , go to work and dont lay on here all day, pay taxes, workers comp, insurance, overhead, upkeep expansion,etc etc etc THEN come and talk to me about how the world works because right now, in your little protective cocoon , none of you have experienced jack or you would be so stupid.

Hopefully none of that was written in a way you could understand it, i know without any insults etc you and especially others have a hard time grasping things . 

Monsanto having any say over what we grow is just stupid, blind lemmings.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 3, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> You are right about one thing, you are going on ignore, not because we disagree at al, thats you and your ilk technique AFTER you get personal, thats why you go on ignore, because like so many others, instead of researching you ridicule, and thats why some of you are to stupid to talk to, youre the idiots.



I have offered a lot of links and studies and verifiable facts. You have offered poop in text form.
Ignore me and run along.




Someacdude said:


> You think like liberals, " oh nothing will happen if the government or large corporation can mandate the quality of our seeds everything will be so much better, cause after all they are doing it for our own good".


Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that. I am not a liberal. You are unable to comprehend the argument and are making things up. It is embarrassing. Go read some of the 600 studies, many of which were independently funded. Go look at Golden Rice http://www.goldenrice.org/ and tell me what corporation owns them. 

You ignore facts and then make up bullshit, then you whine about the bad guys calling you names. You have a lot of issues. 




Someacdude said:


> My advise to you undoer, dr dickhead is this, grow up, start a REAL business , go to work and dont lay on here all day, pay taxes, workers comp, insurance, overhead, upkeep expansion,etc etc etc THEN come and talk to me about how the world works because right now, in your little protective cocoon , none of you have experienced jack or you would be so stupid.


You are so precious. You do not want to debate, but you want to spout off about me?

I run my own business. 
I could retire today if I wanted to. 
This is a bunch of irrelevant garbage. Try to focus. 
I could buy and sell you son. 



Someacdude said:


> Hopefully none of that was written in a way you could understand it, i know without any insults etc you and especially others have a hard time grasping things .



What insults? Was I insulting to you or was it just your sensibilities?
Would you like to express your dubious opinions about GMO or just continue whining?



Someacdude said:


> Monsanto having any say over what we grow is just *stupid, blind lemmings*.


By saying that, you are implying that you do not understand the debate surrounding GMO crops at all. 
What if I told you that Monsanto should be burned to the ground and the Earth salted, but I do not have a problem with GMO crops?

You are raging about an issue that you do not understand.

you are also crying about insults yet you use them too, lol.


----------



## hexthat (Sep 3, 2013)

wheres that glow in the dark weed at? really i want some ornamental weed that always vegs and glows at night


----------



## Trousers (Sep 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> who let the trout out?
> threat level orange !
> orange alert! orange alert!




Great argument. Your mother must have been proud after you hatched. 




DNAprotection said:


> *Alert: GMO oranges now under development *
> 
> Tuesday, September 03, 2013 by: John McKiernan
> 
> ...


----------



## Trousers (Sep 3, 2013)

The Natural News is not a news site. It is a propaganda site. 
Baaaaaaaaaa


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> snipped spam




Reported as spam


----------



## ChesusRice (Sep 3, 2013)

Hey that Orange has no seeds

How did it get that way? Wouldnt it die if it couldnt replant itself?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 3, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> Hey that Orange has no seeds
> 
> How did it get that way? Wouldnt it die if it couldnt replant itself?


Missing Image: facepalm.png


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 3, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> Missing Image: facepalm.png


Chesus is taking the piss.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 3, 2013)

hexthat said:


> wheres that glow in the dark weed at? really i want some ornamental weed that always vegs and glows at night


Nugget Dysphoria Syndrome?



ChesusRice said:


> Hey that Orange has no seeds
> 
> How did it get that way? Wouldnt it die if it couldnt replant itself?


Must be a clockwork orange...



Trousers said:


> Great argument...


silly trout, thanks, but what in your world am I supposedly 'arguing' about?
are you sure your not just shadow baiting yourself again?
suuushi!...sushi! come trout!


----------



## ChesusRice (Sep 3, 2013)

So all I have to do to get a thread locked up is spew racist things?

Those fuckign Jews and Muslims are trying to poison are food supply with GMOs
And the blacks are trying to stop us from labeling them


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 3, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> So all I have to do to get a thread locked up is spew racist things?
> 
> Those fuckign Jews and Muslims are trying to poison are food supply with GMOs
> And the blacks are trying to stop us from labeling them


deliberately trying to lock up a thread to stifle discussion is a *Buckyism*. 

you better pay your license fee and get express written permission to use his Patented Censorship System.


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 4, 2013)

All the hate just because someone doesnt want big business and government involved in their grow.

Soon we will only grow as a side job, just to get by. 

Really sad.


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> have you tried a green house?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a Polytunnel in a hole in the ground...main problem (apart from lack of originality) is the angle of the sun in winter, it's not gonna reach the bottom of a 6-8 ft hole...


----------



## Grandpapy (Sep 5, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> All the hate just because someone doesnt want big business and government involved in their grow.
> 
> Soon we will only grow as a side job, just to get by.
> 
> Really sad.


Soon?? I was forced to after being denied disability 2 yrs ago. I'm working 3 days a week now, with any luck, another 2 months and the Dr. will let go full time.


----------



## Chemdawg3 (Sep 5, 2013)

Would an auto flowering plant qualify as a gmo?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 5, 2013)

Chemdawg3 said:


> Would an auto flowering plant qualify as a gmo?


the Grand Authority has already declared it thus. 

*Feminized & Autoflowering Marijuana: A Monsanto GMO Plot to Eliminate Natural Marijuana Genetics?*


it's all a wicked plot to sneak into our rooms at night, steal our dope and touch our dicks. 

the slefsame "author also opine here: 

http://bigbudsmag.com/grow/article/medical-marijuana-scotts-miracle-gro-monsanto-GMOs-fertilizer

that miracle gro fertilizers contain toxic chemicals which will poison your pets (and by extension, YOU), using the clever weasel words "some say", as well as asserting that miracle gro fertilizers contain weed killers because Scotts (the manufacturer) also makes herbicides.

by that "logic" you should not use aspirin, since the same companies that make and distribute OTC medications ALSO make birth control pills, and thus, every time you swallow a tylenol, you are dosing yourself with estrogen, turning you into a Hermaphrodite Ladyboy! (whoa now Cheesus... dont get excited! )

if you get your info from people who are retarded, that data will probably be RETARDED!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 5, 2013)

Har69old4 said:


> We don't know enough about GMO. Cannabis is already getting fucked as it is because of the bullshit Dutch cross breeding.​


we know enough to state that there is no GMO weed, from monsanto or anyone else, nor have there been any credible reports of any program to create GMO cannabis

cannabis is not "fucked" by crossbreeding, not even by the dutch. 
you can get seeds from seed houses all around the world in cultivars that have been around for decades, as well as landraces. 

weed is not in danger of "losing it's genetics" any more than apples are in danger of becoming carrots because of GMO wheat pollen.


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 6, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> we know enough to state that there is no GMO weed, from monsanto or anyone else, nor have there been any credible reports of any program to create GMO cannabis
> 
> cannabis is not "fucked" by crossbreeding, not even by the dutch.
> you can get seeds from seed houses all around the world in cultivars that have been around for decades, as well as landraces.
> ...


If apples became carrots...what would the French call potatoes?


----------



## Doer (Sep 6, 2013)

Pomme de terre?


----------



## Trousers (Sep 6, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> All the hate just because someone doesnt want big business and government involved in their grow.


You are confusing hate with logic.
When did I say I want the government involved in my grow?
How are they going to be involved in my grow?
Your anger is very unfocused. 



Someacdude said:


> Soon we will only grow as a side job, just to get by.
> 
> Really sad.



You are a weed dealer?

I grow for myself, my friends and my family. I make a living legally and enjoy my indoor growing hobby. 
I do not need to grow weed for money or to "get by" what ever that means. 

I would like to indulge your fantasy.

Could you explain how big business and the government is going to "get involved in my grow"?
Could you also explain how the government is going to stop you from being a weed dealer?
How are they going to stop my friend who is a weed dealer?

Are they going to use GMO corn to hunt us down?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 6, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> So all I have to do to get a thread locked up is spew racist things?
> 
> Those fuckign Jews and Muslims are trying to poison are food supply with GMOs
> And the blacks are trying to stop us from labeling them


----------



## Doer (Sep 7, 2013)

And yet, the thread is still not locked.

Maybe this will do it.

*Polar Bears are nothing but pouch-less Marsupials and naked racism!*

(oh dear, stand back!!!)


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 7, 2013)

I say we give big business and the government all the power to decide exactly what we eat, grow, wear , just look how well i worked out for good old mother russia, you libs kill me.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 7, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> I say we give big business and the government all the power to decide exactly what we eat, grow, wear , just look how well i worked out for good old mother russia, you libs kill me.


So much butt hurt so little sense


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 7, 2013)

Doer said:


> And yet, the thread is still not locked.
> 
> Maybe this will do it.
> 
> ...


Heh, wrong hemisphere.


----------



## Bombur (Sep 7, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> If apples became carrots...what would the French call potatoes?


Freedome spuds


----------



## Bombur (Sep 7, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> I say we give big business and the government all the power to decide exactly what we eat, grow, wear , just look how well i worked out for good old mother russia, you libs kill me.


Yes because libs want to give so much power to corporations / big business. Derrpppppppp


----------



## Trousers (Sep 7, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> I say we give big business and the government all the power to decide exactly what we eat, grow, wear , just look how well i worked out for good old mother russia, you libs kill me.


Obviously, you are not a golfer.


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 7, 2013)

Bombur said:


> Yes because libs want to give so much power to corporations / big business. Derrpppppppp


Oh they do, they just make i a law first, follow trouser snake, dr d head and you will begin to unthink like them.


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 7, 2013)

*

[h=2]This message is hidden because Trousers is on your ignore list[/h]


*


----------



## Trousers (Sep 7, 2013)

Please do ignore me. You are a sheep like troglodyte. 
Calling you a Luddite is insulting to Luddites and their intellectual capacities.
Your parents sjhould have eaten you while your bones were still soft. 

I wonder how you get dressed in the morning.

Now run along boy.


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 8, 2013)

Let me guess, more profanity laced stupidity , i think its a european thing, since beatings have been removed from your so called civilized world, you lesser beings can say whatever, without fear of retribution. See, here in the states, we only find that in our liberal states, like Mass, NY, Cali.

Its funny, i knew people who moved from those places to ohio and they all got their ass beat within weeks.

Shut your pie holes and try and learn something, better living through chemistry is a lie, and so far, those who prescribe to it are rude , have zero argument, cannot even adequately defend their position , DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND the subject, are either trolls or again my favorite are just uneducated azzholes.

You richard heads started this, with your foul language and insults , more typical stupidity from people who have zero respect for others opinions, actually if scares the pee out of you that you are wrong, so you attack others and call them stupid,,,nah,,,your the stupid ones. Not one of you has come up with a decent argument, just little kiddie anger because your wrong.


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 8, 2013)

*

[h=2]This message is hidden because Trousers is still on your ignore list[/h]


*


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 8, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Let me guess, more profanity laced stupidity , i think its a european thing, since beatings have been removed from your so called civilized world, you lesser beings can say whatever, without fear of retribution. See, here in the states, we only find that in our liberal states, like Mass, NY, Cali.
> 
> Its funny, i knew people who moved from those places to ohio and they all got their ass beat within weeks.
> 
> ...


The butt hurt is strong in this post....

The content is non-existent also....


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 8, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> *
> 
> This message is hidden because Trousers is still on your ignore list
> 
> ...


now now put your toys back in your pram...


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 8, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> The butt hurt is strong in this post....
> 
> The content is non-existent also....


Hey this is their play book, i honestly tried to have a conversation, but some here decided to start typing stupid, i thought it was a contest,,,,you mean,,,they really are stupid,,,maybe you should read back before you type yourself.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 8, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Hey this is their play book, i honestly tried to have a conversation, but some here decided to start typing stupid, i thought it was a contest,,,,you mean,,,they really are stupid,,,maybe you should read back before you type yourself.


Dude this butt hurt is all your own making, don't try to blame other people, own your butt hurt, wear that butt hurt badge with pride


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 8, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Dude this butt hurt is all your own making, don't try to blame other people, own your butt hurt, wear that butt hurt badge with pride


There is zero butt hurt here, i do think you may have some sort or fixation on my butt though, one things for sure, since they started their stupid one of my posts equals three of theirs,,,hey,,hey look who else is ,,,,,,,,,ah never mind, i wanna see if i can get 4 out of ya.


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 8, 2013)

If you post 4 i will send you a free binkie.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 8, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> There is zero butt hurt here, i do think you may have some sort or fixation on my butt though, one things for sure, since they started their stupid one of my posts equals three of theirs,,,hey,,hey look who else is ,,,,,,,,,ah never mind, i wanna see if i can get 4 out of ya.


Post after post of you moaning about them being meanies is quintessential butt hurt


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 8, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Post after post of you moaning about them being meanies is quintessential butt hurt


 yeeeaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh free binkie .


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 8, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> yeeeaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh free binkie .


Reported as spam.


----------



## ChesusRice (Sep 8, 2013)

Doer said:


> And yet, the thread is still not locked.
> 
> Maybe this will do it.
> 
> ...


Polar bear ...eh?
Got a problem with Black Bears?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 8, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> yeeeaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh free binkie .


I had to Google that






Having watched you spit it out last couple of pages I think I'll decline


----------



## Doer (Sep 8, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> Polar bear ...eh?
> Got a problem with Black Bears?


If you can get a Black Bear to close this thread? What? Me Worry?


----------



## Trousers (Sep 8, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Let me guess, more profanity laced stupidity ,


If you want to stop being a whiney little twat, we can debate the issue. If you just want to cry and call people names, then okay, we can do that. 






Someacdude said:


> i think its a european thing, since beatings have been removed from your so called civilized world, you lesser beings can say whatever, without fear of retribution. See, here in the states, we only find that in our liberal states, like Mass, NY, Cali.


I am a conservative born and raised here in the good ol' USA.
What are you trying to imply, internet tough guy?
You really do have a nugget in your diaper. 

Do you have any actual concerns about GMO crops, or do you want to continue with this crap?



Someacdude said:


> Its funny, i knew people who moved from those places to ohio and they all got their ass beat within weeks.


lol Am I supposed to be afraid of you?



Someacdude said:


> Shut your pie holes and try and learn something,


That is cute, like a child playing school teacher. You have nothing to offer but crying butthurt.
Why don't you educate us? I am all ears.

It is too bad you have me blocked, like a scared child. 




Someacdude said:


> better living through chemistry is a lie, and so far, those who prescribe to it are rude , have zero argument, cannot even adequately defend their position ,



You must have memory issues. Do you remember posting in this thread?
Every point you brought up was illogical and incredibly stupid. 

Case in point:
better living through chemistry is a lie

If not for "better living through chemistry" you would probably be dead. 
that has to be the dumbest thing you have said and that is a tall order. 




Someacdude said:


> DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND the subject, are either trolls or again my favorite are just uneducated azzholes.


This is really funny. You got completely worked in the debate, then you cry and cry about the meanies calling you names and then you say that you are going to educate us and that we are uneducated assholes.

Wow. You are not only dumb as a bag of rocks, you are in complete denial about that and all your other mental issues. 
Do you have anything to say about the topic at hand, or do you just want to whine and cry?



Someacdude said:


> You richard heads started this, with your foul language and insults ,



You are confused. Go back and read. 




Someacdude said:


> more typical stupidity


Stop it. "I'm rubber and you are glue" is not working for you. 




Someacdude said:


> from people who have zero respect for others opinions,



I have respect for opinions that make sense logically. I do not have respect for a supposed adult who has no grasp of logic and critical thinking and then says that we need to be educated. 





Someacdude said:


> actually if scares the pee out of you that you are wrong,


You are really delusional. I respect the best findings that peer reviewed studies have revealed. 
If studies start to come out that there are problems with GMO crops, I will take that into consideration. 

You have not offered anything but lies and opinions. Myself and others have offered scientific evidence that counters your lies and opinions. I am sorry that you are too stupid to grasp the depth of your stupidity. 




Someacdude said:


> so you attack others and call them stupid,,,nah,,,your the stupid ones. Not one of you has come up with a decent argument, just little kiddie anger because your wrong.


Go back and read the thread. You are not smart enough to participate in this debate. 


Go drink a hot cup of bleach.


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 8, 2013)

I find world wide that when people behave poorly and you happen to mention it to them ( as in cursing people you dont even know)they generally just love to label people instead of an apology .
Its really a sign of weakness and stupidity. 

I have repeatedly and respectfully expressed my views on this subject only to be called names repeatedly by individuals who are evidently not intelligent enough to express them any other way, i even at time tried to express myself in a manner they could hopefully understand , if you chose to call it something other than what it is fine.

Monsanto doesnt care about anything except their bottom line, the government wont care because the fda , ama, will support it to justify their existence, laws will be written, our home growers will lose money and mainstream America will consume whatever they are prescribed by whoever can make the most money on it, and we will no longer get 1/2 of what we make now , because some big money will swoop in and make it cheaper , faster and with little or no overhead besides what they initially fork out which is free after writing it off for a few years.
Why, because they KNOW how to run a business, most dont.
Taxes, workers comp, insurance etc etc see this is how many will be put out of business. Oh sure , the laws may be lax at the outset, but if you dont remember moonshine was highly illegal until just recently, why?
Because it took money away from big business so they drove the smaller business out of business.
Weed will go the same way.
Ever BUY some of your neighbors home brew? Me either, its free, just like weed will become.
We have enough problems with legalization , as a consumer its good, as a grower its the beginning of the end, if they mass market weed like they do cigs etc, we havent got a chance.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 8, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> I find world wide that when people behave poorly and you happen to mention it to them ( as in cursing people you dont even know)they generally just love to label people instead of an apology .
> Its really a sign of weakness and stupidity.
> 
> I have repeatedly and respectfully expressed my views on this subject only to be called names repeatedly by individuals who are evidently not intelligent enough to express them any other way, i even at time tried to express myself in a manner they could hopefully understand , if you chose to call it something other than what it is fine.
> ...



you are aware you can go back and see EVERYTHING from the time you entered this thread right? 

you started off making assinine claims, outright falsehoods and ad hominems.
you enjoyed the warm embrace of the anti-gmo squad, but then discovered their hugbox did not protect you from FACTS 
the facts which were presented destroyed the comfortable assumptions you had built up around you, from "Big Pharma Be Makin Comfrey Illegal" to "Monsanto Makes Weed Killers So They Must Want To kill Our Weed"

having a thin skin and delicate constitution is contra-indicated if you are going to hang around with DNAProtection and indulge in deliberate self-deception. you are not strong enough in your faith to withstand the doubters who disbelieve your communications.
thus you naturally went on this butthurt jihad of name calling, lies, falsehoods, goalpost moving, straw men, ad hominems, red herrings, tantrums and showing off your 'ignore list" 

mas marketed weed will not stop homegrown weeds any more than the War On Drugs has. your alanolgy with tobacco is entirely false, as tobacco reqquires very specific climate and conditions, a great deal of care, and shitloads of specialized treatment after harvest. home grown tobacco is something only a highly skilled gardener or a supremely dedicated smoker could pull of. 

if Bwana Bloomberg gets his way and tobacco becomes the next prohibition target, home grown tobacco will become A Thing, but home grown weed has ALWAYS been A Thing. 

meanwhile comfrey is still NOT ILLEGAL, strill havent heard you make the "apology" for that one, while you seem to expect everybody else to grovel at your feet for offending your pre-conceptions, and proving you are WRONG.


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 8, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> I find world wide that when people behave poorly and you happen to mention it to them ( as in cursing people you dont even know)they generally just love to label people instead of an apology .
> Its really a sign of weakness and stupidity.
> 
> I have repeatedly and respectfully expressed my views on this subject only to be called names repeatedly by individuals who are evidently not intelligent enough to express them any other way, i even at time tried to express myself in a manner they could hopefully understand , if you chose to call it something other than what it is fine.
> ...


You butthurt, bro.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 9, 2013)

3 paragraphs that I won't read. 
and someacdude will wonder what I am posting here, because he blocked me, because I am a meanie, a big, stinky meanie. 
Let me put my love inside of you, someacdude.


----------



## Doer (Sep 9, 2013)

*Monsanto doesnt care about anything except their bottom line, the government wont care because the fda , ama, will support it to justify their existence, laws will be written, our home* growers will lose money *and mainstream America will consume whatever they are prescribed by whoever can make the most money on it, and we will no longer get 1/2 of what we make now , because some big money will swoop in and make it cheaper , faster and with little or no overhead besides what they initially fork out which is free after writing it off for a few years.*

Here is problem. You are self deceived, but like many of us, you won't admit it, because you can't see it yet. The biggest liar to us, is ourselves. And so we become the main victim of our own self deceit.

You say you come for discussion, but you don't. You simply expect us to buy into and support your line of thinking. It is a false argument but you will not try to refute any counter-point. You just insist and you begin to throw out the insults and the back ass, put downs.

You do that. It is so typical of this false argument style. Where you don't find support, you attack, and when you get served for attacking, you whine about it.

You are only fooling yourself. Look how many times you predict the future as certainty.

You lie to you.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 9, 2013)

*Hugbox *was funny


----------



## Doer (Sep 9, 2013)

Well, do they have any puppies or rats, or something actually cute?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 9, 2013)

Trousers said:


> *Hugbox *was funny


Teh Kitties!!!1!1111!one!!1!11Uno!!


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 10, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> Teh Kitties!!!1!1111!one!!1!11Uno!!


Sure I'd still be hungry after just one tho...


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 17, 2013)

Trousers said:


> 3 paragraphs that I won't read.
> and someacdude will wonder what I am posting here, because he blocked me, because I am a meanie, a big, stinky meanie.
> Let me put my love inside of you, someacdude.


cockblocked again trout?
my heart goes out 2u<3


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 17, 2013)

http://www.naturalnews.com/042093_internet_trolls_chat_rooms_federal_government.html








[h=1]Federal government routinely hires internet trolls, shills to monitor chat rooms, disrupt article comment sections[/h]Tuesday, September 17, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
















[h=1]Pro-GMO 'experts' are corporate shills with financial ties to Big Tobacco[/h]Monday, September 16, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes





Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042072_GMO_experts_corporate_shills_Big_Tobacco.html#ixzz2f9rIvkpX

(NaturalNews) People who are claiming to be so-called "experts" regarding genetically engineered foods are really just shills for big corporations that have financial ties to Big Tobacco, writes Michele Simon, a public health lawyer who specializes in industry marketing and lobbying tactics.

In a short series of articles posted at _TreeHugger.com, which is published by the same company that broadcasts The Discovery Channel, and on her own website, Simon says some of the same industry consultants with ties to the tobacco industry are now lobbying for "Big Food" in "opposing the ballot initiative that would require labeling of all foods containing GMO ingredients."

*So-called experts hawking so-called expertise

She cites information contained in the financial filings of a movement, No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, which showed that a $7,500 payment was made to a political consulting firm, the Sacramento-based MB Public Affairs, which was described this way by the Los Angeles Times last year:

MB Public Affairs is headed by Mark Bogetich, a garrulous operative known to his friends as "Bogey," who has helped a number of Republican candidates neutralize their opponents. In recent years, MB Public Affairs has worked for Altria, once known as the Phillip Morris Cos. ...

Part of the No on 37 effort to lobby against the proposition, according to Simon, is to put up "alleged scientific experts to do its bidding, once again taking a page from the tobacco industry playbook."

According to the organization, the proposition is "deceptive" because it is a "payday for trial lawyers," will "increase food costs for the average family by hundreds of dollars per year" and amount to "a hidden food tax that would especially hurt seniors and low-income families who can least afford it," and is "full of absurd, politically motivated exemptions that make no sense."

But Simon writes that "corporations such as Philip Morris or Monsanto don't have actual facts on their side," so they have had to resort to "third-party experts" to make their case.

One such expert is Henry Miller, a physician and molecular biologist who she says misleadingly wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle recently that "Americans have consumed more than 3 trillion servings of food with genetically engineered ingredients - with not a single documented ill effect."

"This statement is about as relevant as saying that genetically engineered food does not cause herpes. No one has been looking for effect either," says Simon.

She goes on to say that Miller also "misrepresented" positions held by the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association and the National Academy of Sciences when he claimed these groups "and other respected medical and health organizations all conclude that genetically engineered foods are safe."

Ties to tobacco?

In fact, Simon writes, the AMA has called on the Food and Drug Administration to require "pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventative measure to ensure the health of the public." Currently, she says, there is no such safety testing apparatus in place for GMO foods.

More recently, Miller penned another op-ed, this one for Forbes magazine, in opposition to Prop 37, which Simon said contained more deception.

For one thing, he writes that the FDA "followed the science and declined to require special labeling for genetically engineered foods." But as Simon has written, the agency's action was only the result of heavy lobbying from Monsanto.

She says Miller is currently a "senior research fellow" at the Hoover Institute after spending 15 years at the FDA "as an outspoken advocate of GMOs."

She said he also has ties to the tobacco industry.

According to a 1994 industry newsletter, she says, "Miller helped write the founding principles for 'The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition' - a now-defunct front group created by Phillip Morris that tried to discredit research linking tobacco to cancer and heart disease, especially among office workers and children living with smoking parents."

Sources:

http://www.treehugger.com

http://www.appetiteforprofit.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042072_GMO_experts_corporate_shills_Big_Tobacco.html#ixzz2f9rhv6a5*_


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Sep 17, 2013)

This thread was dead for a week. Stop resurrecting old threads.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 17, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> snipped spam


Reported as spam


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 17, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> This tgread was dead for a week. Stop resurrecting old threads.


hmmm...if you are here posting, then is it really dead?


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Sep 17, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> hmmm...if you are here posting, then is it really dead?


*gigantic eye roll* I posted to say let it stay dead. Didn't even read your bullshit of a post. 

Let the damn thing stay dead.


----------



## Doer (Sep 17, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> *gigantic eye roll* I posted to say let it stay dead. Didn't even read your bullshit of a post.
> 
> Let the damn thing stay dead.


If we ignore trolls, the MAY just go away....remember Kandahar? No. GOOD.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 17, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> http://www.naturalnews.com/042093_internet_trolls_chat_rooms_federal_government.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...









Dammnit! Dont you Die on me!!

Dont Go Into The Light!!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 17, 2013)

this entire thread has been such a Gold Mine of lulz, it should be preserved forever!

a thousand years from now, stoners should make pilgrimages to this thread's Sacred Shrine where they could leave offerings to the Luziest Of All Threads and pray for it's intercession on their behalf. 


Ohh Most Blessed of Threads, I beseech thee, Smite those who would bogart upon thy servant's doobie, lay them low with your Smotency, and also the same for them what gets all slobbery on the pipe. 
In Ganja's Name, Amen.


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 17, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> this entire thread has been such a Gold Mine of lulz, it should be preserved forever!
> 
> a thousand years from now, stoners should make pilgrimages to this thread's Sacred Shrine where they could leave offerings to the Luziest Of All Threads and pray for it's intercession on their behalf.
> 
> ...


And in his mind, GAYprotection still genuinely thinks he won...


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 18, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> *gigantic eye roll* I posted to say let it stay dead. Didn't even read your bullshit of a post.
> 
> Let the damn thing stay dead.


and then would you be truly grateful? 
would you not then be a grateful dead thread head?
well dead thread head i think you may have to keep truckin cuz in the coming months me thinks there will plenty more gmo chips to cash in here


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 18, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> this entire thread has been such a Gold Mine of lulz, it should be preserved forever!
> 
> a thousand years from now, stoners should make pilgrimages to this thread's Sacred Shrine where they could leave offerings to the Luziest Of All Threads and pray for it's intercession on their behalf.
> 
> ...


yes doc frank is correct on this one lol...and if this were 1984 you would be speaking in perfect Orwellian


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Sep 18, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> and then would you be truly grateful?
> would you not then be a grateful dead thread head?
> well dead thread head i think you may have to keep truckin cuz in the coming months me thinks there will plenty more gmo chips to cash in here


If you keep reviving it, they will close it. Beat a dead horse much?


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 18, 2013)

ok DTH  i hope your bus is in good shape though cuz you'll no doubt be following that dead horse right back to the poll topic when the corpsgov gets through 'shaping' their up and coming new cannabis rules


----------



## Doer (Sep 18, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> ok DTH  i hope your bus is in good shape though cuz you'll no doubt be following that dead horse right back to the poll topic when the corpsgov gets through 'shaping' their up and coming new cannabis rules


I can't wait to see them....to laugh.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 19, 2013)

yes deer Doer and such also describes my feelings for you<3

this morning though i grabbed one for GCR and i find myself asking the same question about him whenever his lil posts pop up









[h=1]GM Golden Rice: Miracle or menace? Top activists speak out[/h]Thursday, September 19, 2013 by: Carolanne Wright





Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042124_Golden_Rice_GMOs_activists.html#ixzz2fLBl7iq7


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 19, 2013)

'emergency act', what a perfect train to roll this effort back on to the tracks with...dont ya love it DTH 









[h=1]Emergency federal spending bill contains hidden provisions of Monsanto Protection Act[/h]Thursday, September 19, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer





Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042118_Monsanto_Protection_Act_emergency_federal_spending_bill_hidden_provisions.html#ixzz2fLNB62Go

(NaturalNews) A complete shutdown of the federal government is looming -- to many Americans, this is actually a good thing -- and Congress is scrambling to pass a so-called "Continuing Resolution" (CR) that will ensure our traitorous overlords have enough fiat cash on hand to continue with business as usual. But hiding in this upcoming appropriations bill is, you guessed it -- the aptly named Monsanto Protection Act, in all its shameless atrocity.

According to a recent report by _Digital Journal, House Republicans quietly inserted the previously abandoned -- or so we all thought! -- language from the inappropriately named "Farmer Assurance Provision" into the new appropriations legislation, where it is intended to be passed in secret. Since the traitors in Congress could not get their precious Monsanto Protection Act passed outright, they instead resorted to deception.

"The text of the bill the provision is tucked away in was released ... by House Appropriations Committee Chairman, and recipient of Monsanto campaign contributions in 2010 and 2012, Harold Rogers of Kentucky," writes Justin King for Digital Journal. "The controversial provision was almost repealed, until Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri opposed the bill. Blunt received campaign contributions in 2010 and 2012 from Monsanto."

In other words, Monsanto paid off the most willing lackeys in Congress to re-insert language into an unrelated bill that will give the company and the rest of the biotechnology industry free reign to plant untested and potentially dangerous genetically modified (GM) crops without safety approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Additionally, the heinous provisions would block judges from ruling against GMO plantings, even if said GMOs are shown to be unsafe.

"The so-called Farmer Assurance Provision -- misnamed because, frankly, the only ones who are assured about anything are GMO manufacturers like Monsanto -- actually strips federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of potentially hazardous genetically engineered crops while USDA is performing an environmental impact statement," explains the Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) in a recent alert about the issue.

"It's a huge blow to the justice system, completely overriding judicial safeguards that protect both farmers and the public."

[h=1]Shootings, threats of war distracting public from what Congress is doing behind the scenes in secret[/h]So while the public is distracted with gun control, false flags and Syria propaganda, Congress is sneakily trying to erode what few safeguards remain with regards to GM crop plantings in the U.S. If the Monsanto Protection Act is passed as part of the emergency appropriations bill, it could spell the end of any semblance of oversight over GM crop approvals, which would further harm the average American farmer trying to grow non-GMO and organic crops.

"It is extremely disappointing to see the damaging 'Monsanto Protection Act' policy rider extended in the House spending bill," says Colin O'Neil, director of government affairs for Center for Food Safety. "Hundreds of thousands of Americans called their elected officials to voice their frustration and disappointment over the inclusion of 'Monsanto Protection Act' this past spring. Its inclusion is a slap in the face to the American public and our justice system."

Even though they often do not listen, our so-called representatives in Congress need to hear from all of us about their stealthy little plan to hide the Monsanto Protection Act in the new spending bill. Massive public outcry back in the spring was effective enough to at least stall the passage of the Monsanto Protection Act for a while. Now, a groundswell of opposition must emerge to kill this egregious affront to food liberty once and for all.

You can contact your Congressmen through the ANH-USA Action Alert page:
http://www.anh-usa.org

*Sources for this article include:

http://www.digitaljournal.com

http://www.anh-usa.org


*_


----------



## Trousers (Sep 19, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> yes deer Doer and such also describes my feelings for you<3
> 
> this morning though i grabbed one for GCR and i find myself asking the same question about him whenever his lil posts pop up
> 
> ...





Here is a link for you:
www.YouAreSuchAFuckingDumbass.com


----------



## Trousers (Sep 19, 2013)

Did you even read that garbage article?
I doubt you would understand it.


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 19, 2013)

Reported as spam. 

GAYprotection is clearly a Natural(ly Retarded) News spammer.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 20, 2013)

Trousers said:


> Here is a link for you:
> www.YouAreSuchAFuckingDumbass.com


well trout if thats true then what do we call this:


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 20, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Reported as spam.
> 
> GAYprotection is clearly a Natural(ly Retarded) News spammer.


your living the laws of attraction on both counts frank, maybe we are kin?...










[h=1]Natural News exclusive: Whole Foods Market whistleblower says employees were deliberately trained to lie about GMOs - new Organic Spies video[/h]




Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042144_Organic_Spies_Whole_Foods_Market_GMO_whistleblower.html#ixzz2fRIQjsgN











[h=1]Scientific American discredits itself by insisting that consumers be kept in the dark about GMOs[/h]




Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042142_Scientific_American_GMO_labeling_consumer_information.html#ixzz2fRJDkDVv










[h=1]TED aligns with Monsanto, halting any talks about GMOs, 'food as medicine' or natural healing[/h]




Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042112_TED_conferences_pseudoscience_GMO.html#ixzz2fRJN6KtC


----------



## Trousers (Sep 20, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> well trout if thats true then what do we call this:




A Golden God.


You are just the poo on the bottom of horse hoof.

Keep posting articles, it just makes you look more idiotic. 
Do you want to post some articles about vaccines now?


You really should have someone read the articles you post and then maybe explain them to you.


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 20, 2013)

Trousers said:


> A Golden God.
> 
> 
> You are just the poo on the bottom of horse hoof.
> ...


Or the magical "Energy Catalyser" they tout even tho it's CLEARLY bullshit.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 20, 2013)

Trousers said:


> A Golden God...


so then you are the god of golden trout?  

meanwhile back in the lab i think we may have discovered the reasoning and or triggers that go a long way in accounting for the sweathogs thinking processes etc...

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/727058-foundations-custer-logic-custer-science.html

[video=youtube;UPccMlgug8A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPccMlgug8A[/video]


----------



## Bombur (Sep 20, 2013)

Hey what do you guys think about GMO's (genetically modified organisms) ? Do you think our cannabis could benefit from these modifications, or do you oppose them?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 20, 2013)

Bombur said:


> Hey what do you guys think about GMO's (genetically modified organisms) ? Do you think our cannabis could benefit from these modifications, or do you oppose them?


actually, this is what is being discussed AT LENGTH. 

ignore the poll up top, that is a specious piece of shit based on deliberate deception and false assumptions. 

read the thread, decide who has or has not proved their case and decide for yourself.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 20, 2013)

Bombur said:


> Hey what do you guys think about GMO's (genetically modified organisms) ? Do you think our cannabis could benefit from these modifications, or do you oppose them?


good topic...you should start a thread 




Dr Kynes said:


> actually, this is what is being discussed AT LENGTH.
> 
> ignore the poll up top, that is a specious piece of shit based on deliberate deception and false assumptions.
> 
> *read the thread, decide who has or has not proved their case and decide for yourself*.


totally agree with your better half doc (in bold)...your first misleading bit of untruth though is another shinning example of Custer logic...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 20, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> good topic...you should start a thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so, you contend that there IS a GMO cannabis program someplace, anyplace? 

place evidence here:_________________________________________________________________________________________________

you contend Monsanto SPECIFICALLY has a GMO cannabis program?

place evidence here __________________________________________________________________________________________________

you contend that your poll is somehow related to cannabis when in fact there is no evidence of ANY GMO cannabis program anywhere, by anyone, for any purpose? 

Explain that bullshit here:______________________________________________________________________________________________


----------



## Trousers (Sep 20, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> good topic...you should start a thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Custer logic, that's cute.
You are dumb as a box of rocks. 

You are such an idiot.


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 21, 2013)

Trousers said:


> Custer logic, that's cute.
> You are dumb as a box of rocks.
> 
> You are such an idiot.


I came to that conclusion about 300 pages ago...

Glad to see people agree with my viewpoint


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so, you contend that there IS a GMO cannabis program someplace, anyplace?
> 
> place evidence here:_________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> ...


right doc and I suppose Custer was correct in his assumptions/calculations pertaining to the number of indians at the little big horn


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 21, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> right doc and I suppose Custer was correct in his assumptions/calculations pertaining to the number of indians at the little big horn


Lol, like you can talk about other people getting shit wrong!

Your posts are always good for a facepalm (or 10).


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 21, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Lol, like you can talk about other people getting shit wrong!
> 
> Your posts are always good for a facepalm (or 10).


oh frank you have had page after page to show 'i was wrong' about something (if you really believe that) and yet you offer only sweathogwash like this 

this thread was inspired by what 'we' dont know, not by what we think 'we' do know based on Custer logic etc


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 21, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> oh frank you have had page after page to show 'i was wrong' about something (if you really believe that) and yet you offer only sweathogwash like this
> 
> this thread was inspired by what 'we' dont know, not by what we think 'we' do know based on Custer logic etc


Learn the scientific method, how peer review works and then come back and try talk about science. 

Natural News is your main source, and you talk about bad science...lmao.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 21, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Learn the scientific method, how peer review works and then come back and try talk about science.
> 
> Natural News is your main source, and you talk about bad science...lmao.


hehe oh frank i've been alive now for going on 50 yrs and i only just stumbled upon that site recently and well after i wrote the proposal and started this thread etc...
i've been 'wrong' plenty in my life (my share at least) but what *drives* what you call 'the scientific method and peer review' etc is a matter of fact not opinion in that politics/money/power etc taint and manipulate all that you think you know = the Custer syndrome


----------



## Trousers (Sep 21, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> oh frank you have had page after page to show 'i was wrong' about something (if you really believe that) and yet you offer only sweathogwash like this



Don't be a coy asshole. If you post an article, it is assumed that you have read and understood the article. 
claiming that you have not read any of the articles you post and are not necessarily in agreement with the lies and garbage you post is disingenuous and very much asshole behavior. 

Claiming that you were never wrong is amazingly naive, stupid, insulting...

You post garbage and you are human trash. 



DNAprotection said:


> this thread was inspired by what 'we' dont know, not by what we think 'we' do know based on Custer logic etc


Nice back track idiot. 
This thread turned into you exposing your idiocy and pretty much bragging about it. 
I have never encountered some one so eager to show how stupid they are.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 21, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> hehe oh frank i've been alive now for going on 50 yrs


What? I had you pegged as a 20 something year old, young, dumb and full of...
You are 50?







You spend time spreading lies and propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You have the mind of a 13 year old boy, minus the intellect. 





DNAprotection said:


> and i only just stumbled upon that site recently


Take a long stumble on a short dock. You suck ass on hot ice. 



DNAprotection said:


> and well after i wrote the proposal and started this thread etc...


You wrote garbage and tried to back it up with garbage. 
Your lies get slapped down and you keep coming with more lies. It is weird.



DNAprotection said:


> i've been 'wrong' plenty in my life (my share at least)


apparently oyu have no idea. You are wrong constantly. you are very good at it. That does not mean you should spread lies around. Grow up. 




DNAprotection said:


> but what *drives* what you call 'the scientific method and peer review'


You are not smart enough to understand the scientific method. You are slowly starting to realize that your whole belief system is based on lies. So instead of adjusting your crippled and underdeveloped paradigm, you attack the scientific method.

I wish you could understand how childish and incredibly naive that is. 
There is no way you are 50 years old and this dumb. 




DNAprotection said:


> etc is a matter of fact not opinion in that politics/money/power etc taint and manipulate all that you think you know = the Custer syndrome



You are tainted.
You are a terrible person.
You are a liar. 
You are worse than a liar in that you spread propaganda.

If you want to trade insults instead of you listing lies, that is fine too. That is just one more thing that I can do better than you.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 21, 2013)

Trousers said:


> Don't be a coy asshole. If you post an article, it is assumed that you have read and understood the article...


just like a trout to assume everything is 'golden' when biting to swallow...



Trousers said:


> Nice back track idiot.
> This thread turned into you exposing your idiocy and pretty much bragging about it.
> I have never encountered some one so eager to show how stupid they are.


i can only guess you dont have a mirror and that you never met frank


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 21, 2013)

To all you idiots who decided you would rather call people names rather than using your minds, i will unblock you just so you can kiss my ass.
I was right, you where wrong, dont be a bitch and hold back, as a matter of fact start a new thread just to apologize to me and admit you are stupid.


http://investmentwatchblog.com/obama-appoints-monsanto-vp-to-food-safety-czar/


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 21, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> To all you idiots who decided you would rather call people names rather than using your minds, i will unblock you just so you can kiss my ass.
> I was right, you where wrong, dont be a bitch and hold back, as a matter of fact start a new thread just to apologize to me and admit you are stupid.
> 
> 
> http://investmentwatchblog.com/obama-appoints-monsanto-vp-to-food-safety-czar/


c'mon man...that's worth at least a video 

[video=youtube;S_px9ZInYKA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=S_px9ZInYKA[/video]


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 21, 2013)

Trousers said:


> You are not smart enough to understand the scientific method.


understand this trout, 'i saw the movie and i read the book, but when it happened to me i sure was glad i had what it took to get away'...maybe you should swim around that a bit before you bite down


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 21, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> c'mon man...that's worth at least a video
> 
> [video=youtube;S_px9ZInYKA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=S_px9ZInYKA[/video]


Im just waiting for the tards to tell me the government isnt going to try and take control of this too, seriously, lots of people are going out of business, not because their product isnt great, its because they wont pass the health codes, electrical codes tax codes etc. I already do, but m,any dont, these libtards just handed total control over our grows to monsanto and big government.

What a joke, Obummer appointing vp from an evil corp , stupid stupid stupid, just another example of not taking care of joe public, neither side cares


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 21, 2013)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/monsanto-petition-tells-obama-cease-fda-ties-to-monsanto/2012/01/30/gIQAA9dZcQ_blog.html


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> so, you contend that there IS a GMO cannabis program someplace, anyplace?
> 
> place evidence here:_________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> ...


it would be a shame to let this moment pass without clarifying the record for posterity wouldn't ya say doc?...
so should i deduce from this that your claiming such is not happening?
with your viewpoint on this subject you are clearly a gambler...
so how about lets make a 'gentlemen's wager' on this question?
'short term', if you can show definitively that there is no "GMO cannabis program someplace, anyplace?" then i will leave this site 4ever  and if i can show the opposite then you must leave this site until you at least reach mental puberty...what do you say doc?
also long term terms will be if you can within one year definitively disprove this statement: "Monsanto SPECIFICALLY has a GMO cannabis program?" (your words not mine)
and for my part i will have one year to show that your statement above is actually sadly true...the same consequences would of course apply 
well doc what's up


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 21, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> it would be a shame to let this moment pass without clarifying the record for posterity wouldn't ya say doc?...
> so should i deduce from this that your claiming such is not happening?
> with your viewpoint on this subject you are clearly a gambler...
> so how about lets make a 'gentlemen's wager' on this question?
> ...


what a bold challenge! if i can prove something DOESNT exist youll eat your own hat. 

in the entire history of the earth nobody has EVER proved a negative. 

instead of accepting my challenge to support your ACTUAL VERIFIABLE CLAIMS, you "flip dah script" and double-dawg-dare me to prove a negative... 

if you have proof to support your allegations that:

A:Monsanto has a GMO cannabis program
OR 
B: ANYBODY ANYWHERE has a GMO cannabis program 

it should be super easy to back that up, while proving that something which does NOT exist *IN FACT DOES NOT EXIST* is impossible. 

if you were half as clever as you think you are you would already understand this. 
if you were 5/8 as smart as you think you are you would recognize how absolutely retarded it is to demand anyone prove a negative assertion. 
if you were 3/4 as smart as you think you are, you would have cited actual evidence to back up your claims long ago, and i would be agreeing with your hypothetically PROVEN assertions. 

unfortunately for you, you have failed to recognize the value of proving your claims, failed to understand how to argue an assertion, and failed to make the grand leap of logic which allows the rest of us to realize that if a claim is unsupported by facts it is almost certainly not true.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 21, 2013)

doc your logic is seriously flawed from the get go because my only claim was that monsanto would be negligent to their mission statement and shareholders if they were not perusing cannabis as one of their up and coming genetic slave species (in fact a poster child for such)...they've got the gene ohm maps so how does it make sense to you that they wouldnt use them?...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 21, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> doc your logic is seriously flawed from the get go because my only claim was that monsanto would be negligent to their mission statement and shareholders if they were not perusing cannabis as one of their up and coming genetic slave species (in fact a poster child for such)...they've got the gene ohm maps so how does it make sense to you that they wouldnt use them?...


well then it should be super easy to point to a GMO Dope Patent, a GMO Weed Research Grant, a GMO Chronic Clinical Trial, or a GMO Doobie Smokeout someplace in the world. 

unless of course, while you were moving those goalposts about so furiously, you "accidentally" pushed them into the sea, and watched them sink, shouting all the while:* "Aww Shucks! now I'll never be able to prove my claims! Thanks Monsanto!". *


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 21, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> doc your logic is seriously flawed from the get go because my only claim was that monsanto would be negligent to their mission statement and shareholders if they were not perusing cannabis as one of their up and coming genetic slave species (in fact a poster child for such)...they've got the gene ohm maps so how does it make sense to you that they wouldnt use them?...


Because hes an idiot?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 21, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Because hes an idiot?


my challenge to *Show Proof Of Your Assertions *goes DOUBLE for you. 

DNAProtection may use shitty sources, but he is still head and shoulders above you, with ZERO sources.

Edit: ohh yeah, and proven lies. 

Comfrey is still not illegal doofus.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 21, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Because hes an idiot?


and drunk as a skunk on Custer junk


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 21, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> and drunk as a skunk on Custer logic


Don't bother having a circle jerk with Somegaydude, he's probably got as little credability as you so you won't get far.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 21, 2013)

oh frank lol credibility? 

Frank on his wife: 
She worships the ground I walk on!
Potter: Who told you that?
Frank: My mother.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 21, 2013)

More '70's references? 









You must be a very Macho Man.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 21, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> what a bold challenge! if i can prove something DOESNT exist youll eat your own hat.
> 
> in the entire history of the earth nobody has EVER proved a negative.
> 
> ...


and yet you somehow (Custer logic) still insist (as if fact) that such efforts do not exist...lol...doc, why do you hate reality? (the one we all come from, not the one you invent to replace it)
every number counts doc, your Custer science seeks to pretend they dont even exist let alone count...

[video=youtube;LJRs2TnP9H8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRs2TnP9H8[/video]

much you can learn from that doc, but aside from all that (which no doubt will get by you) at least leave knowing that i now own your scalp and i'll be having trout for dinner


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 21, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> and yet you somehow (Custer logic) still insist (as if fact) that such efforts do not exist...lol...doc, why do you hate reality? (the one we all come from, not the one you invent to replace it)
> every number counts doc, your Custer science seeks to pretend they dont even exist let alone count...
> 
> <another irrelevant 1970's reference snipped.>
> ...


so, because Burns Red and Buffalo Woman were Rubbed Out, that proves that it's my job to DISPROVE every buffleheaded, far fetched, whackado, insane looney tunes idiotic claim ever made, or i must meekly accept them as TRUE? 


that is the exact opposite of logic, science and reason. that is IRRATIONALITY and magical thinking. 







*Protip: *thats not how evolution happens.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 21, 2013)

prolly would suffice to just say you dont know for sure just like i dont know for sure...after that an 'educated' guess is not so sweathogish, even if spawned from Custer logic/science etc... 
and sometimes 'evolution' leaves you with a piece of missing scalp a' doc


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 22, 2013)

*[h=1]Monsanto & Seed Patent Laws[/h]*
[h=3]Aasif Mandvi learns that greedy farmers have threatened the livelihood of Monsanto's heroic patent attorneys. (04:24)[/h]
[video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-12-2013/monsanto---seed-patent-laws[/video]










[h=1]Monsanto gets its corporate behind handed to it on a platter by Daily Show[/h]Saturday, September 21, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer





Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042156_Monsanto_Daily_Show_seed_patents.html#ixzz2 fcu1Kp5m


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *Monsanto & Seed Patent Laws
> 
> *
> *Aasif Mandvi learns that greedy farmers have threatened the livelihood of Monsanto's heroic patent attorneys. (04:24)*
> ...


Only links, no comment. 

Reported as spam.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 22, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Only links, no comment.
> 
> Reported as spam.


only spam with no links, reported as Custer logic 


http://blogs.naturalnews.com/the-gmo-controversy-has-a-silver-lining/



[h=1]The GMO Controversy Has A Silver Lining[/h]













By Hesh Goldstein
Posted Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 06:36pm EDT



I have a friend, Hector Valenzuela, who is a professor and crop specialist at the University of Hawaii-Manoa and of a very rare breed. Being against GMOs probably puts him as the only UH educator that fights GMOs.
Recently, a very rare incident occurred  the Honolulu Star Advertiser, our main newspaper in the islands, printed an article that Hector wrote about GMOs, which I felt deserved broader viewing. I asked his permission to reprint it and got it.
Let me add one more thing before the article. Dr. Stephanie Seneff of MIT is came to Honolulu to speak about the disastrous health ramifications put on us by GMOs. Her venue brought all sorts of vermin out from under the rocks. As the MC of the event, I had a ball. Theres nothing like hearing from Monsantos hookers and con men that only cite scientific studies prepared by Monsantos employees.
As a side note, Dr. Seneff co-authored a report that appeared in Entropy that associated GMOs with inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, ADHD, autism, Alzheimers disease, Parkinsons disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, infertility, and developmental malformations.
Not only did she address these issues but linked them to a severe sulfur (the essential mineral) deficiency due to the fact that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsantos herbicide Roundup Ready, contributes to the wipe-out of sulfur in the soil along with the petro-chemical fertilizers.
Heres Hectors article:
 As a result of the growing public controversy about genetically modified (GM) crops in Hawaii, the agro-chemical industry has responded with a concerted public relations and lobbying campaign.
Concerns about the open-field experimental planting of GM crops in Hawaii include their intensive use of pesticides, applied almost 245 days out of the year.
As part of its campaign to promote genetic engineering, the agro-chemical industry is making broad statements that are not supported by facts.
These unsupported statements include the claims that no one has been harmed from consuming GM crops and that a scientific consensus exists about their safety.
Challenging the industry claims of safety, only within the past year we have learned that:
*The University of Hawaii GM Rainbow papaya that was released in 1998 contains a hidden viral gene segment that was introduced into the crop without the knowledge oh UH researchers and regulators. No research was conducted to determine the safety of this gene segment prior to the commercial release of the Rainbow papaya. This hidden gene segment was not reported to regulators, as part of the initial permit process, for deregulation of the Rainbow papaya in the U.S. or for export to Japan. Emails sent to the UH papaya team over the past few months, with questions about this hidden gene segment, have gone unanswered.
*Recently, the unintended contamination of farms with unapproved GM wheat was reported in Oregon, threatening our lucrative export market to Europe.
*A long-term study with pigs showed that GM ingredients caused considerable inflammation of the stomach and abnormal uterus growth, as compared to non-GM controls.
*A life-long feeding trial with rats showed that both Roundup-ready crops and the herbicide Roundup caused mammary tumors in females, four times as many tumors in males observed 600 days earlier than in controls; early death; sexual hormonal imbalance; and pituitary gland, liver, and severe kidney dysfunction; when compared to the controls.
*Several studies have observed a synergistic effect on the herbicide Roundup with the adjuvants that are used to apply it, resulting in toxicity to human, embryonic and placental cells.
*A recent study found that Roundup enhanced the growth of breast cancer cells. Earlier research also showed hormonal disruptions; increased testosterone levels; and altered estrogen activity, which is related to tumor formation and growth.
*The pesticide Bt, incorporated as a trait into so-called Bt plants, was found to be toxic to blood cells in mice. Earlier research detected the same Bt toxins in the blood of pregnant women (93 percent), and in the fetus (80 percent) of those tested, presumably from their ingestion of Bt residues in the food supply.
The unsubstantiated public relations statements made by the GM industry, and the considerable monetary contributions to decision makers (my note: from the President down to the local politicians), have failed to allay public concerns.
The strategy of the chemical industry to influence public opinion, to create uncertainty about the health risks of its products, and to prevent regulatory action is well documented by David Michaels in the book Doubt is their Product: How Industrys Assault on Science Threatens Our Health.
Michaels is currently the assistant secretary for labor at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The silver lining with respect to the current debate about crop biotechnology is that more people are becoming involved in the democratic process, educating themselves about our food system. As a result, consumers are increasingly making wiser and healthier lifestyle choices when feeding their families.
The popularity of healthy and wholesome, toxic-free produce has increased the demand for locally grown food, farmers markets, the support of small family farms and ecological systems of agriculture.
We are very fortunate to have educators, scientists, and the average Joe fighting for purity in our food supply.
If it comes in a box, pass. If it comes in a can, pass. If you do know the source of every ingredient, pass. If it comes from a fast-food place, pass. If it comes from a major food supplier like Kelloggs, Nabisco, Hersheys, Conagra, Pepsico, Coca Cola, Kraft, Heinz, Smucker, Dean Foods, Rich Products, Welchs, Bumble Bee, Campbell Soup, Cargill, General Mills, Godiva, Hormel, Land O Lakes, Mars, Morton, Ocean Spray, Sara Lee, Del Monte, Abbott Nutrition, S&W, Tree Top, Goya, or any chemical or bio-tech company, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass!
Only you can and should decide what you put in your and your familys body. So, if soy, including lecithin in chocolate, cotton, as in cottonseed oil, corn, as in corn oil, chips or fructose syrup, sugar beets, canola, whether it says organic or not, and now wheat, does not say organic or non-GMO, you are opening the door to misery.
Aloha!


----------



## Trousers (Sep 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> understand this trout, 'i saw the movie and i read the book, but when it happened to me i sure was glad i had what it took to get away'...maybe you should swim around that a bit before you bite down




you should wake up to reality or drink a cup of bleach


----------



## Trousers (Sep 22, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> To all you idiots who decided you would rather call people names rather than using your minds, i will unblock you just so you can kiss my ass.



The irony. You call people names while accusing them of calling you names. 
I kicked your ass debating facts and you blocked me because you are a whiney child. 




Someacdude said:


> I was right, you where wrong, dont be a bitch and hold back, as a matter of fact start a new thread just to apologize to me and admit you are stupid.



Tell me what was I wrong about, I'm not seeing it. 





Someacdude said:


> http://investmentwatchblog.com/obama-appoints-monsanto-vp-to-food-safety-czar/





I do not see where I was wrong. 
I am sure you will make up some sort of lie, so let's hear it.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 22, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Im just waiting for the tards


You are a rude child. Grow up. 




Someacdude said:


> to tell me the government isnt going to try and take control of this too, seriously, lots of people are going out of business, not because their product isnt great, its because they wont pass the health codes, electrical codes tax codes etc.


What exactly are you whining about? I thought you were railing against the scientific method specifically related to GMO crops. 




Someacdude said:


> I already do, but m,any dont, these libtards


While I agree many liberals are idiots, using the word "retarded" is classless and juvenile. Grow up idiot. 




Someacdude said:


> just handed total control over our grows to monsanto and big government.
> 
> What a joke, Obummer appointing vp from an evil corp , stupid stupid stupid, just another example of not taking care of joe public, neither side cares


You should focus your rage.


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> only spam with no links, reported as Custer logic
> 
> 
> http://blogs.naturalnews.com/the-gmo-controversy-has-a-silver-lining/
> ...


No comment, just another TL;DR copy/paste. 

Reported as spam.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> doc your logic


You are a 50 year old man (lol) and you have no idea what logic is. Your definition of logic is not shared by the rest of the world. 



DNAprotection said:


> is seriously flawed from the get go because my only claim was that monsanto would be negligent to their mission statement and shareholders


You posted endless articles that were lies and propaganda. You are a liar. 




DNAprotection said:


> if they were not perusing cannabis as one of their up and coming genetic slave species (in fact a poster child for such)...they've got the gene ohm maps so how does it make sense to you that they wouldnt use them?...


You do not make any sense. 

Even if Monsanto has a triple secret cannabis program that will not stop me from growing world class genetics in my organic soil.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> prolly would suffice to just say you dont know for sure just like i dont know


Yes, you do not know, so you assume that you are right. You are a liar. 



DNAprotection said:


> for sure...after that an 'educated' guess is not so sweathogish, even if spawned from Custer logic/science etc...
> and sometimes 'evolution' leaves you with a piece of missing scalp a' doc


Keep railing against the scientific method, it just makes you look more dumb.

You are 50. Most people go through this stage in their early 20s. 
lol


----------



## Trousers (Sep 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> only spam with no links, reported as Custer logic



You are a liar and a political propagandist.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 22, 2013)

Trousers said:


> *The irony...*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


a trout in a barrel is not expected to see or hear much before it is...well out of respect for our unique trout i wont say it... 
after all how often do ya see a trout that puts himself in a barrel for target practice...ooops i said it


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 22, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> No comment, just another TL;DR copy/paste.
> 
> Reported as spam.


frank i know whenever you make a post for me here that deep down in your sweet (drunken) irish heart and in the only way you know how you are always just trying to say...

[video=youtube;xZzEzDkeHzI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZzEzDkeHzI[/video]


the only problem is that whenever i see a post from you or the other SHDT members i can only think this:

(continued on next post do to excess pork)


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 22, 2013)

as i was saying...



DNAprotection said:


> the only problem is that whenever i see a post from you or the other SHDT members i can only think this:
> 
> (continued on next post do to excess pork)


[video=youtube;NTmeHM-Hojg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTmeHM-Hojg[/video]

Have you seen the little piggies 
Crawling in the dirt
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in.

Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in.



In their sties with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking.

Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner 
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.

*"one more time" 

(oh and there's also a trout in a barrel)


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> as i was saying...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reported as retarded (and spam).


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 22, 2013)

You guys really report post like little girls,,,nah i take that back, my two daughters would whip your azzes.

Who reports posts ? Really?

Buncha cry babies , get a life.


ps, i really hate gmo's


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 22, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Reported as retarded (and spam).



you must be extra hungry today frank 




Harrekin said:


> I didn't watch your videos.





ah but you didnt watch the video...you cant eat the pudding before the trout frank everyone knows that


[video=youtube;UPccMlgug8A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=UPccMlgug8A[/video]


no one escapes reintardation frank (especially you) so you might as well just get it over with and learn something other than what lotion works best when your pretending your computer is klinger...

Frank: 
Klinger! I want to see you out of that dress!

Klinger: 
Never on a first date, sir!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 22, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> My lot, really, i state my opinion and are cursed down repeatedly?
> 
> Im not sure you guys have a life at all, seriously, there are lots here?
> 
> ...


You presented your opinion as fact and got shot down as such

Now go put your big boy trousers on and go reflect on what it means to "present your opinion as fact"


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 22, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> You presented your opinion as fact and got shot down as such
> 
> Now go put your big boy trousers on and go reflect on what it means to "present your opinion as fact"


Please pinot this out to me, my opinion is fact , at least to me, see more of the circular reasoning presented with zero intellect and in fact your opinion as fact and another insult, there sure are some stupid people in here, thankfully im not in that 'lot'


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 22, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Please pinot this out to me, my opinion is fact , at least to me, see more of the circular reasoning presented with zero intellect and in fact your opinion as fact and another insult, there sure are some stupid people in here, thankfully im not in that 'lot'


Still stuck in kiddy shorts I see

When we ask for credible information your opinion is worthless


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 22, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Still stuck in kiddy shorts I see
> 
> When we ask for credible information your opinion is worthless


Right back at cha and my info is not worthless , i called your obama /monsanto bull, now what?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 22, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Right back at cha and my info is not worthless


unless it's from scientific studies then yes it's worthless


> , i called your obama /monsanto bull, now what?


That's your opinion and yes it's worthless


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 22, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> unless it's from scientific studies then yes it's worthless
> 
> That's your opinion and yes it's worthless


You do realize peer review is a joke, the scientific community is no god, they eat their own if there is any decent . Its all fueled by greed and money thats all. 
Better living through chemistry has always been a lie , man kinds health has improved because of sanitation than anything else.

These are my opinions , they also happen to be facts, deal with it and form an argument or opinion of your own, dont just shout me down like an imbecile


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 22, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> You do realize peer review is a joke, the scientific community is no god, they eat their own if there is any decent . Its all fueled by greed and money thats all.
> Better living through chemistry has always been a lie , man kinds health has improved because of sanitation than anything else.
> 
> These are my opinions , they also happen to be facts, deal with it and form an argument or opinion of your own, dont just shout me down like an imbecile


But you make it so very easy

Your opinions are nothing more than your opinions


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 22, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> notice how the greased sweathogs avoid and divert from all they cannot comprehend...but no one escapes reintardation...


notice the way nobody bothers to look at your stupid videos, and you wind up having to quote yourself just to feel relevant? 

since you are a disciple of sheldrake, why not simply read our minds and tell us why we are disputing your primary assumptions, and everybody with a brain considers your poll to be naught but a straw man...


----------



## Trousers (Sep 22, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> You do realize peer review is a joke, the scientific community is no god, they eat their own if there is any decent . Its all fueled by greed and money thats all.
> Better living through chemistry has always been a lie , man kinds health has improved because of sanitation than anything else.
> 
> These are my opinions , they also happen to be facts, deal with it and form an argument or opinion of your own, dont just shout me down like an imbecile


Your opinions do not stand up to simple logic, so you go after the scientific method?
Good stuff.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 23, 2013)

oh trout your plan 'a' only leaves you gutted, headless and smothered in butter and lemon  but dont fret cuz you've still got 25 other back up plans right? (bcdefg...)




Dr Kynes said:


> ... everybody with a brain considers your poll to be naught but a straw man...


doc your (meaning the entire SHDT) 'accounting' for the poll numbers here is perfectly exemplary of the kind of (Custer) 'science' the biotech industry puts into practice for their 'accounting' of all the variables (numbers) that must count if one is to have any real concept of how their actions might effect others (meaning all life on the planet), not even Monsatan has all (or even close to enough) of the numbers to the equations they are 'redesigning' in that respect...yet biotech's response is either to pretend the missing numbers do not exist or if they know somethings there (in other words if everyone knows) they simply manipulate the numbers into a place where they think they can get away with simply dismissing them as irrelevant etc...and after all they do there own 'testing' when it comes to FDA approval etc, not the FDA (not that that would really make a difference at this corpsgov point) so it all ends up being a recipe for dragging us all into a situation not unlike 'Custers last stand' where the earth and its complicated systems of life are the Indians...


----------



## Trousers (Sep 23, 2013)

DNAp-

If you have something that lends and credence to your lies, please post it.
So far all you have done is posted lies and illogical, irrelevant junk. 





DNAprotection said:


> oh trout your plan 'a' only leaves you gutted, headless and smothered in butter and lemon  but dont fret cuz you've still got 25 other back up plans right? (bcdefg...)


Could you repost that in English?
You are incapable of debating a topic with out lying. and you are 50. Grow up. 


If you have something to debate, we can do that. You are just posting lies and dubious opinions and presenting them as fact. 
You are a 50 year old liar. You should be ashamed of yourself. 

You garbage propaganda has been exposed so know you attack the scientific method. 
It is exactly what a child would do.


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 23, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> But you make it so very easy
> 
> Your opinions are nothing more than your opinions


See thats the beauty of it, i can have my opinion based on fact and you can continue to smootch the rest of these guys butt holes. 
Do you feel like you fit in yet? Your intellect certainly matches theirs.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 23, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> See thats the beauty of it, i can have my opinion based on fact


What fact?




Someacdude said:


> and you can continue to smootch the rest of these guys butt holes.
> Do you feel like you fit in yet? Your intellect certainly matches theirs.


You complain about being treated unfairly and being insulted and you post stuff like that?
Do you understand what irony is?


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 23, 2013)

*

[h=2]This message is hidden because Trousers is on your ignore list[/h]


*


----------



## Doer (Sep 23, 2013)

Well, don't wave you dick around then.

I too would like to see what you call facts. I would love to research even one or two more.

So, far, and I haven't given up yet, there are no facts......none.


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 23, 2013)

Wow , still no coherent factual information from the peanut gallery, dont you get tired of dna and i smacking you back and forth like a wet tennis ball.


And you said I was being trolled, i post one lil thing and you infants go nuts.
Who is being played?


Please guys grow up, do your own research , form your own opinion , read for goodness sakes.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 23, 2013)

Post the facts.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 23, 2013)

You two are so precious. I just want to make you soup and tuck you in.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 23, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Wow , still no coherent factual information from the peanut gallery, dont you get tired of dna and i smacking you back and forth like a wet tennis ball.
> 
> 
> And you said I was being trolled, i post one lil thing and you infants go nuts.
> ...









ohh my... you think you have provided evidence to support YOUR claims???


DNAprotection at least provides links, even if they dont get the job done, at least he TRIES. 
you havent even been able to post ONE regulation, law, court ruling, or even a suggestion that supports your absurd claim the comfrey is illegal, and thats the BEST you have done so far... 


NOTHING is your High Score! 

and you think you're winning the argument by shouting "do your own research"... 

"Do Your Own Research" is the mating call of an IDIOT who cannot back up his claims and instead prefers his opponents do it for him. 

while this strategy may seem clever from your perspective, since those who disagree with your claims are almost always much better equipped to do any sort of research, because they are generally much smarter, better educated, more articulate, and read beyond a 3rd grade level, you forget the most important thing... 

They are *Smarter* than You, and thus not dumb enough to do your job for you.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 23, 2013)

ok i will 



Trousers said:


> You should quote me.
> Remember when you said that GMO corn causes cancer?
> That was funny.


but better you should quote me trout if your going to make such false accusations...everything i've ever seen you post is always that which you are accusing others of...its impossible to take you serious trout really (maybe thats why your going all spastic?)...and now your apparently stalking me around here at RIU, thats kinda nutty trout, but as the occasion calls for, does that make you a stalk(er) trout?
gov spawned, it figures


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> ok i will
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Except you did claim GMO corn causes cancer... Senility kicking in?


----------



## colonuggs (Sep 24, 2013)

Analysis Identifies Shocking Problems with Monsantos Genetically Engineered Corn 
[h=5]April 30, 2013 | 357,642 views




Edit this post
Write A New Post
Forum Admin
Control Panel



|




Disponible en Español 
[/h]

16K 214[URL="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/04/30/monsanto-gmo-corn.aspx#"]137[/URL] 


3.1k




Email ​
Print 



*Email this article to a friend* 

















*By Dr. Mercola*
Ive warned you of the potential dangers of genetically engineered (GE) foods for many years now, pointing out that such crops might have wholly unforeseen consequences. In recent years, such suspicions have increasingly proven correct. 
One of the latest pieces of evidence supporting the suspicion that GE crops are in no way, shape or form comparable to their natural counterparts is a nutritional analysis that shows just how different they really are. 
Inherent differences are essentially implied by the fact that GE crop seeds can be patented in the first place. And in many ways, I believe Monsanto is slowly but surely inching its way toward patenting nature itself, in the same way others are fighting to maintain patent rights for human DNA.[SUP]1[/SUP]
These companies are trying to patent life, and they likely will unless theyre stopped by the courts. But its quite clear that humans cannot outsmart nature. 
The latest nutritional analysis of GE corn couldnt be more relevant as the recently passed Agricultural Appropriations Bill (HR933[SUP]2[/SUP]) included a hotly detested provision (Section 735) that places Monsanto above the law. As noted by the featured article:[SUP]3[/SUP]
___With the recent passing of the Monsanto Protection Act, there is no question that mega corporations like Monsanto are able to wield enough power to even surpass that of the United States government. _​_The new legislation provides Monsanto with a legal safeguard against federal courts striking down any pending review of dangerous genetically modified crops. It is ironic to see the passing of such a bill in the face of continuous releases of GMO dangers._​At present, the only way to avoid GMOs is to ditch processed foods from your grocery list, and revert back to whole foods grown according to organic standards. ​[h=2]Analysis Finds Monsantos GE Corn Nutritionally Inferior and High in Toxins[/h]A report given to MomsAcrossAmerica[SUP]4[/SUP] by an employee of De Dell Seed Company (Canada's only non-GMO corn seed company) offers a stunning picture of the nutritional differences between genetically engineered (GE) and non-GE corn. Clearly, the former is NOT equivalent to the latter, which is the very premise by which genetically engineered crops were approved in the first place. 
Heres a small sampling of the nutritional differences found in this 2012 nutritional analysis:


Calcium: GMO corn = 14 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 6,130 ppm (437 times more)
Magnesium: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 113 ppm (56 times more)
Manganese: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 14 ppm (7 times more)
GMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn. This is quite significant and well worth remembering. 
The Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) safe level for glyphosate in American water supplies is 0.7 ppm. In Europe, the maximum allowable level in water is 0.2 ppm. Organ damage in animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm... At _13 ppm_, GMO corn contains more than _18 times_ the safe level of glyphosate set by the EPA. 
This is truly disturbing when you consider the fact that in countries like Argentina, glyphosate is blamed for the dramatic increase in devastating birth defects as well as cancer. Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing. This may be due to its similarity to DDT, which is well-known to cause reproductive problems, among other things. 
Another health hazard associated with glyphosate is its effect on gut bacteria. Not only does it promote the growth of more virulent pathogens, it also _kills off_ beneficial bacteria that might keep such pathogens in checkboth in the soil, _and_ in the gut of animals or humans that ingest the contaminated crop. 
It's important to understand that the glyphosate actually becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. It's _inside_ the plant. And once you eat it, it ends up in your gut where it can wreak total havoc with your health, considering the fact that 80 percent of your immune system resides there and is _dependent _on a healthy ratio of good and bad bacteria.
An additional disturbing piece of information is that GMO corn contained extremely high levels of formaldehyde. According to Dr. Huber, at least one study found that 0.97 ppm of ingested formaldehyde was toxic to animals. GMO corn contains a staggering _200 times_ that amount! Perhaps its no wonder that animals, when given a choice, avoid genetically engineered feed.​[h=2]Next Up: Genetically Engineered Apples, Using New GE Technique[/h]Besides so-called Roundup Ready crops, genetically engineered to resist otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate, there are other types of GE food crops. Another equally troublesome one is Bt crops, engineered in such a way as to contain a toxic protein within the plant itself. These were created by inserting a foreign gene into the plant in question.
Now were looking at yet another type of genetic engineering technology: RNA interference (RNAi), also known as post transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS). 
According to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA),[SUP]5[/SUP] apples modified using this technique are slated for approval by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) sometime this year. The apple will not require approval by the FDA, which is responsible for human food and animal feed. It only needs approval by the USDA, which is responsible for protecting agriculture from pests and plant diseases. 
The new GMO Arctic® Apple does not turn brown when sliced or bitten into. For the cosmetic advantage of these genetically engineered apples, you get to be a test subject for yet another untested genetic modification technology. Hows that for a bargain? 
According to OCA, non-organic apples are already among the most pesticide-laden foods sold. In the Pesticide Action Networks analysis of the most recent USDA data, apples tested positive for 42 different pesticides, including two endocrine disrupting pesticides (organophosphate and pyrethroid). The additional risk of untested tinkering with the RNA is not a step in the right direction if we want safer, healthier foods. The OCA writes:[SUP]6[/SUP]
_nlike the case with GMO corn or salmon, scientists arent injecting pesticides or genes from foreign plants or animals into the genes of apples to create the Frankenapple. While most existing genetically engineered plants are designed to make new proteins, the Arctic Apple is engineered to produce a form of genetic information called double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). The new dsRNA alters the way genes are expressed. The result, in the Arctic Apples case, is a new double strand of RNA that genetically 'silences' the apples ability to produce polyphenol oxidase, an enzyme that causes the apple to turn brown when its exposed to oxygen._
​_Harmless? The biotech industry, OSF and some scientists say yes. But others, including Professor Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury, New Zealand), Sarah Agapito-Tenfen (from Santa Catarina University in Brazil) and Judy Carman (Flinders University in South Australia), say that dsRNA manipulation is untested, and therefore inherently risky. _​_Recent research has shown that dsRNAs can transfer from plants to humans and other animals through food. The biotech industry has always claimed that genetically engineered DNA or RNA is destroyed by human digestion, eliminating the danger of these mutant organisms damaging human genes or human health. But many biotech scientists say otherwise. They point to evidence that the manipulated RNA finds its way into our digestive systems and bloodstreams, potentially damaging or silencing vital human genes._​OCA also points out the indirect health consequences. The chemical compound used in the RNA manipulation process is one that also combats plant pests. So what might conceivably happen when you compromise the fruits ability to fend off insects? As noted by OCA, most likely, growers will have to start using more pesticideson a fruit thats _already_ among the most heavily sprayed. In the end, all those pesticides end up in your body and, certainly, avoiding toxic exposures is important if you want to protect your health. 
​[h=2]Despite What You Are Told GE Crops Are NOT the 'Most Tested' Product in the World[/h]Its important to realize that genetically engineered (GE) foods have _never_ been proven safe for human consumption over a lifetime, let alone over generations. Monsanto and its advocates claim genetically engineered crops are the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen. What they dont tell you is that:


Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, its virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results
The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the worlds first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer
Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence, independent research is extremely difficult or nearly impossible to conduct. If these scientists get seeds from a farmer, they sue them into oblivion as one of their favorite tactics is to use the legal system to their advantage. Additionally, virtually all academic agricultural research is controlled by Monsanto as they are the primary supporters of these departments and none will risk losing their funding from them
There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GE item in question has been approved, not a single country on earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects
[h=2]Middle School Students Brilliant Experiment[/h]Speaking of research; while theres no research to support the long-term safety of GMOs, studies do show that organic foods are safer than their conventional counterparts in terms of toxic exposure, and likely far more nutritious as well. 
Three years ago, middle school student Ria Chhabra created a science fair project to help settle a debate between her parents, revolving around whether or not organic foods have merit. Now 16 and a sophomore at Clark High School in Plano, Texas, Rias continued research into the effect of organic food on fruit flies has earned her top honors in a national science competition, and her work was recently published in the respected scientific journal, _PloS One_.[SUP]7[/SUP] As reported by the _New York Times:_[SUP]8[/SUP]
_The research, titled Organically Grown Food Provides Health Benefits to __Drosophila Melanogaster__, tracked the effects of organic and conventional diets on the health of fruit flies. By nearly every measure, including fertility, stress resistance and longevity, flies that fed on organic bananas and potatoes fared better than those who dined on conventionally raised produce._​_While the results cant be directly extrapolated to human health, the research nonetheless paves the way for additional studies on the relative health benefits of organic versus conventionally grown food_... ​_The difference in outcomes among the flies fed different diets could be due to the effects of pesticide and fungicide residue from conventionally raised foods. Or it could be that the organic-fed flies thrived because of a higher level of nutrients in the organic produce. One intriguing idea raises the question of whether organically raised plants produce more natural compounds to ward off pests and fungi, and whether those compounds offer additional health benefits to flies, animals and humans who consume organic foods._​While the scientific merit of organic food continues to be studied and debated among scientists and laypeople alike, the issue has been settled in the Chhabra household. According to Ria, all the fresh produce the family buys is now organic. ​[h=2]Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled![/h]
While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the countrysomething 64 other countries already have. 
I hope you will join us in this effort.
The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. *Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by* *making a donation* *to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). *​


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 24, 2013)

No comment, no link... reported as spam.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 24, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Except you did claim GMO corn causes cancer... Senility kicking in?


im not from Missouri frank, but show me?
i cant remember or even imagine ever claiming such...
if you can state such a thing then surely you must recall where you read it?


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> im not from Missouri frank, but show me?
> i cant remember or even imagine ever claiming such...
> if you can state such a thing then surely you must recall where you read it?


I don't really care enough. 

But cool story.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 24, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Except you did claim GMO corn causes cancer... Senility kicking in?





DNAprotection said:


> im not from Missouri frank, but show me?
> i cant remember or even imagine ever claiming such...
> if you can state such a thing then surely you must recall where you read it?





Harrekin said:


> I don't really care enough.
> 
> But cool story.


cool story frank, you should work for Monsanto 

(reported as uncaring)


----------



## Trousers (Sep 24, 2013)

colonuggs said:


> um... tried to edit ....comes up with nothing in the post... nothing there to edit
> 
> tried to use... reply with quote... comes up with nothing....you try it
> 
> REPORT THAT


Where is the study?
Why does that opinion piece cite a "study" that was proven to be a bunch of lies?


----------



## Trousers (Sep 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> so in other words trout as always you've cum empty handed and your admitting to this fact:




You still haven't figured out the difference between your and you're. 
It is weird, in that you can use the contraction "you've" properly, but your and you're still baffle you. 


Do you want to post some more lies and poorly worded "insults"?


C'mon, the natural news must have some fresh propaganda posted.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 24, 2013)

colonuggs said:


> um... tried to edit ....comes up with nothing in the post... nothing there to edit
> 
> tried to use... reply with quote... comes up with nothing....you try it
> 
> REPORT THAT


unclench homey. 

your post looks like the sort of shit done by Spambots. 

next time just get the relevant text and then add a link like so:


"The bottom line is that this study is about as bad as studies get. The editors of Food and Chemical Toxicology, the journal in which this pitiful excuse for a study was published, ought to be ashamed. As it was so aptly put:

But it could more simply mean the GM maize and the herbicide had no measured effect, and that is why the dose made no difference. They show that old rats get tumours and die, says Mark Tester of the University of Adelaide, Australia. That is all that can be concluded. ​ Indeed. That is about all one can say about the study. Certainly we cant say whether the GMO maize increased the propensity for tumors. Its also interesting how the authors included so many photos of the rats and their tumors, photos that quacks like Mike Adams and Joe Mercola eagerly post on their websites, but failed to include photos of the control rats."

~http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/

and then add expository text below. 

even if it's just a few choice phrases like:

"Dr" Mercola is a fraud, you might as well have published the findings of your Aromatherapist. 
reprinting his bullshit does a disservice to every poor sod who might otherwise have gone through life and died in peace without ever subjecting their brains to the pointless and toxic nonsense of "Dr" mercola. 

I am more of a "Doctor" than that putz. 

/example

see how that works?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 24, 2013)

Trousers said:


> Apparently the inerwebs did not run out of lies for DNAliar to spam us with.


hey now, that last one was actually Opinion , not Opinion Disguised As Fact, so it doesnt really count as a lie, or even an untruth. 

perhaps it represents Personal Growth in selection of material, even though it does not represent a broadening of sources.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 24, 2013)

edited for deleted spam


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 24, 2013)

Trousers said:


>


hey now, i meant his last Natural News spasm, not his last post and it's attendant assertions.

the deleted one in which Natural News "endorses" some bullshit scam disguised as a political party. 

the Cos can retract his facepalm.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 24, 2013)

hey doc i didnt delete the posts, but my last two (at least, trying to recall) seem to have been deleted...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> hey doc i didnt delete the posts, but my last two (at least, trying to recall) seem to have been deleted...


You think this website is catching on to you being a spam bot for natural news?


Reputable companies pay for advertising


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> hey doc i didnt delete the posts, but my last two (at least, trying to recall) seem to have been deleted...


I told you...

SPAM!


----------



## Trousers (Sep 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> hey doc i didnt delete the posts, but my last two (at least, trying to recall) seem to have been deleted...


That was the first post I have ever reported.
They got on that quickly.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> nice go'n frank...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol keep it up spam bot 


Perhaps we'll finally be rid of you


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 24, 2013)

..........yes apparently potroast has taken pity on the sweathogs...i was even starting to feel bad for yall myself what with trout flopping around all spastic, though admittedly he is not sweathog grade it still pulls at the old heart strings...
funny how a potroast has to try to save you from yourselves ...
322 and counting


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Sep 24, 2013)

Someone doesn't know the definition of spam...


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 24, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Someone doesn't know the definition of spam...


well judging by the potroast meter it means DTH to free speech and free thinking....


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> ..........yes apparently potroast has taken pity on the sweathogs...i was even starting to feel bad for yall myself what with trout flopping around all spastic, though admittedly he is not sweathog grade it still pulls at the old heart strings...
> funny how a potroast has to try to save you from yourselves ...
> 322 and counting


Reported as spam. 

Here, for you:


----------



## Someacdude (Sep 24, 2013)

Hey crybabies, 78.26% of all the people who answered the poll think your bumazzes too, yet you are the ones who continue to be trolled and you are the ones who continue to cry and cry and cry.


Man you are funny, just a handful of idiots who can only cuss and degrade things their feeble minds cant comprehend, speaking of which, where is old trouser trout anywho?



*78.26%*


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 24, 2013)

and they need a potroast to rescue them...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> and they need a potroast to rescue them...


It's not like your insulting the owner or anything


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 24, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> It's not like your insulting the owner or anything


correct its not like that because the 'owner' has insulted him/herself and everyone other than sweathogs with this form of censorship...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> correct its not like that because the 'owner' has insulted him/herself and everyone other than sweathogs with this form of censorship...


Yeah no.....

Grow up


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 24, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> correct its not like that because the 'owner' has insulted him/herself and everyone other than sweathogs with this form of censorship...


More like suppression of bullshit spam...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 24, 2013)

Post 3430

This thread seems to be shrinking


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 24, 2013)

modifying my sig as well...reallly? omg lol frightened as school girls...
TW im not at all surprised that the likes of you (especially) and frank and trout and so on need and are grateful for potroast protection, but i doubt doc would go along with this (i could be wrong) but at least doc is not afraid of laying it all out there and letting opinions fall where they may


----------



## Trousers (Sep 24, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Hey crybabies, 78.26% of all the people who answered the poll think your bumazzes too, yet you are the ones who continue to be trolled and you are the ones who continue to cry and cry and cry.
> 
> 
> Man you are funny, just a handful of idiots who can only cuss and degrade things their feeble minds cant comprehend, speaking of which, where is old trouser trout anywho?
> ...


Still waiting for you to grow a pair and post those facts you keep talking about.


----------



## Doer (Sep 24, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Hey crybabies, 78.26% of all the people who answered the poll *think your bumazzes* too, yet you are the ones who continue to be trolled and you are the ones who continue to *cry and cry and cry.
> *
> 
> Man you are funny, just a *handful of idiots *who can only cuss and degrade things their feeble minds cant comprehend, speaking of which, where is old trouser trout anywho?
> ...


Hmmm....you interpretation of an anonymous sample that represent the level of stupidity on RIU.....I see.


----------



## Doer (Sep 24, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Someone doesn't know the definition of spam...


Me....me...ask me..doit doitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoit 

Pork shoulder and ham.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 24, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Lol keep it up spam bot
> 
> 
> Perhaps we'll finally be rid of you


trying to stifle his assertions (even if they are actually somebody else's) doesnt move the debate forward, nor does it serve the cause of those who want to know more. 

deleting posts which are not actually selling shit, or not offensive doesnt seem to be in the spirit of the Pothead Debating Society Charter. 

i suspect DNAProtection actually believes what he re-prints (at least somewhat) but telling him to STFU doesnt help him, or bolster the case against the GMO looney fringe. 

it makes it look like "THEY" are "Afraid of the Troof" and "THEY" got to the moderators and intimidated/bribed them to silence "The Troof"

yeah, it's dumb but some looneys will believe thats whats goin on, and as the general population of this site spends a lot of time being High As Fuck, do we really want to cause more paranoia? 

i propose putting the deleted non-offensive posts back, but cautioning against excessive copy/pasting of crazy shit.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 25, 2013)

as i suspected, doc is at least worth his salt...
and yes doc i do actually think that much of the 'unproved' will in the long run be shown to be worth our concern...
as for the 'natural news', of course much of what is written in there is questionable and thats exactly why i post it, to stir up questions and discussion...but the swearhog reaction to such is always so much *more* questionable that i can hardly resist fishin for that frankntrout'...
the sweathogs here have only been getting what they give...the prob has always been that sweathogs can give it (usually pathetic attempts at such) but they cant take it etc and so they called out for potroast protection...
this type of sweathog behavior is not unlike Monsanto calling out for gov protection as the fire gets higher on their heels...
the cross connecting behavior between sweathogs and Monsanto et al can also be witnessed in their response to the poll here, if the numbers dont work for the pro gmo end game then either change the numbers or declare them as of no consequence and/or sometimes just denying the numbers exist...
(deer doer has offered us a recent example)


"Hmmm....you interpretation of a anonymous sample that represent the level of stupidity on RIU.....I see."​


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 25, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> as i suspected, doc is at least worth his salt...
> and yes doc i do actually think that much of the 'unproved' will in the long run be shown to be worth our concern...
> as for the 'natural news', of course much of what is written in there is questionable and thats exactly why i post it, to stir up questions and discussion...but the swearhog reaction to such is always so much *more* questionable that i can hardly resist fishin for that frankntrout'...
> the sweathogs here have only been getting what they give...the prob has always been that sweathogs can give it (usually pathetic attempts at such) but they cant take it etc and so they called out for potroast protection...
> ...


Look up "validity and reliability" in the scientific method, then talk to us about numbers


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 25, 2013)

frank you should stick to peddling vagisil as apparently your adds are potroast approved 



Harrekin said:


> Look up "validity and reliability" in the scientific method, then talk to us about numbers


and frank has graciously provided another shinning example  thanks frank you are finally showing some usefulness


----------



## Trousers (Sep 25, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> as i suspected, doc is at least worth his salt...
> and yes doc i do actually think that much of the 'unproved' will in the long run be shown to be worth our concern...


I think your head might explode soon. We should been concerned about this and label your head as such, right?
My concerns are just as valid as yours. 




DNAprotection said:


> as for the 'natural news', of course much of what is written in there is questionable and thats exactly why i post it,


So you are a spammer that does not understand the articles you post and does not necessarily agree with them?
That is idiotic. You should stop lying. 






DNAprotection said:


> to stir up questions and discussion...


Then you should read the article, post a link and a comment about it. What you are doing is spam and childish. 





DNAprotection said:


> but the swearhog reaction to such is always so much *more* questionable that i can hardly resist fishin for that frankntrout'...


Your childish and not very funny/good taunts are not helping. 
You are terrible at logic so you resort to dumb and terrible insults?
I have been called much funnier things by 4 year olds. You are 50, you should have much better insults. 




DNAprotection said:


> the sweathogs



I'm not sure what you mean by that or why you think it is funny or relevant. 
You post lies and present them as truth. What does that make you?



DNAprotection said:


> here have only been getting what they give...the prob has always been that sweathogs can give it (usually pathetic attempts at such) but they cant take it etc and so they called out for potroast protection...


I'm not sure what you mean by that. 
You post lies and present them as true. you post articles with out comment. That is against the rules. If I reported all of your posts that were spam, your posts would be reduced by about 50% in this thread and you would probably be banned. 

I have presented 600 peer reviewed studies, you have posted lies. It is really an asshole thing to do. Shame on you. 50 year old liar. 





DNAprotection said:


> this type of sweathog behavior is not unlike Monsanto calling out for gov protection as the fire gets higher on their heels...


You are a 50 year old, unintelligent liar. You analogies are just as bad as your insults. 




DNAprotection said:


> the cross connecting behavior between sweathogs and Monsanto et al can also be witnessed in their response to the poll here,


Are you done posting lies? Why don't you post another article from the natural news?



DNAprotection said:


> if the numbers dont work for the pro gmo end game then either change the numbers or declare them as of no consequence and/or sometimes just denying the numbers exist...



You want to compare a poll on a weed website to 600 peer reviewed studies?
You are not in control of your limited faculties. 





DNAprotection said:


> (deer doer has offered us a recent example)
> 
> 
> "Hmmm....you interpretation of a anonymous sample that represent the level of stupidity on RIU.....I see."​




What do you hate more, logic or reason?


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 25, 2013)

Trousers said:


> I think your head might explode soon. We should been concerned about this and label your head as such, right?
> My concerns are just as valid as yours.
> 
> 
> ...


He apparently hates repeatable science the most...


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 25, 2013)

frank i make it a practice not to hate 
i feel only compassion for frightened sweathogs who have nothing so they need potroast protection...
ps...heres a clue, the more you post here at this point after you've acheived this censorship and deletion of my posts (= the sweathogs 'potroast' protection act of 2013 ) the more your weakness shows...so by all means keep on postin


----------



## ChroniComedian (Sep 25, 2013)

No no no to Monsanto. We already have issues with people spraying too many pesticides on cannabis without Monsanto. The last thing we need is to make a plant that's resistant to showers of pesticides. You really want to smoke weed like that? You may as well go smoke a cigarette, its just as dirty as that monsanto weed will be. If anything we need to go back to old school breeding techniques that have a respect for the plant we all love to grow and smoke so much. If you support monsanto you may as well prepare to pay them royalties on all your favorite strains soon, cuz monsanto is gonna buy the genetics for them and charge you royalties for every plant you grow. I support science but there is more independent studies that gmo is bad than good.


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 25, 2013)

ChroniComedian said:


> No no no to Monsanto. We already have issues with people spraying too many pesticides on cannabis without Monsanto. The last thing we need is to make a plant that's resistant to showers of pesticides. You really want to smoke weed like that? You may add well go smoke a cigarette, its just as dirty as that monsanto weed will be. If anything we need to go back to old school breeding techniques that have a respect for the plant we all love to grow and smoke so much. If you support monsanto you may as well prepare to pay them royalties on all your favorite strains soon, cuz monsanto is gonna buy the genetics for them and charge you royalties for every plant you grow. I support science but there is more independent studies that gmo is bad than good.


You can't patent genetics that occur naturally in nature.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 25, 2013)

ChroniComedian said:


> No no no to Monsanto. We already have issues with people spraying too many pesticides on cannabis without Monsanto. The last thing we need is to make a plant that's resistant to showers of pesticides. You really want to smoke weed like that? You may as well go smoke a cigarette, its just as dirty as that monsanto weed will be. If anything we need to go back to old school breeding techniques that have a respect for the plant we all love to grow and smoke so much. If you support monsanto you may as well prepare to pay them royalties on all your favorite strains soon, cuz monsanto is gonna buy the genetics for them and charge you royalties for every plant you grow. I support science but there is more independent studies that gmo is bad than good.


ohh so many things wrong with that statement. 


1 ) there IS no monsanto GMO dope program.
2 ) there is no evidence of any GMO dope program ANYWHERE
3 ) pesticide spraying has only a tangential relation to GMO's
4 ) those GMO plants which are related to pesticides are intended to REDUCE the use of pesticides, not increase it. 
5 ) "pesticide resistance" is not any part of any GMO crop. that would be Herbicide resistance. 
6 ) gene patents can only be filed for NEW gene combinations, not existing cultivars. 
7 ) you ALREADY pay for the seeds for your favorite cultivars, or do you think seed banks and seed breeders are charitable organizations?
8 ) any gardener who chooses to grow ANY GMO (or non-gmo) crop can save those seeds and replant them at his leisure for non-commercial use. 
9 ) there are NO reliable (read as COMPETENT and not full of nonsense) studies showing GMO's are "bad"
10 ) there are MANY relaible studies, and real world examples of GMO crops which are GOOD, not just for us, but for the planet.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 25, 2013)

ChroniComedian said:


> No no no to Monsanto. We already have issues with people spraying too many pesticides on cannabis without Monsanto. The last thing we need is to make a plant that's resistant to showers of pesticides. You really want to smoke weed like that? You may as well go smoke a cigarette, its just as dirty as that monsanto weed will be. If anything we need to go back to old school breeding techniques that have a respect for the plant we all love to grow and smoke so much. If you support monsanto you may as well prepare to pay them royalties on all your favorite strains soon, cuz monsanto is gonna buy the genetics for them and charge you royalties for every plant you grow. I support science but there is more independent studies that gmo is bad than good.





Harrekin said:


> You can't patent genetics that occur naturally in nature.


they dont need to frank because they just take naturally existing genetic sequences and re-sequence them and adding a little of this or that like maybe built in pesticide production etc which then becomes patent-able and you know that...or should by now 



Dr Kynes said:


> ohh so many things wrong with that statement.
> 
> 
> 1 ) there IS no monsanto GMO dope program.
> ...



whats this then doc   (its a joke)

https://www.rollitup.org/do-yourself/480972-how-make-your-own-genetically.html


----------



## Trousers (Sep 25, 2013)

That was almost relevant. 
Good job DNA.


----------



## colonuggs (Sep 25, 2013)

I don't want a company(Monsanto) that helped come up with Agent Orange...... anywhere near my marijuana or be the source of seeds for food production


[video=youtube;0EdP5xba9kM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=0EdP5xba9kM[/video]


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 25, 2013)

colonuggs said:


> I don't want a company(Monsanto) that came up with Agent Orange...... anywhere near my marijuana


You could still grow your own or buy non GMO cannabis...

What's the issue if WE want 4ft, 2lbs, 50% THC plants?


----------



## Doer (Sep 25, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> You could still grow your own or buy non GMO cannabis...
> 
> What's the issue if WE want 4ft, 2lbs, 50% THC plants?


....that can soak up 1/2 the carbon on earth and has fiber finer than silk and stronger than spider strand. Who would not want high tech progress in Botany? 

Oh, right. The ones that Devil Worship Monsanto. The ones that lie to the Developing Nations. The ones that get fat off fllm-flam lawsuits to screw farmers. 

It is the ones that feel their Oragnix, hippy shit, counter culture is being ridden down ruthlessly for the lies they spread.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 25, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> You could still grow your own or buy non GMO cannabis...
> 
> What's the issue if WE want 4ft, 2lbs, 50% THC plants?


frank as usual you are blind/deaf/dumb to the issue that there will be no legal non gmo varieties when monsanto et al is through...
your SHDT has shown nothing to the contrary...
in fact the only thing you've definitively proven to date is that frankntrouts are an endangered species and need protection from the site owner here


----------



## Doer (Sep 25, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> frank as usual you are blind/deaf/dumb to the issue that there will be no legal non gmo varieties when monsanto et al is through...
> your SHDT has shown nothing to the contrary...
> in fact the only thing you've definitively proven to date is that frankntrouts are an endangered species and need protection from the site owner here


Small minds attack the person and cannot grasp the idea of no event.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 25, 2013)

Doer said:


> Small minds attack the person and cannot grasp the idea of no event.


yes deer Doer for once we can agree because thats pretty much what i was thinking when i read franks spew as well


----------



## Doer (Sep 25, 2013)

Why are you attacking the person? We have been very patient I think. But, you bring nothing but intentional irritation to spew back on a deep personal level, you simply make up based on an old TV show, you show your dark side.

So, I see lost and fact-less on the dark side, reduced to spew. Meaningless.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 25, 2013)

not attacking deer Doer, showing love by still being here at this point 



Doer said:


> Why are you attacking the person? .


lol anyone who spends two minutes reading any posts by you or frankntrout etc must be really getting a chuckle at the never ending backwords Custer logic way the world comes in through your filters deer Doer 
yall have already pissed your panties all the way to principle potroasts office in fear of my posts and gained the much needed protection and yet your still frightened and paranoid...come down deer Doer and get a grip your protected now...


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 25, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> not attacking deer Doer, showing love by still being here at this point
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok then, post one piece of evidence that GMO's are dangerous from a journal of renown. 

Simple.


----------



## Doer (Sep 25, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> not attacking deer Doer, showing love by still being here at this point
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have me confused with someone else. I have never complained. I don't know what gave you that idea. Your posts are so harmless and content free you must be pretending I even care. I actually don't. 

I haven't really been following it so I just asked why you feel the need to go so far off your non-science message, is all. You had a message at least, at the beginning and now you have been dragged so far down the road you seem....off point? Just personal spew.

IAC, I am far, far from any fear. I have seen the very gaze of death, more than once. It all happens NOW, and I am just cruising along the big flat highway of success. 

SF Yacht Club, just smoked them, in the America's Cup. What fear? I'm invested.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 25, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Ok then, post one piece of evidence that GMO's are dangerous from a journal of renown.
> 
> Simple.


or even a journal of Not Bullshit... 

that would preclude Natural News or Organic Watch, etc...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 25, 2013)

Doer said:


> You have me confused with someone else. I have never complained. I don't know what gave you that idea. Your posts are so harmless and content free you must be pretending I even care. I actually don't.
> 
> I haven't really been following it so I just asked why you feel the need to go so far off your non-science message, is all. You had a message at least, at the beginning and now you have been dragged so far down the road you seem....off point? Just personal spew.
> 
> ...


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 25, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Ok then, post one piece of evidence that GMO's are dangerous from a journal of renown.
> 
> Simple.


frank in all seriousness your own common sense should give you ample caution in that respect...and part of that common sense thinking process should necessarily include the track record of industry in general from pharmaceuticals to fertilizers and so on the profits have always outweighed the risks of injury to others according to the bean counters...but with genetic engineering the risks are far greater to the general population than in your average business ventures...much more to be said though (and it already has been many times over the course of this thread)...
but with cannabis the dangers are even more present in that imo naturally occurring seed stock will still be illegal when the smoke clears on the up and coming new fed laws because monsanto et al has a shot at finally achieving total control over a crop species with cannabis in that unlike corn the naturally occurring varieties are already illegal...
cannabis would be like hitting the mother load of gmo crop potential in terms of profit and control etc...


----------



## Doer (Sep 25, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


>


Especially when comprehension desert us, show no fear.


----------



## Doer (Sep 25, 2013)

In case I spelled that wrong.


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 25, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> frank in all seriousness your own common sense should give you ample caution in that respect...and part of that common sense thinking process should necessarily include the track record of industry in general from pharmaceuticals to fertilizers and so on the profits have always outweighed the risks of injury to others according to the bean counters...but with genetic engineering the risks are far greater to the general population than in your average business ventures...much more to be said though (and it already has been many times over the course of this thread)...
> but with cannabis the dangers are even more present in that imo naturally occurring seed stock will still be illegal when the smoke clears on the up and coming new fed laws because monsanto et al has a shot at finally achieving total control over a crop species with cannabis in that unlike corn the naturally occurring varieties are already illegal...
> cannabis would be like hitting the mother load of gmo crop potential in terms of profit and control etc...


I don't think all GMO's are safe, but all the commercially available ones are tested rigorously for safety by the scientific community.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 25, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> I don't think all GMO's are safe, but all the commercially available ones are tested rigorously for safety by the scientific community.


omg frank is this the beginnings of an actual discussion?
ok im no trout but i'll bite 
firstly, what makes you think some GMO's aren't safe?
secondly, if the corps 'bidding' for FDA approval is required to do their own testing which is then not double checked by FDA testing but just taken at face value, how is that really a standard you're comfortable with?
thirdly, can you really say with a strait ferret face (sorry i fell of the wagon there) that money doesn't call the shots at the end of the day when it comes to these Monsanto et al study results achieving exactly what they are suppose to?


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 25, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> omg frank is this the beginnings of an actual discussion?
> ok im no trout but i'll bite
> firstly, what makes you think some GMO's aren't safe?
> secondly, if the corps 'bidding' for FDA approval is required to do their own testing which is then not double checked by FDA testing but just taken at face value, how is that really a standard you're comfortable with?
> thirdly, can you really say with a strait ferret face (sorry i fell of the wagon there) that money doesn't call the shots at the end of the day when it comes to these Monsanto et al study results achieving exactly what they are suppose to?


Lots of independent studies were done for the purposes of trying to find problems, these experiments are rigorously controlled and repeatable (oh and are they repeated!) or else they're simply not published. This is the process of peer review and it is the cornerstone of human knowledge moving forward. 

Not all GMO's are guaranteed safe, but with the minuscule changes being made and the process of review, the dangerous ones simply don't make it to market, the market would kill the product with capitalism. 

Pro-GMO doesn't mean pro-Monsanto or pro-dangerous GMO. 

The engineering/review process needs to be vigorously controlled by the lab, but the research needs to go on.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 25, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Lots of independent studies were done for the purposes of trying to find problems, these experiments are rigorously controlled and repeatable (oh and are they repeated!) or else they're simply not published. This is the process of peer review and it is the cornerstone of human knowledge moving forward.
> 
> Not all GMO's are guaranteed safe, but with the minuscule changes being made and the process of review, the dangerous ones simply don't make it to market, the market would kill the product with capitalism.
> 
> ...


finally something we agree on frank 
as for your fast and loose use of the word 'independent' i'm sorry to say we are still worlds apart.
do we need to revisit the history of the dependability of corpsgov cannabis studies?
what about all the 'mishaps' with pharmaceuticals that have made it through all the 'rigorous' testing etc, if your family hasn't already been directly effected in some way, one only need flip on the tv to witness the litany of commercials for class action suits...what does that say about the testing and peer reviews etc?
imo the risks are far greater to the general public (including all other life here) when considering gmo's etc and so the testing etc should be more 'rigorously controlled and repeatable' and peer reviewed etc than any other area of industry regulation not withstanding nuclear...


----------



## Doer (Sep 25, 2013)

who is frank?


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 26, 2013)

Doer said:


> small minds discuss people





Doer said:


> who is frank?


glad you were at least able to help clear that up for us deer Doer...kinda suspected as much...


----------



## Doer (Sep 26, 2013)

A small mind keeps calling someone frank.

I don't know anyone here named frank.

Clear? Who is being referred to as frank, and why?

Simple question. Too small to answer?


----------



## Doer (Sep 26, 2013)

BTW, this question is only the idea of calling someone frank. I don't care about the event of it or the person behind it....just the very idea.

I prefer to discuss ideas since there are no people here just anonymous forum entities and certainly no frank.....meaning French? Like, sit down Frenchy...., like that?

It just seems so personal, but you also use lower case.

More on the idea? Was Cotter's friend named Frank?


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 26, 2013)

sheeesh Doer why so upset?
what goes on between me and frank shouldn't bother you...frank knows its a term of endearment and 'frankly' i have come to like frank despite of his tattle tale ways of your 

i should also let you know that i'm turning over a new leaf thanks to a good human reminding me to be a better human...thanks GreenSummit


----------



## Doer (Sep 26, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> sheeesh Doer why so upset?
> what goes on between me and frank shouldn't bother you...frank knows its a term of endearment and 'frankly' i have come to like frank despite of his tattle tale ways of your
> 
> i should also let you know that i'm turning over a new leaf thanks to a good human reminding me to be a better human...thanks GreenSummit


What howling mind cloud sees me as upset? Funny. I just wonder why it is so personal. And why you seem to think someone's real name is frank, frankly. And I am only asking about the idea not the event. I have no idea who is frank. So it can't bother me about "what goes on" can it? The idea of calling someone by a first name as if you know them.

The Idea of that is to be personal, right?


Tattletale....that is weird. Did someone tell the teacher on you? For what? Such harmless drivel.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 26, 2013)

again Doer i'm sorry you are so upset...


----------



## Doer (Sep 26, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> again Doer i'm sorry you are so upset...


This a passive agressive technique. You are lying when you say you are sorry. I see it in my work. I stop the meeting. I might even stand up, slowly and carefully.

And I say the truth. No one is upset. Only the passive aggressive say that *as aggression.* No one is upset, we are laughing at you. So comical that a Mod got on your ass, I guess, and you have to Blame.

It is just the punk ass with nothing to say....Oh I've upset you. No, not possible. You only dodge the question as to why you have let this be so personal and then you attack with p-aggression. The day will *not* come when these forum entities can make anyone but the very weak, upset.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 26, 2013)

Doer even though your 'who's frank' question was entirely insincere and dishonest, i assure you my apologies for making you so upset are very sincere.


----------



## Doer (Sep 26, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> Doer even though your 'who's frank' question was entirely insincere and dishonest, i assure you my apologies for making you so upset are very sincere.


I don't know why you are calling someone by a made up first name. A Cultural thing?

You seem to be referring to Hark, reading back....whatever....stupid hippy


----------



## ChroniComedian (Sep 26, 2013)

Yes you can, it's already been done last year buy a college in Texas if I'm correct on the location. If I remember correctly they patented an heirloom tomato variety. And secondly my point did not refer to that, it referred to the fact that they are going to pick all your favorite varieties of marijuana (which nobody owns) stick some new pesticide and herbicide resistant genes in them and re-sell them to you as better, and the sad fact is people will buy them so they can spray them to death with pesticide and guarantee a perfect crop each time. My reply to Dr. Kynes, dur!!! Of course there is no Monsanto gmo program, but if I am correct was the forum not originally a question of a "theoretical Monsanto dope program". I believe it was, but it seems like you skimmed past that part in an effort to sound smart replying to my posting, not even reading the original forum post. Thirdly you are horribly wrong, GMO "is" designed to be sprayed with more pesticides and herbicides, you are only thinking of the fact that they are designed to be more bug resistant. To continue my point, you are talking about "seed breeders" as if Monsanto doesn't own 85% of all the seed companies on earth. Wake up buddy, they do. Over the last 10 years Monsanto has gone around the world buying up almost every seed company on earth, right now they own all the seeds in your garden, and most the crap you eat, even if they haven't yet genetically modified it. And finally where are these "studies" of GMO crops being good? I can tell you that Europe deems them as dangerous and a few countries have banned their use in the last couple years. Are you referring to the shitty studies by the FDA or by Monsanto about themselves? Continue to listen to them if you want, they're in cahoots. The government has gone out if its way the last 30 years to "convince you" that GMO's are okay, keep in mind that Americans are the fattest, unhealthiest people on earth, and we consume the most GMO's.


----------



## Doer (Sep 26, 2013)

ChroniComedian said:


> Yes you can, it's already been done last year buy a college in Texas if I'm correct on the location. If I remember correctly they patented an heirloom tomato variety. And secondly my point did not refer to that, it referred to the fact that they are going to pick all your favorite varieties of marijuana (which nobody owns) stick some new pesticide and herbicide resistant genes in them and re-sell them to you as better, and the sad fact is people will buy them so they can spray them to death with pesticide and guarantee a perfect crop each time. My reply to Dr. Kynes, dur!!! Of course there is no Monsanto gmo program, but if I am correct was the forum not originally a question of a "theoretical Monsanto dope program". I believe it was, but it seems like you skimmed past that part in an effort to sound smart replying to my posting, not even reading the original forum post. Thirdly you are horribly wrong, *GMO "is" designed to be sprayed with more pesticides and herbicides*, you are only thinking of the fact that they are designed to be more bug resistant.
> 
> To continue my point, you are talking about "seed breeders" as if Monsanto doesn't own 85% of all the seed companies on earth. Wake up buddy, they do. Over the last 10 years Monsanto has gone around the world buying up almost every seed company on earth, right now they own all the seeds in your garden, and most the crap you eat, even if they haven't yet genetically modified it. And finally where are these "studies" of GMO crops being good? I can tell you that Europe deems them as dangerous and a few countries have banned their use in the last couple years. Are you referring to the shitty studies by the FDA or by Monsanto about themselves? Continue to listen to them if you want, they're in cahoots. The government has gone out if its way the last 30 years to "convince you" that GMO's are okay, keep in mind that Americans are the fattest, unhealthiest people on earth, and we consume the most GMO's.


1 - Roundup ready means ready to spray with RoundUp.....correct. That is indeed the point.

2 - seems like a serious charge, but I haven't seen any indication. Do you have any main source of evidence you could point me to? I'd like to see that for myself, please?


----------



## Doer (Sep 26, 2013)

Oh I saw another, feckless claim about patenting natural genes in that post. False.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18935727-supreme-court-says-genes-cant-be-patented-patient-advocates-and-researchers-cheer?lite


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 26, 2013)

ChroniComedian said:


> Yes you can, it's already been done last year buy a college in Texas if I'm correct on the location. If I remember correctly they patented an heirloom tomato variety.


to what are you replying? there is a quote feature...
further, someplace in texas you think did something, but you cant say who what where or when..




ChroniComedian said:


> And secondly my point did not refer to that, it referred to the fact that they are going to pick all your favorite varieties of marijuana (which nobody owns) stick some new pesticide and herbicide resistant genes in them and re-sell them to you as better, and the sad fact is people will buy them so they can spray them to death with pesticide and guarantee a perfect crop each time.


that makes no sense no matter how i read it. 




ChroniComedian said:


> My reply to Dr. Kynes, dur!!! Of course there is no Monsanto gmo program, but if I am correct was the forum not originally a question of a "theoretical Monsanto dope program". I believe it was, but it seems like you skimmed past that part in an effort to sound smart replying to my posting, not even reading the original forum post.


 the entire thread has consisted of repeated allegations of ACTUAL GMO dope programs despite not one shred of evidence that there is such a thing. the first post is still sitting there, and you can read it again. it makes no mention of "theoretical" GMO dope programs it deliberately implies that there is such a thing, an implication which was expressly stated by the Originating Poster numerous times which he has as yet failed to offer a shred of evidence for. 




ChroniComedian said:


> Thirdly you are horribly wrong, GMO "is" designed to be sprayed with more pesticides and herbicides, you are only thinking of the fact that they are designed to be more bug resistant.


no, YOU are wrong. "pesticides" are chemicals designed to kill PESTS such as insects, insect larvae, rodents, vermiforms, and whatnot. 
Herbicides kill plants. 
NOBODY makes a plant resistant to pesticides, because plants are not harmed by pesticides. pesticide related GMOs are an attempt to create crops which produce their own pesticides, like BT, and a few others thus REDUCING the need to spray. 
some GMO plants are also being modified to make them unpalattable to certain pests, or to make them resistant to pest damage, but this does not result in MORE pesticide spraying, the goal is LESS pesticide spraying. 
even DNAProtection hasnt made that idiotic claim, he is far to smart to slam his own dick in a car door like that. 




ChroniComedian said:


> To continue my point, you are talking about "seed breeders" as if Monsanto doesn't own 85% of all the seed companies on earth. Wake up buddy, they do.


no, they dont. 



ChroniComedian said:


> Over the last 10 years Monsanto has gone around the world buying up almost every seed company on earth, right now they own all the seeds in your garden, and most the crap you eat, even if they haven't yet genetically modified it.


Place evidence supporting this claim here _________________________________________________________________________________________________




ChroniComedian said:


> And finally where are these "studies" of GMO crops being good?


just off the top of my head... 30 seconds on google got this easy to read report detailing the great success of india's experience with BT cotton, despite monsanto's displeasure. 

http://www.apaari.org/publications/bt-cotton-in-india-a-status-report-2nd-edition.html




ChroniComedian said:


> I can tell you that Europe deems them as dangerous and a few countries have banned their use in the last couple years. Are you referring to the shitty studies by the FDA or by Monsanto about themselves? Continue to listen to them if you want, they're in cahoots. The government has gone out if its way the last 30 years to "convince you" that GMO's are okay, keep in mind that Americans are the fattest, unhealthiest people on earth, and we consume the most GMO's.


europe can say whatever they like. 
science isnt based on whats popular in europe, it's based on evidence, which your side is sorely lacking. 
.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 26, 2013)

hold on a sec doc, i dont think anyone has stated definitively that Monsanto has a gmo cannabis program (at least i dont remember such)...and as far as my opinion goes its all a matter of going where the money is and if cannabis is where the money is then why on earth would they not pursue it? 

ok i just went back to this that was the closest thing i can think of that resembles your claim doc...



_




Originally Posted by *buckaroo bonzai* 
I can tell you absolutely that this conspiracy conjecture IS true--

after having lived deep within the cannabis culture in Mendocino for years....Monsanto has ALL the patents and turpenes patented within cannabis--

they have a 'kill' gene cannabis plant that will effectively wipe out any outdoor cannabis growing and cross pollinate with their genetically modified version--thus giving them ownership rights like they pulled on Percy schmeiser in Canada 
they are going to follow the path they took with corn--
it is common knowledge in and around mendo and some of these UC folks used to come around talking about it --a lot of them enjoy erb too

i also have a very close friend who's brother is a very high profile and at the top of his field Dr. that told us about the meetings he was privileged to in Colorado where the tax and regulate folks were networking on strategies and Monsanto was bringing the donuts to the meetings---he thought it was funny when he told us and he is a closet 'head'

monsanto is definately at the top of the nefarious corporations list and an extreme threat to humanity and our existence with their control of our food and food supplies---

if you think GMO is good look at how Russia 'banned' it and Europe now made it mandatory to label it and India is now in a huge battle over gmo food as most of the country is vegetarian

GMO food has excito toxins and neuro toxins in it and is the reason the average IQ has went from 120 in the 70s to below 100 now
the dumbing down of the population 

i mean would you spray round up on your salad and then eat it? or on your cannabis and then smoke it?

keep drinking soda with GMO corn syrup or your fast foods that areuthanasia for the masses--
most of the sugar beets that we use to extract sugar for most of the food we it is GMO--

what floors me is all the people that still believe this is benign and harmless and actually a good thing--

its NWO stuff and with all the facts it ain't no conspiracy--

beware Monsanto !

_
​


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 26, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> hold on a sec doc, i dont think anyone has stated definitively that Monsanto has a gmo cannabis program (at least i dont remember such)...and as far as my opinion goes its all a matter of going where the money is and if cannabis is where the money is then why on earth would they not pursue it?
> 
> ok i just went back to this that was the closest thing i can think of that resembles your claim doc...
> 
> ...


meh, i could be wrong, but with all the post deleting lately, who can be sure. 

i recall asking you to provide evidence for any such porogram on more than one occaision, but the allegation may have been in one of your Natural News posts, and thus not ACTUALLY you, but just you repeating something some other dingus said. 

either way, i aint even mad.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> meh, i could be wrong, but with all the post deleting lately, who can be sure.
> 
> i recall asking you to provide evidence for any such porogram on more than one occaision, but the allegation may have been in one of your Natural News posts, and thus not ACTUALLY you, but just you repeating something some other dingus said.
> 
> either way, i aint even mad.


me either bro<3
i'm wrong more than my share doc lol and the deletions are troublesome and troubling for sure, but i'm tired of becoming on here what i am not outside of here...in other words i'm done tossing insults etc in response to such...you and frank seem to be tired of it as well...either way from here on out i'm doin my best to try and just discuss things that need discussion and i hope we can agree that especially now and moving forward this topic should be on our radar in a very serious way.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 26, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> me either bro<3
> i'm wrong more than my share doc lol and the deletions are troublesome and troubling for sure, but i'm tired of becoming on here what i am not outside of here...in other words i'm done tossing insults etc in response to such...you and frank seem to be tired of it as well...either way from here on out i'm doin my best to try and just discuss things that need discussion and i hope we can agree that especially now and moving forward this topic should be on our radar in a very serious way.


imma say again what i said before, but it prolly got lost in the shuffle:

Some GMO's like BT food crops give me concerns, because i KNOW BT, i have USED BT, and it aint no health potion. 

BT has a very high dosage for acute toxicity due to direct exposure, and it vanishes quickly in the environment, so it's one of the safer sprays, but i wouldnt take sip of it every day and expect to see no ill effects. 

long term low level ingestion from crops that make their own BT makes me worry, but for non-food crops, BT is a real winner. 

Roundup resistance doesnt worry me a bit since roundup requires VERY high dosages for acute toxicity, it too dissipates quickly, and is NOT used anywhere near harvest by even the most careless coporate farm, that would be risking their mature crops right before harvest, and thats $$ BIG MONEY $$ on the line. 

Roundup resistance doesnt make a plant immune to roundup, it just reduces the damage to the plant instead of the crop getting killed outright. 

only a fool would herbicide their crops close to harvest. 

further, roundup resistance doesnt make roundup NECESSARY, it just makes it an option. 

i tell you this though, you can hate monsanto for their litigious nature, their general disregard for thorough testing, and the fact that they really are DICKS, but Glyphosate is a huge benefit to everyone especially in the west, where Spurge kills pets and livestock on the hoof, and even has killed children. 

if i see Spurge in my yard, i reach for Glyphosate every time.

nothing else works, and Spurge is deadly serious business.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> imma say again what i said before, but it prolly got lost in the shuffle:
> 
> Some GMO's like BT food crops give me concerns, because i KNOW BT, i have USED BT, and it aint no health potion.
> 
> ...


not that i agree with everything you've stated doc, but i feel that you are sincere and i like your style...
i worry a lot about the land itself though...what i know about it is minuscule compared to your knowledge in this area...all i know is that in my own garden my main goal is 'living soil' and it seems that the more my soil is 'alive' the better my yields and flavors etc are...
it just seems that there must be better ways to guard against Spurge etc...
its a hard thing to solve when people are not growing much food for themselves any more and so the dependency on industrial farming and mono cropping etc tends to result in a never ending arms race to kill this or that which becomes a threat...


----------



## Doer (Sep 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> either way, i aint even mad.


The last refuge of the passive-aggressive when called out, is to deflect. And a typical, usual deflection, I see all the time at work, is to claim the victory that* they have upset the other person.*

But, of course, the Claim of Victory is the Freudian slip. It is so obvious that is what they are trying to do (the essence of p-agression) because they will claim it when it is completely false! Woops.....slip is showing.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 27, 2013)

Doer you clearly continue to be disturbed/upset over whatever you have convinced yourself is going on here and I can only continue to express my regret at such. 
I am making an honest attempt to discuss important issues that we should all be aware of and concerned about imo and that is all...
I'm not your enemy bro so truly there's no need to feel that way...


----------



## Trousers (Sep 27, 2013)

ChroniComedian said:


> Yes you can, it's already been done last year buy a college in Texas if I'm correct on the location. If I remember correctly they patented an heirloom tomato variety.


I would like to read about that. Honeycrisp apples are losing their patent status, but they retain the trademarked name. 




ChroniComedian said:


> And secondly my point did not refer to that, it referred to the fact that they are going to pick all your favorite varieties of marijuana (which nobody owns) stick some new pesticide and herbicide resistant genes in them and re-sell them to you as better,


You must have a crystal ball. What are your fears based on? It seems like marijuana laws are loosening, which would make your idea even less likely to happen. 
Why would I buy seeds like that?

I have my own seeds and there have been seed banks operating for decades. Why would that stop?




ChroniComedian said:


> and the sad fact is people will buy them so they can spray them to death with pesticide and guarantee a perfect crop each time.


Who would do that? I won't spray my plants with anything. 
You are making assumptions. 




ChroniComedian said:


> My reply to Dr. Kynes, dur!!! Of course there is no Monsanto gmo program, but if I am correct was the forum not originally a question of a "theoretical Monsanto dope program". I believe it was, but it seems like you skimmed past that part in an effort to sound smart replying to my posting, not even reading the original forum post.


The conversation has "evolved."
We are now just laughing at the spam posted by DNA and the incredibly ironic/weird posts by someacdude. 




ChroniComedian said:


> Thirdly you are horribly wrong, GMO "is" designed to be sprayed with more pesticides


That is not a fair generalization and it is not true. There are a lot of different GMO crops. They are definitely not designed to be sprayed with pesticides.





ChroniComedian said:


> and herbicides, you are only thinking of the fact that they are designed to be more bug resistant.



That is not the sole purpose of GMO crops. 




ChroniComedian said:


> To continue my point, you are talking about "seed breeders" as if Monsanto doesn't own 85% of all the seed companies on earth.


I do not think that is accurate. Could you post a link?




ChroniComedian said:


> Wake up buddy, they do.



If you want to have a conversation, you should try to be civil or you wuill be lumped in with DNA and someacdude. 





ChroniComedian said:


> Over the last 10 years Monsanto has gone around the world buying up almost every seed company on earth, right now they own all the seeds in your garden, and most the crap you eat, even if they haven't yet genetically modified it.



That is absolutely untrue. Can you back that up with anything?





ChroniComedian said:


> And finally where are these "studies" of GMO crops being good?


They have been posted in this thread 57 times. I will post them again for you, since you haven't read the thread.
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

That is 600 peer reviewed studies going back to the early 1980s. 
Could you post some studies that show that GMO crops are not safe?




ChroniComedian said:


> I can tell you that Europe deems them as dangerous


Based on what? Because they said so? (It was a knee jerk reaction to bad science and propaganda and you are falling for it too)
I trust the EU less than my government. 



ChroniComedian said:


> and a few countries have banned their use in the last couple years. Are you referring to the shitty studies by the FDA or by Monsanto about themselves?



Go look at the studies. 




ChroniComedian said:


> Continue to listen to them if you want, they're in cahoots.


Monsanto does not produce all the GMO crops in the world. You can continue to deny science in favor of rumors and propaganda if you want. 




ChroniComedian said:


> The government has gone out if its way the last 30 years to "convince you" that GMO's are okay,



They have? Post a link. 




ChroniComedian said:


> keep in mind that Americans are the fattest, unhealthiest people on earth, and we consume the most GMO's.



Are you implying that GMO crops and obesity are linked?
Is that another story you made up or do you have something to back it up?

All I have heard in this thread from anti-GMO people is the same stuff and it does not hold up to logic.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 27, 2013)

Doer said:


> Oh I saw another, feckless claim about patenting natural genes in that post. False.
> 
> http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18935727-supreme-court-says-genes-cant-be-patented-patient-advocates-and-researchers-cheer?lite


Honeycrisp Apples are losing their patent status, but retain the trademark on the name "Honeycrisp."

honeycrisp apples are sofa king good.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 27, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> hold on a sec doc, i dont think anyone has stated definitively that Monsanto has a gmo cannabis program (at least i dont remember such)...and as far as my opinion goes its all a matter of going where the money is and if cannabis is where the money is then why on earth would they not pursue it?
> 
> ok i just went back to this that was the closest thing i can think of that resembles your claim doc...


If Monsanto has a cannabis program, they would be in violation of federal law. 
There is no record of it, so talking about it is pure specualtion and fantasy. 




_




Originally Posted by *buckaroo bonzai* 
I can tell you absolutely that this conspiracy conjecture IS true--

after having lived deep within the cannabis culture in Mendocino for years....Monsanto has ALL the patents and turpenes patented within cannabis--

they have a 'kill' gene cannabis plant that will effectively wipe out any outdoor cannabis growing and cross pollinate with their genetically modified version--thus giving them ownership rights like they pulled on Percy schmeiser in Canada 
they are going to follow the path they took with corn--
it is common knowledge in and around mendo and some of these UC folks used to come around talking about it --a lot of them enjoy erb too

i also have a very close friend who's brother is a very high profile and at the top of his field Dr. that told us about the meetings he was privileged to in Colorado where the tax and regulate folks were networking on strategies and Monsanto was bringing the donuts to the meetings---he thought it was funny when he told us and he is a closet 'head'

monsanto is definately at the top of the nefarious corporations list and an extreme threat to humanity and our existence with their control of our food and food supplies---

if you think GMO is good look at how Russia 'banned' it and Europe now made it mandatory to label it and India is now in a huge battle over gmo food as most of the country is vegetarian

GMO food has excito toxins and neuro toxins in it and is the reason the average IQ has went from 120 in the 70s to below 100 now
the dumbing down of the population 

i mean would you spray round up on your salad and then eat it? or on your cannabis and then smoke it?

keep drinking soda with GMO corn syrup or your fast foods that areuthanasia for the masses--
most of the sugar beets that we use to extract sugar for most of the food we it is GMO--

what floors me is all the people that still believe this is benign and harmless and actually a good thing--

its NWO stuff and with all the facts it ain't no conspiracy--

beware Monsanto _​[/QUOTE]



> _after having lived deep within the cannabis culture in Mendocino for years....Monsanto has ALL the patents and turpenes patented within cannabis--_


While this source is better than the Natural News, it is still full of lies. If monsanto had patents, which they can not, they would be public record. 




> _they have a 'kill' gene cannabis plant that will effectively wipe out any outdoor cannabis growing and cross pollinate with their genetically modified version--thus giving them ownership rights like they pulled on Percy schmeiser in Canada
> they are going to follow the path they took with corn--
> it is common knowledge in and around mendo and some of these UC folks used to come around talking about it --a lot of them enjoy erb too_



That is a bunch of lies. 



> _if you think GMO is good look at how Russia 'banned' it and Europe now made it mandatory to label it and India is now in a huge battle over gmo food as most of the country is vegetarian_


blah blah blah, we have covered this

Why are they banned in those countries?




> _GMO food has excito toxins and neuro toxins in it and is the reason the average IQ has went from 120 in the 70s to below 100 now
> the dumbing down of the population _



more lies brought here by DNA
Why would anyone think that a pl;ant could do that?
It is amazingly naive. 



> _i mean would you spray round up on your salad and then eat it? or on your cannabis and then smoke it?_


What? Nice source DNA. Is this what you have sunk to now, using a message board post as your source?
The natural news has slightly more credibility than this guy.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 27, 2013)

if you really want to discuss issues then start with coherency and assigning quotes to the actual poster they came from...
from there it is traditional to discuss not accuse...
berating sarcasm is also not helpful when trying to talk with people... 
sometimes it is helpful though to attempt inducing benign laughter in effort to find at least one place we can all meet up in peace, happiness and mutual respect...

[video=youtube;5f5a0v3skhM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=5f5a0v3skhM[/video]


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 27, 2013)

DNA...

What makes you think the Dutch (et al) would stop selling Cannabis seeds?

I don't see them just giving up because the US has GM dope...unless the GM dope seeds were so good they put the Dutch out of business...and then that's the free market (ie consumers) deciding, not Monsanto.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> DNA...
> 
> What makes you think the Dutch (et al) would stop selling Cannabis seeds?
> 
> I don't see them just giving up because the US has GM dope...unless the GM dope seeds were so good they put the Dutch out of business...and then that's the free market (ie consumers) deciding, not Monsanto.


good point (honestly) but here in norcal i guess 'we' kinda feel like a lot of years etc have gone into the seeds we have and many (including me) feel we have far better seed stock then what is readily available in Europe etc...and I agree that if folks want gmo whatever and it doesn't effect me or others who choose not to partake then by all means, but my concern is that the coming fed laws will at the end of the day keep our 'homegrown' seeds illegal and thereby try to force us all to use gmo cannabis...


----------



## Trousers (Sep 27, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> if you really want to discuss issues then start with coherency and assigning quotes to the actual poster they came from...


You posted a story from a thread. No one thinks you said that garbage, we all know you post crap you do not beleive in with little or no comment. Do you have anything concrete or is it all just stories?



DNAprotection said:


> from there it is traditional to discuss not accuse...


What? 
Let's discuss what you have posted. We can do that. 
Usually people make a relevant comment about what they post, even if they post a story that is easily debunked. 



DNAprotection said:


> berating sarcasm is also not helpful when trying to talk with people...


Neither is posting lies from the natural news with out comment. 
Stop posting lies with out comments. 




DNAprotection said:


> sometimes it is helpful though to attempt inducing benign laughter in effort to find at least one place we can all meet up in peace, happiness and mutual respect...


You are not respectful at all. You sjhould start with yourself.
Perhaps stop calling people names?



DNAprotection said:


> [video=youtube;5f5a0v3skhM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=5f5a0v3skhM[/video]


Why do you expect any one to take you seriously?


----------



## Doer (Sep 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> DNA...
> 
> What makes you think the Dutch (et al) would stop selling Cannabis seeds?
> 
> I don't see them just giving up because the US has GM dope...unless the GM dope seeds were so good they put the Dutch out of business...and then that's the free market (ie consumers) deciding, not Monsanto.


What happened with that guy that claims Monsanto already own 85% of all seed companies? Slicked off, I guess.


----------



## Trousers (Sep 27, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> good point (honestly) but here in norcal i guess 'we' kinda feel like a lot of years etc have gone into the seeds we have and many (including me) feel we have far better seed stock then what is readily available in Europe etc...


So why are you so worried about GMO and cannabis? Is the government going to confiscate your seeds? 
How is the government going to stop seed companies in Europe? How are they going to do this in the face of looming legalization?
Why haven't they already?

All you can come up with is baseless stories, fiction. 



DNAprotection said:


> and I agree that if folks want gmo whatever and it doesn't effect me or others who choose not to partake then by all means, but my concern is that the coming fed laws will at the end of the day keep our 'homegrown' seeds illegal and thereby try to force us all to use gmo cannabis...


What law? The one you made up in your head?

Even if they do continue to keep seeds illegal, how is that going to effect me and my friends who have thousands of seeds on hand? There are tons of people illegally making seeds. There are wild varieties. I am not worried about paranoid stories.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 27, 2013)

you have clearly misread what you quoted and in response to your other posts your just simply not up to date bro...


----------



## Trousers (Sep 27, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> you have clearly misread what you quoted and in response to your other posts your just simply not up to date bro...


It is hard to read your posts. You do not embrace punctuation rules, you misuse ellipses and your syntax is difficult to follow.
If you would like to explain your point in a more clear way, I'd be happy to read it. 


I do not think _you're_ up to date, bra.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 27, 2013)

Trousers said:


> It is hard to read your posts. You do not embrace punctuation rules, you misuse ellipses and your syntax is difficult to follow.
> If you would like to explain your point in a more clear way, I'd be happy to read it.
> 
> 
> I do not think _you're_ up to date, bra.


lol for the first time we absolutely agree on all counts bro and that's a place to start...but the 'up to date' part that I was referring to was about the general demeanor around here and my response to it etc...


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 27, 2013)

Trousers said:


> It is hard to read your posts. You do not embrace punctuation rules, you misuse ellipses and your syntax is difficult to follow.
> If you would like to explain your point in a more clear way, I'd be happy to read it.
> 
> 
> I do not think _you're_ up to date, bra.


Nah, DNA has chilled out on the Natural News and is discussing this without some pig references so I think that's what he meant by "up to date".


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 27, 2013)

Doer said:


> The last refuge of the passive-aggressive when called out, is to deflect. And a typical, usual deflection, I see all the time at work, is to claim the victory that* they have upset the other person.*
> 
> But, of course, the Claim of Victory is the Freudian slip. It is so obvious that is what they are trying to do (the essence of p-agression) because they will claim it when it is completely false! Woops.....slip is showing.


*"I aint even mad" *

Translation: "I am Not Upset about the subject at hand."


this does not mean the same thing as 

*"U Mad"* *"Your Jimmies Are Rustled"* or *"Problem, _____________? **" *

those are about trolling. "I aint even mad" indicates a LACK of trolling, and a failure to fall victim to trolling from the opposition.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Nah, DNA has chilled out on the Natural News and is discussing this without some pig references so I think that's what he meant by "up to date".


lol close enough bro (i sincerely hope you are ok with me calling you frank as it truly is and always has been meant as a term of endearment in that no matter how frank acted, down deep he just wanted to love and be loved just like everyone else and he is one of my all time favorite characters) anyway here's the deal (and then hopefully it can be laid to rest) if i was face to face with you i'm fairly sure i would not have said some of the things i've said to you here, it's just not who i am, and i can only hope that the same goes for you and so therefor i am continuing on as if we are face to face and damn the torpedoes'...i'm doing the best i can frank


----------



## ChesusRice (Sep 27, 2013)

However, what many don't seem to realize is that the alternative health industry is also full of pseudoscience, liars, and hucksters who exploit consumer ignorance through misinformation. Before you think I'm accusing your chiropractor of scamming you, I do realize that there are many honest businesses and knowledgeable professionals in the industry that do offer valid health products, medical treatments, and information. However, there are still major players that don't. Out of all of them, there's one who stands out for providing misinformation, spreading and exploiting paranoia, and promoting or selling useless products, and that's Mike Adams and his _NaturalNews_ business. 
Adams, the self-styled "Health Ranger," is the key writer and owner of _NaturalNews_, a website that's known for posting health "advice" and conspiracy theories, much like the _InfoWars_ of alternative health. Adams' qualifications in the field of medicine or nutritional health, if he has any, are completely unknown. He's an award winning alternative "health" author and journalist that while praised highly in the alternative media and its community, is seen as generally a quack and a shill by science bloggers, and is the type of person that repeats dangerous anti-vaccine stances and misleading anti-GMO arguments.
Adams' reports themselves are prime examples of how he exploits the ignorance of others. In one recent "report", Adams acts as if he has a scoop. To briefly summarize, Adams demonstrates how phosphoric acid affects teeth in an attempt to insert himself into the discussion on the health effects of soda, but Adams' work is really sensationalized "scientific" reporting. For those of you who haven't taken 11th-grade chemistry, there's a gaping hole in the report (aside from an important procedural error). Adams is using a solution of 85% phosphoric acid, and submerged a tooth in it for an entire day. Adams himself acknowledges the solution is much, much, much more acidic than anything found in soda, but still tries to imply that drinking soda and having concentrated phosphoric acid in your mouth for 24 hours is even remotely the same thing. Also, Adams tries to scare even more by comparing Coca Cola Classic's (the most acidic Coca-Cola product) pH of 2.525 to car battery acid, which has a pH of about .08. In reality, a car battery is about 50 times more acidic, and a lemon generally twice as acidic as Coke. 
Just as questionable as Adams' articles are his business ethics. While _NaturalNews_ claims to be nonprofit, that claim is very dubious. A few years ago, Adams made the decision to not only endorse the company "Moxxor, but to form a partnership between it and _NaturalNews_, and to be a top-level distributor. It's one of those schemes that will leave most people spending more and more money on Moxxor supplements, while getting little back in terms of monetary or health benefits.
Adams and his _NaturalNews_ team is only one of the many organizations that are interested in exploiting consumer ignorance, using misleading business practices, and encouraging (unwittingly, I assume) sometimes dangerous products that may end up hurting consumers. It goes without saying that we should treat health sites and such with a healthy amount of skepticism, and always do research into health matters. That makes it all the more difficult for people like Adams to take advantage of us.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 27, 2013)

Jeezus, Chesus. If yer' gonna steal something for a c&p, at least give attribution. Verbatim.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/65075/meet-the-health-ranger-who-s-using-pseudoscience-to-sell-his-lies


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Jeezus, Chesus. If yer' gonna steal something for a c&p, at least give attribution. Verbatim.
> 
> http://www.policymic.com/articles/65075/meet-the-health-ranger-who-s-using-pseudoscience-to-sell-his-lies


i been sayin that for months, but his own actions do not dissuade him from calling anyone else who copy/pastes ANYTHING spammers.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 27, 2013)

(in response to CR)
in all fairness bro (and this is not meant in any way to promote or demote the guy or his virtual rag) the thing has been censured from being posted here as far as i know and so it seems a little out of tilt to ne posting against it at this point...just my opinion...


----------



## ChesusRice (Sep 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Jeezus, Chesus. If yer' gonna steal something for a c&p, at least give attribution. Verbatim.
> 
> http://www.policymic.com/articles/65075/meet-the-health-ranger-who-s-using-pseudoscience-to-sell-his-lies


Irrelevant
OP will just dismiss it as a conspiracy by the AMA to discredit alternative cures
Im going thru this on my facebook page with a HS freind who is hooked into Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 27, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> Irrelevant
> OP will just dismiss it as a conspiracy by the AMA to discredit alternative cures
> Im going thru this on my facebook page with a HS freind who is hooked into Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez


but the OP didn't bro so how about we try and get past it and move to trying to discuss the real issues? not being sarcastic CR, just being real...


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 27, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> Irrelevant
> OP will just dismiss it as a conspiracy by the AMA to discredit alternative cures
> Im going thru this on my facebook page with a HS freind who is hooked into Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez


Unattributed c&ps are never irrelevant.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Unattributed c&ps are never irrelevant.


i would argue that copy/paste text which is unattributed is ALWAYS IRRELEVANT.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 27, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Unattributed c&ps are never irrelevant.





Dr Kynes said:


> i would argue that copy/paste text which is unattributed is ALWAYS IRRELEVANT.


what is relevant (imo as the OP) is CR's ideas for how cannabis should be 'legal' which is ironically not what you're posting about and its probably where you (CR) and i see very close to eye to eye...can you post your ideas again here for a refresher so i can be sure that my assessment is accurate?...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 27, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> what is relevant (imo as the OP) is CR's ideas for how cannabis should be 'legal' which is ironically not what you're posting about and its probably where you (CR) and i see very close to eye to eye...can you post your ideas again here for a refresher so i can be sure that my assessment is accurate?...


weed should be 100% legal, just as papaver somniferum is legal, just as tobacco is legal, just as grapes and barley are legal. 

the government should not have the power to register, license, regulate or otherwise control the contents of my garden, the contents of my liver, or the contents of my gun cabinet, my holster, my gun rack, or my medicine cabinet.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> weed should be 100% legal, just as papaver somniferum is legal, just as tobacco is legal, just as grapes and barley are legal.
> 
> the government should not have the power to register, license, regulate or otherwise control the contents of my garden, the contents of my liver, or the contents of my gun cabinet, my holster, my gun rack, or my medicine cabinet.




*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr Kynes again.



*





"just as tobacco is legal" 

is tobacco 100% legal doc? i thought it was regulated even technically in our own gardens?
further though i did a fed case once where at the end of the day one of the judges messages was that we don't even have the 'constitutional rights' to grow a carrot if gov says we dont...of course i disagreed as far as i could (through the 9th circuit crt of appeals) but stopped short of appealing to the supreme crt...


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 27, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> *You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr Kynes again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, it is. 

Legal to grow, regulated to sell.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 27, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> "just as tobacco is legal"
> 
> is tobacco 100% legal doc? i thought it was regulated even technically in our own gardens?
> further though i did a fed case once where at the end of the day one of the judges messages was that we don't even have the 'constitutional rights' to grow a carrot if gov says we dont...of course i disagreed as far as i could (through the 9th circuit crt of appeals) but stopped short of appealing to the supreme crt...


NOPE. 

you can grow as much tobacco as you please, the only restriction is the sale of it. 

federal regulations (not laws) prohibits the sale of tobacco without license, just as you may distil as much hooch as you like, you just cannot sell it.

tobacco is legal to own, legal to use, and legal to grow, just "illegal" to sell because they want their fat Sin Taxes. 

you can buy tobacco seeds from a variety of online seed banks, grow your own, dry it, cure it and smoke it. you just cannot turn it into a cottage industry, which is what the feds fear most. 
if we were not reliant on interstate and international commerce we would not be reliant on the feds who regulate that commerce. 

it is a snake eating it's own tail.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 27, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> Legal to grow, regulated to sell.





Dr Kynes said:


> NOPE.
> 
> you can grow as much tobacco as you please, the only restriction is the sale of it.
> 
> ...


thanks i wasn't at all sure...

this was exactly what one of my constitutional arguments (9th amen in fed civil case) about cannabis was, only my argument went further then Raich imo...


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 28, 2013)

imo we must settle the cannabis question by way of the constitution and in court as plaintiffs, otherwise we leave the door wide open to gmo cannabis being the only legal cannabis in the coming times of the laws changing, and if we leave it up to congress etc i feel this will be the outcome...
its a plant, it comes from where we all come from and goes to where we all go, its your relative, will the real cannabis lovers please stand up' for the plants natural right to exist...stand up for your natural right to partner with the plant for your food, meds, cloths and shelter etc...stand up for truth, not lies built from compromise...
theres only one place other than a battle field where this can be resolved by the facts and that is the court room...
but pro cannabis folks almost always only go to court as the defendant...loosing battle, wrong field...
folks who love cannabis must walk into court as plaintiffs seeking to affirm the rights we were all born with...


----------



## Trousers (Sep 28, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> stand up for truth, not lies built from compromise...


I've been doing that for nearly 30 years, including in this thread, countering you.


----------



## Doer (Sep 28, 2013)

It thought.......wrong.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 28, 2013)

Trousers said:


> I've been doing that for nearly 30 years, including in this thread, countering you.


honestly bro you haven't been able to produce one thing to back that up because it doesn't exist because i haven't lied, and every time you post such a statement (to many times to count and always with nothing to back it up) it only shows that you are being what you accuse others of...


----------



## Trousers (Sep 28, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> honestly bro


Stop it. 





DNAprotection said:


> you haven't been able to produce one thing to back that up because it doesn't exist


I have posted numerous facts that are verifiable. 
Stop lying. 



DNAprotection said:


> because i haven't lied,


You just lied again. You are a 50 year old liar. 

For the 15th time:

When you post an article, it is assumed that you have read the article.
It is also assumed that you agree with what the article says.

If you just post an article with out reading it, you are just a dumb asshole spammer. 
So you are either a liar, or a dumb asshole spammer. It is pretty cut and dried. 




DNAprotection said:


> and every time you post such a statement (to many times to count and always with nothing to back it up) it only shows that you are being what you accuse others of...


The old "I'm rubber and you are glue" defense. 
I'm sure that worked well for you on the playground about 40 years ago, but that shit does not have any traction here. 

How many articles did you post that you do not agree with?


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 28, 2013)

dude i'm beginning to think theres just no point responding to you at all because you just keep repeating inflammatory incoherent bs that is apparently reinforced by some serious delusional thinking on your part...not sure exactly why or what it is bro but seriously i think you have some issues that might well be better off worked out in a more professional setting...honestly...


----------



## Trousers (Sep 28, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> dude i'm beginning to think theres just no point responding to you at all because you just keep repeating inflammatory incoherent bs


Dude, you are a liar and that is a fact. 
You should just block me if you are afraid of the truth.
It is not inflammatory. You post lies and represent tham as truth. That makes you a liar. 

Good luck with that hot mess. 

Do you want to defend your actions?
Are you saying that you did not post articles that are full of lies?

This thread is littered with your lies and spam. 




DNAprotection said:


> that is apparently reinforced by some serious delusional thinking on your part...


What specifically is delusional?
Are you saying you did not post lies and spam?
Grow up. 






DNAprotection said:


> not sure exactly why or what it is bro but seriously i think you have some issues


More, "I'm rubber you are glue." You have the mind of a child. 
My issue is that you post lies and present them as truth, all the while being an insulting and coy prick.





DNAprotection said:


> that might well be better off worked out in a more professional setting...honestly...


You are a liar. You can deny it all you want, but you are a liar. 
50 years old and full of shit. You are ignorant on purpose.
You have been shown to be a liar at least 57 times in this thread. 

Stop lying and present something that is verifiable to back up your dubious opinions. 
The easiest way for you to stop being a liar is to stop posting. 

Do you want to get back to talking about GMOs or do you just want to argue some more about your lies and lying ways?


----------



## Doer (Sep 28, 2013)

More than he can block. Try it. You might like it.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 28, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> imo we must settle the cannabis question by way of the constitution and in court as plaintiffs, otherwise we leave the door wide open to gmo cannabis being the only legal cannabis in the coming times of the laws changing, and if we leave it up to congress etc i feel this will be the outcome...
> its a plant, it comes from where we all come from and goes to where we all go, its your relative, will the real cannabis lovers please stand up' for the plants natural right to exist...stand up for your natural right to partner with the plant for your food, meds, cloths and shelter etc...stand up for truth, not lies built from compromise...
> theres only one place other than a battle field where this can be resolved by the facts and that is the court room...
> but pro cannabis folks almost always only go to court as the defendant...loosing battle, wrong field...
> folks who love cannabis must walk into court as plaintiffs seeking to affirm the rights we were all born with...




Cannabis is prohibited as a species, not by cultivar. 
Theoretical GMO cannabis is still cannabis, and thus still prohibited. 

any loosening of the cannabis prohibition would unleash a storm of LOLsuits each claiming that this strain or that is also a new cultivar and thus not prohibited. 

and that is why there is no GMO dope program.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> Cannabis is prohibited as a species, not by cultivar.
> Theoretical GMO cannabis is still cannabis, and thus still prohibited.
> 
> any loosening of the cannabis prohibition would unleash a storm of LOLsuits each claiming that this strain or that is also a new cultivar and thus not prohibited.
> ...


not sure i understand doc?
it seems to me that all congress has to do is simply allow for individual state laws under the condition that the only cannabis 'cultivars' legal under each state law would be FDA approved /registered/permitted etc and i'm guessing that there would be some mechanism which would give genetically engineered plants the exclusive advantage within that process...just my opinion...and considering that Monsanto has done gene ohm mapping of cannabis under fed anti-bio-terrorism programs (at least) it seems they might be plenty ready for such a change in the law that in my opinion they are pushing hard for under the radar...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 28, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> not sure i understand doc?
> it seems to me that all congress has to do is simply allow for individual state laws under the condition that the only cannabis 'cultivars' legal under each state law would be FDA approved /registered/permitted etc and i'm guessing that there would be some mechanism which would give genetically engineered plants the exclusive advantage within that process...just my opinion...and considering that Monsanto has done gene ohm mapping of cannabis under fed anti-bio-terrorism programs (at least) it seems they might be plenty ready for such a change in the law that in my opinion they are pushing hard for under the radar...


cannabis prohibition is not that simple. 

the supreme court ruled that the congress has no power to prohibit cannabis, only to tax it, and several previous attempts to ban cannabis by requiring a "Tax Stamp" which was never available for sale, and never issued were struck down as backdoor prohibition. 

the "Marihuana Tax Stamp" (lol) is still issued today, but only a few, and all are bought directly by a few universities running the *FOURTY YEAR LONG *"study" on medical uses of cannabis, with *no results yet published*. 

after failing to ban weed by legislation, the congress created the Food and Drug Administration which they granted the power to "Regulate" dope, which immediately crafted regulations which banned cannabis, despite having been repeatedly informed that "regulating" does not allow prohibition... 

thus, the congress gave bureacrats a power the congress never had, and the bureaucrats now exercise this power through the controlled substances list, which lists the SPECIES cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug (absolutely prohibited). 

changing those regulations will require re-writing the entire Controlled Substances Act or removing cannabis from Schedule 1, and neither of those things are gonna happen. 

any new cultivar of cannabis as well as THC (and all it's variants) are prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act through the magical power of bureaucracy to acquire authority from congress that congress never had to begin with. 

the only way around this would be to issue a company (possibly monsanto) a fat stack of "Marihuana Tax Stamps", which would allow them to produce "Marihuana" but would still give them no power to distribute it, or any drug derived from it without FDA approval, which is also a highly unlikely scenario. 

only synthetically created cannabinoids can be produced (lol demerol) and they are scheduled by the FDA just as any new synthetic drug would be. 

creating some cunard where GMO dope plants were declared "Synthetic" would be very unlikely, and any patents on a new "synthetic" dope cultivar would only last 20 years. 

Cannabis prohibition is trapped in a bureaucratic Pandora's Box, and the mandarins in washington aint even gonna think about opening it.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i would argue that copy/paste text which is unattributed is ALWAYS IRRELEVANT.





DNAprotection said:


> what is relevant (imo as the OP) is CR's ideas for how cannabis should be 'legal' which is ironically not what you're posting about and its probably where you (CR) and i see very close to eye to eye...can you post your ideas again here for a refresher so i can be sure that my assessment is accurate?...


Wups. I was ambiguous. 
What I meant to say is that the act of posting unattributed C&Ps is not to be ignored.
Their content otoh may or may not be relevant. 
Even attributed C&Ps can be damned tedious, especially if they keep coming from one or two obvious propaganda clearinghouses. My opinion.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 28, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Wups. I was ambiguous.
> What I meant to say is that the act of posting unattributed C&Ps is not to be ignored.
> Their content otoh may or may not be relevant.
> Even attributed C&Ps can be damned tedious, especially if they keep coming from one or two obvious propaganda clearinghouses. My opinion.


but thats why the Copy/paste spammers prefer to leave their shit unattributed.

including a byline from "Slate dot Com", or Huffpo, or MSNBC would impeach their wall of text before anyone even looked at the content of the copy/paste. 

most unattributed Copy/paste remarks also suffer from a distinct lack of context, and a few have been edited to make the meaning of the text quite different from the original. 

without attribution, the copy/paste might well be a deliberate falsehood, thus i consider such posts irrelevant until attribution is supplied.


----------



## ChesusRice (Sep 28, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Wups. I was ambiguous.
> What I meant to say is that the act of posting unattributed C&Ps is not to be ignored.
> Their content otoh may or may not be relevant.
> *Even attributed C&Ps can be damned tedious, especially if they keep coming from one or two obvious propaganda clearinghouses. My opinion*.


I'll remember this next time Winter Woman regurgitates the daily right wing talking point


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> cannabis prohibition is not that simple.
> 
> the supreme court ruled that the congress has no power to prohibit cannabis, only to tax it, and several previous attempts to ban cannabis by requiring a "Tax Stamp" which was never available for sale, and never issued were struck down as backdoor prohibition.
> 
> ...


i thought all that ended with the marijuana tax act?
some years back (like mid 90's) i was working with hprco in applying for a DEA permit to grow 347,000 or so acres of cannabis in 18 states and i never read or encountered anywhere in that paper work about still issuing tax stamps over the three or so years...not saying your incorrect doc just saying im not familiar with that?
i did do a gig in Arizona once though that was tax stamp protected (tax was punitive so any further punishment was double jeopardy), but that was a state law etc...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 28, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> i thought all that ended with the marijuana tax act?
> some years back (like mid 90's) i was working with hprco in applying for a DEA permit to grow 347,000 or so acres of cannabis in 18 states and i never read or encountered anywhere in that paper work about still issuing tax stamps over the three or so years...not saying your incorrect doc just saying im not familiar with that?
> i did do a gig in Arizona once though that was tax stamp protected (tax was punitive so any further punishment was double jeopardy), but that was a state law etc...



whoops youre right!

the US government still has a mechanism by which certain special persons can produce "Marihuana" legally, which is strictly prohibited under the Scedule 1 drug category.

the mechanism used to be the "Marihuana Tax Stamp" which was printed in limited numbers and only available to the Univ of Missouri for the "Investigational Study"

now the CSA has a loophole that allows the DEA to permit a specific quota of a Schedule 1 "Narcotic" for use in specifically allowed research.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 28, 2013)

ChesusRice said:


> I'll remember this next time Winter Woman regurgitates the daily right wing talking point


mote/beam.


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 29, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> whoops youre right!
> 
> the US government still has a mechanism by which certain special persons can produce "Marihuana" legally, which is strictly prohibited under the Scedule 1 drug category.
> 
> ...


not that they issue them to anyone but the chosen few though...
when i was involved in their application process they had violated their own mandated by law protocol etc many times before their final rejection of our app...
we were setting them up for a civil case but by the end i had already decided that a permit was not worth a court battle, but our inherent right to grow and utilize plants was worth going to court over...so i went that rout instead...
my point is though that DEA/DOJ could have been challenged many times over the years as to their obligations and protocols for issuing those permits...its not the road i choose but its a road untraveled for the most part...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 29, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> not that they issue them to anyone but the chosen few though...
> when i was involved in their application process they had violated their own mandated by law protocol etc many times before their final rejection of our app...
> we were setting them up for a civil case but by the end i had already decided that a permit was not worth a court battle, but our inherent right to grow and utilize plants was worth going to court over...so i went that rout instead...
> my point is though that DEA/DOJ could have been challenged many times over the years as to their obligations and protocols for issuing those permits...its not the road i choose but its a road untraveled for the most part...


well since the supreme court has ruled that refusing to process an application does not constitute rejection of an application, they are well protected. 

i wouldnt got to the DEA for ANYTHING. they, and the ATF are the worst of the bunch in washingtons bumper crop of dim witted assholes with an ounce of power and a ton of megalomania


----------



## DNAprotection (Sep 29, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> well since the supreme court has ruled that refusing to process an application does not constitute rejection of an application, they are well protected.
> 
> i wouldnt got to the DEA for ANYTHING. they, and the ATF are the worst of the bunch in washingtons bumper crop of dim witted assholes with an ounce of power and a ton of megalomania


the instance i was referring to was about certain protocol mandated by law within the process of processing an app, not about 'refusing' or necessarily rejecting the app...
in any case though its all moot to me as i'm in total agreement with the second part of your post concerning going to the gangsters for anything etc, and thats in part why i backed out of that project.


----------



## DNAprotection (Oct 4, 2013)

the curtain slowly opens wider for coming attractions...



[h=1]




[/h][h=1]Genetically Modified Ozs. &#8211; Yes Monsanto Cannabis[/h]_Posted by Jake Bobay - August 27, 2013 - Crony Corporatism_
_
_
_http://www.bluerepublican.org/2013/08/27/genetically-modified-os-yes-monsanto-cannabis/


[h=1]California Governor Signs Hemp Bill into Law[/h]
http://www.thedailychronic.net/2013/25767/california-governor-signs-hemp-bill-law/_


----------



## DNAprotection (Oct 4, 2013)

for good measure...

*FOOD RANT*
[h=2]"Monsanto Poised To Take Over the Weed Industry"[/h]_by Rick Paulas_
_on August 21, 2013 1:05 PM_



http://www.kcet.org/living/food/food-rant/monsanto-to-take-over-the-weed-industry.html









[h=1]"Manipulating Marijuana: Monsanto and Syngenta Invest In RNA Interference Technology"[/h]

*By Tracy Giesz-Ramsay, Cannabis Culture - Tuesday, July 30 2013*
*
*
*





*
*http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2013/07/30/Manipulating-Marijuana-Monsanto-and-Syngenta-Invest-RNA-Interference-Technology
*




[h=2]"Is Monsanto Ready to Enter The Medical Marijuana War?"[/h]

http://www.chicagonow.com/wild-side-chicago/2013/08/monsanto-ready-to-enter-medical-marijuana-war/


----------



## Harrekin (Oct 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> for good measure...
> 
> *FOOD RANT*
> *"Monsanto Poised To Take Over the Weed Industry"*
> ...


Just don't buy theirs or grow your own...

The sky isn't falling.


----------



## racerboy71 (Oct 4, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Just don't buy theirs or grow your own...
> 
> The sky isn't falling.


It really is that simple isn't it??
Stockpile your own genetics and you'll never have to worry about GMO..


----------



## Rob Roy (Oct 4, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> whoops youre right!
> 
> the US government still has a mechanism by which certain special persons can produce "Marihuana" legally, which is strictly prohibited under the Scedule 1 drug category.
> 
> ...


I think you meant University of Mississippi. Also there is a case in North Carolina where a person is fighting this....he bought pot tax stamps etc.


----------



## DNAprotection (Oct 4, 2013)

Harrekin said:


> Just don't buy theirs or grow your own...
> 
> The sky isn't falling.


bro i seriously hope that my opinion is wrong and that you are completely correct...



racerboy71 said:


> It really is that simple isn't it??
> Stockpile your own genetics and you'll never have to worry about GMO..


i also hope you are correct because at this point not sure how else to surf this wave...


----------



## Trousers (Oct 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> the curtain slowly opens wider for coming attractions...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still spamming. 
Are you going to say you do not necessarily agree with the article?
You must not have read the article, moron............... 


> *If *RNAi were ever applied to marijuana, the technology could possibly create larger and more potent plants for less.


Sounds good to me. What is your problem with this?



> While this latest development may be making ma and pa cultivators anxious, basic laws of supply and demand beg to differ.





> There will always be a demand for locally grown cannabis if consumers prefer the quality and service, the same as there is now for certain community taverns and craft breweries.


Did you even read the article?
Because if you did, it counters you terrible, paranoid fantasies about Monsanto and marijuana. 
The writer of this blog makes the same points I did, yet you quote him. 


You are such an idiot that you are now posting articles that help my argument and hurt yours. smdh 
It is still spam, but it is funny spam. 


You should quit while you are behind.


----------



## Harrekin (Oct 4, 2013)

Smoking my own dope right now, Monsanto...I'm like the honey badger...

"I don't give a fuck"

Jock Horror by Nirvana btw, pretty high quality for outdoor.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 4, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i would argue that copy/paste text which is unattributed is ALWAYS IRRELEVANT.





Harrekin said:


> Smoking my own dope right now, Monsanto...I'm like the honey badger...
> 
> "I don't give a fuck"
> 
> Jock Horror by Nirvana btw, pretty high quality for outdoor.


 Nirvana's OK but do treat yourself to some Cali Conn or Reserva Privada. A friend finds RP's Kosher Kush to be superlative.


----------



## Harrekin (Oct 4, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Nirvana's OK but do treat yourself to some Cali Conn or Reserva Privada. A friend finds RP's Kosher Kush to be superlative.


I usually grow Sensi, these were a "throw em in the sun and see how they do". 

Crystals were insane, strong (yet survivable in public) head effect too.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> the curtain slowly opens wider for coming attractions...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


" Take the infamous GMO giant Monsanto, who *may* someday hold a large stake in cannabis cultivation in the future. The controversial company is currently investing millions of dollars into a new technology called RNAi  a process that *could* artificially alter everything from the plants color to making it insect repellent. *If *RNAi were ever applied to marijuana, the technology *could possibly *create larger and more potent plants for less. "

_http://www.bluerepublican.org/2013/08/27/genetically-modified-os-yes-monsanto-cannabis/_ 

"And if wishes was horses, we would all be eating steak."
~ Jayne Cobb


----------



## desert dude (Oct 4, 2013)

Will this thread never die?

"Trayvon" was just a few texts by comparison.


----------



## DNAprotection (Oct 4, 2013)

desert dude said:


> Will this thread never die?
> 
> "Trayvon" was just a few texts by comparison.


lol ok dd i tell ya what, i vow to resist from posting here until more is known about the possibly evolving fed laws and if no biotech stranglehold jumps out of the wording in the final bill etc then this thread can be finally laid to rest...so until then i shall not post here again


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 4, 2013)

DNAprotection said:


> lol ok dd i tell ya what, i vow to resist from posting here until more is known about the possibly evolving fed laws and if no biotech stranglehold jumps out of the wording in the final bill etc then this thread can be finally laid to rest...so until then i shall not post here again


*A Gentleman's Agreement!

Huzzah!*


----------



## ChroniComedian (Oct 23, 2013)

Trousers said:


> I would like to read about that. Honeycrisp apples are losing their patent status, but they retain the trademarked name.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Replying to much of this. If you want to know about how Monsanto owns 85% of seed companies watch the documentary "The world according to Monsanto" and it will safely explain how you have had a veil put over your eyes the last 30 years of GMO. 

You ask what is the proof that if a genetically modified seed comes out that people would want to spray it to death with pesticides given a gmo/pesticide resistant marijuana strain. My proof is here in colorado where I work in the medicinal marijuana industry and half of the places here already pack so many pesticides into their product to ensure no loss of plant material every time. To sit here and "assume" as you believe I'm doing that people given the opportunity to get more crop with less loss wouldn't actually do so. That's absolutely absurd of a thought to start, now you're assuming that all pot growers have good intentions and care about the product that they put out. If that were the case I wouldn't be sad with half of the dispensaries I go to that don't flush their product well, spray their product with nasty chemicals and then sell it like theres nothing wrong with it. You forget that assholes like Monsanto and the people who take over "industries" do not commonly take part in the things that they own, that's why they make so much money off the rest of us. The same idea goes, the owner of Coca Cola doesn't drink his own product. 

Finally to your final thought of "find me the link" unfortunately not all information is on wikipedia like most of you modern idiots want, and I can't just post you the wiki links to all this stuff. A lot of this is watching documentaries, reading books and finding out more information about the subject, something you seem to only do if a internet link is provided to you. Do you also use wiki and other shitty internet information sources when writing an essay, I'm sure that will be quite successful for you. The answer to your bs questions is I won't answer to your bs, go look up some stuff for yourself and stop believing everything the FDA and monsanto tell you to believe.


----------



## ChesusRice (Oct 23, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Nirvana's OK but do treat yourself to some Cali Conn or Reserva Privada. A friend finds RP's Kosher Kush to be superlative.


Reserva privada og kush 18

Blah


----------



## ChesusRice (Oct 23, 2013)

ChroniComedian said:


> Replying to much of this. If you want to know about how Monsanto owns 85% of seed companies watch the documentary "The world according to Monsanto" and it will safely explain how you have had a veil put over your eyes the last 30 years of GMO.
> 
> You ask what is the proof that if a genetically modified seed comes out that people would want to spray it to death with pesticides given a gmo/pesticide resistant marijuana strain. My proof is here in colorado where I work in the medicinal marijuana industry and half of the places here already pack so many pesticides into their product to ensure no loss of plant material every time. To sit here and "assume" as you believe I'm doing that people given the opportunity to get more crop with less loss wouldn't actually do so. That's absolutely absurd of a thought to start, now you're assuming that all pot growers have good intentions and care about the product that they put out. If that were the case I wouldn't be sad with half of the dispensaries I go to that don't flush their product well, spray their product with nasty chemicals and then sell it like theres nothing wrong with it. You forget that assholes like Monsanto and the people who take over "industries" do not commonly take part in the things that they own, that's why they make so much money off the rest of us. The same idea goes, the owner of Coca Cola doesn't drink his own product.
> 
> Finally to your final thought of "find me the link" unfortunately not all information is on wikipedia like most of you modern idiots want, and I can't just post you the wiki links to all this stuff. A lot of this is watching documentaries, reading books and finding out more information about the subject, something you seem to only do if a internet link is provided to you. Do you also use wiki and other shitty internet information sources when writing an essay, I'm sure that will be quite successful for you. The answer to your bs questions is I won't answer to your bs, go look up some stuff for yourself and stop believing everything the FDA and monsanto tell you to believe.


Another poster who backs up my model for legalization

Legal to possess and grow

Illegal to sell


----------



## Trousers (Oct 23, 2013)

ChroniComedian said:


> Replying to much of this. If you want to know about how Monsanto owns 85% of seed companies watch the documentary "The world according to Monsanto" and it will safely explain how you have had a veil put over your eyes the last 30 years of GMO.


You do not understand my point of view boy. Where have I shown support for Monsanto?
Take your veil off and put it in your ass. 




ChroniComedian said:


> You ask what is the proof that if a genetically modified seed comes out that people would want to spray it to death with pesticides given a gmo/pesticide resistant marijuana strain.


Where did I ask that?

I had to read that 3 times and it still does not make much sense.




ChroniComedian said:


> My proof is here in colorado where I work in the medicinal marijuana industry and half of the places here already pack so many pesticides into their product to ensure no loss of plant material every time.


What does that prove? 

That is completely off topic. Besides that, you have no proof and you started off pretty douchey with that whole veil thing. 




ChroniComedian said:


> To sit here and "assume" as you believe I'm doing that people given the opportunity to get more crop with less loss wouldn't actually do so.


You are making things up about what I saidf and trying to proive your point with stories. 
So stop that. 



ChroniComedian said:


> That's absolutely absurd of a thought to start, now you're assuming that all pot growers have good intentions and care about the product that they put out.


Where did I do that? Are you in the right thread?




ChroniComedian said:


> If that were the case I wouldn't be sad with half of the dispensaries I go to that don't flush their product well,


Flushing is stupid. It does nothing but stress a plant. 
You are the victim of a dumb myth. I'm not surprised. 





ChroniComedian said:


> spray their product with nasty chemicals and then sell it like theres nothing wrong with it.



What is your point?
That has nothing to do with what I have argued about. 





ChroniComedian said:


> You forget that assholes like Monsanto and the people who take over "industries" do not commonly take part in the things that they own, that's why they make so much money off the rest of us. The same idea goes, the owner of Coca Cola doesn't drink his own product.


Some say cucumbers taste better pickled. 




ChroniComedian said:


> Finally to your final thought of "find me the link" unfortunately not all information is on wikipedia like most of you modern idiots want, and I can't just post you the wiki links to all this stuff.


So you are full of shit and have brought nothing to this discussion but stories, assumptions and lies. 
Thanks?




ChroniComedian said:


> A lot of this is watching documentaries, reading books and finding out more information about the subject,


You want me to watch a documentary instead of reading peer reviewed scientific studies?
Will that make me believe bullshit like you do?




ChroniComedian said:


> something you seem to only do if a internet link is provided to you.


So I should just believe your bullshit?
That is not how it works Big Fella. 




ChroniComedian said:


> Do you also use wiki and other shitty internet information sources when writing an essay,


Why would I write an essay?
I'm not a dumb student. Why don't you write an essay about your Summer vacation?



ChroniComedian said:


> I'm sure that will be quite successful for you.


Go away boy. Go do your homework, you have added nothing hear but moronic assumptions and dubious stories. 




ChroniComedian said:


> The answer to your bs questions is I won't answer to your bs, go look up some stuff for yourself and stop believing everything the FDA and monsanto tell you to believe.


If you were smart enough to understand the thread, then you would realize that the studies that my argument hinges on have nothing to do with Monsanto of the FDA. 

You do not know what you are talking about.

If you would like to argue something specific, bring it.


----------



## Doer (Oct 24, 2013)

I don't see any major seed producers on this list. I don't see 85% of production. Notice how when we ask for links the yuki gets small and attacks personally?

They all claim we are mired in Belief...yet it is they, that suffer, from no facts. Monsanto owns a very few seed companies, for it's size. It is the big guys controlling the competition is self rule.....this is part of the rules of the game. But, they didn't corner the market...impossible.

Audubon Workshop
Brecks Bulbs
Cooks Garden
Dege Garden Center
Earl May Seed
E & R Seed Co
Ferry Morse
Flower of the Month Club
Gardens Alive
Germania Seed Co
Garden Trends
HPS
Jungs
Lindenberg Seeds
McClure and Zimmerman Quality Bulb Brokers
Mountain Valley Seed
Nichols
Osborne
Park Bulbs
Parks Countryside Garden
R.H. Shumway
Roots and Rhizomes
Rupp
Seeds for the World
Seymours Selected Seeds
Snow
Spring Hill Nurseries
Stokes
T&T Seeds
Tomato Growers Supply
Totally Tomato
Vermont Bean Seed Co.
Wayside Gardens
Willhite Seed Co.
American Seeds
Asgrow
Campbell
DeKalb
De Ruiter
Diener Seeds
Fielders Choice
Fontanelle
Gold Country Seed
Hawkeye
Heartland
Heritage Seeds
Holdens
Hubner Seed
icorn
Jung Seed
Kruger Seeds
Lewis Hybrids
Peotec
Poloni
Rea Hybrids
Seminis
Specialty
Stewart
Stone Seed
Trelay
Western Seeds

http://planet.infowars.com/uncategorized/seed-companies-owned-by-monsanto


Of course, they are trying to say these companies cannot possible produce heirloom anymore. OWNED BY MONSANTO THE DEVIL.

Hie thee from here, I know thy true name and by that I control thee.....BEGONE MONSANTO!!

Devil worshipers, Here me! You are lied to. The 85% crap you spout is not even close to true. The Top Ten producers are not owned buy Monsanto.

Monsanto, has 23% of the seed market, by a lot of work and luck, etc.

How stupid can you get??? You would believe anything, for belief is all you have.

http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/10558-the-worlds-top-ten-seed-companies-who-owns-nature



*Company  2007**Seed sales (US$ millions)**% of global proprietary seed market*Monsanto (US)$4,964m23%DuPont (US)$3,300m15%Syngenta (Switzerland)$2,018m9%Groupe Limagrain (France)$1,226m6%Land O' Lakes (US)$917m4%KWS AG (Germany)$702m3%Bayer Crop Science (Germany)$524m2%Sakata (Japan)$396m<2%DLF-Trifolium (Denmark)$391m<2%Takii (Japan)$347m<2%Top 10 Total$14,785m67% [of global proprietary seed market]


----------



## Trousers (Oct 24, 2013)

ChroniComedian said:


> Replying to much of this. If you want to know about how Monsanto owns 85% of seed companies watch the documentary "The world according to Monsanto" and it will safely explain how you have had a veil put over your eyes the last 30 years of GMO.




Do you want to revisit that comment?
Remove the veil, smdh.


----------



## Harrekin (Oct 24, 2013)

ZOMG! 

MERN-SAN-TOOOOOOO!

Zombie pig-men!


----------



## Figong (Oct 25, 2013)

This thread is still going? hahaha.. and I see Trousers is still opening up a can of whoopass, awesome! - where's Kynes?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 26, 2013)

Figong said:


> This thread is still going? hahaha.. and I see Trousers is still opening up a can of whoopass, awesome! - where's Kynes?


----------



## Solarves (Oct 28, 2013)

I vote No on GMO-weed. I wouldn't trust a company with ZERO ethics (Monsanto). Nor do I support tampering with nature with things like herbs - though further research and attempting to isolate which components do what MAY have medical value so long as they are
isolated and the isolate proves, in a concentrated form, to have more benefit. But attempting to splice other DNA into that gene may be a bad idea. If something isn't found in nature and incidentally ingested then does the body, on a cellular level recognize that? If so how does it handle it? As a free radical or something of the sort? The synergy within cannabis is not greatly understood even today (as much as they could) and I believe someone like Monsanto would NOT be doing anything to help anyone, except themselves and their bottom line (money).


----------



## Doer (Oct 28, 2013)

Zero ethics? So stupid. They are a pubic company and protected from you idiots by the Federal Govt.


----------



## Bombur (Oct 28, 2013)

Doer said:


> Zero ethics? So stupid. They are a pubic company and protected from you idiots by the Federal Govt.


Hehe, "pubic company".


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 28, 2013)

Bombur said:


> Hehe, "pubic company".


yes. a public company. 

dont like how they roll, you and the rest of the Occupy Tards can pool your panhandling change and buy a few shares, then you get to voice your disapproval of their evil schemes in a manner which actually accomplishes something.


----------



## Bombur (Oct 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yes. a public company.
> 
> dont like how they roll, you and the rest of the Occupy Tards can pool your panhandling change and buy a few shares, then you get to voice your disapproval of their evil schemes in a manner which actually accomplishes something.


Wtf are you talking about? Occupy Tard LMAO I was making a stupid, juvenile joke about Doer's typo. I've never even talked about that stupid ass OWS "movement" on this site, what the hell is the basis for all these assumptions about me?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 28, 2013)

Bombur said:


> Wtf are you talking about? Occupy Tard LMAO I was making a stupid, juvenile joke about Doer's typo. I've never even talked about that stupid ass OWS "movement" on this site, what the hell is the basis for all these assumptions about me?


i missed the typo. my FULLY FUNCTIONING BRAIN automatically corrects for minor inconsistencies in spelling. (unlike some others who are mortally offended by typos) 

it also naturally assumed you were implying that Monsanto is a secret cabal run by 7 foot tall lizard aliens (who also happen to be jews) the Markab Confederation, Hitler, Stalin and George W BOOOSH, Dick Cheney and Idi Amin with the sole purpose of sneaking into your squatter's flop at night and touching your penis. 

as this has been the general run of assertions by the Anti-GMO Monsanto Is Evil crowd, i naturally assumed you were typing this missive in between sets at your Drum Circle 

sorry bro, but you sounded like a smelly hippie for a second.


----------



## Bombur (Oct 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i missed the typo. my FULLY FUNCTIONING BRAIN automatically corrects for minor inconsistencies in spelling. (unlike some others who are mortally offended by typos)
> 
> it also naturally assumed you were implying that Monsanto is a secret cabal run by 7 foot tall lizard aliens (who also happen to be jews) the Markab Confederation, Hitler, Stalin and George W BOOOSH, Dick Cheney and Idi Amin with the sole purpose of sneaking into your squatter's flop at night and touching your penis.
> 
> ...


At least we can agree on the hippies!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 28, 2013)

Bombur said:


> At least we can agree on the hippies!


and that Pubic Company is kinda funny. 

for some reason i keep imagining the three's company opening sequence performed by genitalia.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Oct 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> and that Pubic Company is kinda funny.
> 
> for some reason i keep imagining the three's company opening sequence performed by genitalia.


Gives a new meaning to "Come and knock on our door."


----------



## Doer (Oct 28, 2013)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Gives a new meaning to "Come and knock on our door."


you guys still making fun... I really can't see, sometimes. The lxzdigreia or soemtthihgn


----------



## Solarves (Oct 28, 2013)

Doer said:


> Zero ethics? So stupid. They are a pubic company and protected from you idiots by the Federal Govt.


Explain? Yes they have zero ethics but so does the Federal Govt. And I don't protect either. And won't defend either unless I wanted to come off like an ass on a forum.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> i missed the typo. my FULLY FUNCTIONING BRAIN automatically corrects for minor inconsistencies in spelling. (unlike some others who are mortally offended by typos)
> 
> it also naturally assumed you were implying that Monsanto is a secret cabal run by 7 foot tall lizard aliens (who also happen to be jews) the Markab Confederation, Hitler, Stalin and George W BOOOSH, Dick Cheney and Idi Amin with the sole purpose of sneaking into your squatter's flop at night and touching your penis.
> 
> ...


"Pubic company" gave me a giggle too.


----------



## Doer (Oct 29, 2013)

Solarves said:


> Explain? Yes they have zero ethics but so does the Federal Govt. And I don't protect either. And won't defend either unless I wanted to come off like an ass on a forum.


You think I care about seeming like an ass to you?

Obviously, you know Zero on the question of Ethics.

WE protect you and Monsanto. And we protect Monsanto from people that think Ethics and Morals are the same.

And WE protect Corps. from kids who don't know what Public Corporations are and how ethics and morals are applied. And I have fought with Cops outside Monsanto. Learn my lessons with the bruise.

So, you would be afraid to say anything for fear of being seen as an ass. 

Obviously, scorn is important for you. But, it not so important for adult thinkers.

Instead of stopping farther into base insults. How about you give *ONE ethic required* for a multi-generational Public Company with people with pubic hair?

Corp. have a code of conduct and Monsanto is owned and operated by the citizens of the USA.

The code of conduct s the Law of the land. Look what we did to ENRON. Executed it.

Corpoate Ethics? You mean like Green Recycling? No Starbucks. People have to bring guns to work?

What are they teaching people, these days? Corps are giant groups of people under Federal scrutiny,

I work for one of the biggest in the world. And the big guys always have this hand waving at them. It comes from the little guys. In this case the Organix business and the shallow Hippies.
(was one)

We have to complete Business Ethics training every 2 years. I know this subject like a lawyer and I have been deposed under oath for hours on my behaviors around it. Any jerk can sue us.

So, I looked Monsanto has the same thing.

http://www.monsanto.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Code-of-Business-Conduct-PDFs/code_of_conduct_english.pdf

In this the Organix Industry.


----------



## Doer (Oct 29, 2013)

Bombur said:


> Wtf are you talking about? Occupy Tard LMAO I was making a stupid, juvenile joke about Doer's typo. I've never even talked about that stupid ass OWS "movement" on this site, what the hell is the basis for all these assumptions about me?


Oh dear. My very shit seems radioactive! 

So many individual characters. What is this?
Some kind of alphabet?


----------



## Solarves (Oct 29, 2013)

*"WE protect you and Monsanto. And we protect Monsanto from people that think Ethics and Morals are the same.*"

Who is WE? You're not doing a very good job at protecting consumers of food, you who are in the group of "We". You think Monsanto boys being appointed to the FDA isn't a conflict of interest? Go live in the former Agent Orange zones over in Vietnam and munch on some GMOs, you will make the cut for the next Deadspace game. Okay, that was childish, but sort of funny. I expect are witty rebuttal at my "young" age or something forthwith. 

While we are on the subject of morals and ethics, define for me the chief differences and how an ethical company is a company with NO morals. Don't they kind of go hand in hand? Monsanto is anti-society. Their history proves it and the way they are attempting to make organic farmer's extinct, proves it. But I must have missed something about the morality of allowing people to know what's in their foods and have healthy un-tampered with choices at the grocery store. Again, you're doing a poor job at protecting "us". 

"Corp. have a code of conduct and Monsanto is owned and operated by the citizens of the USA." 

Second best line in your incoherent rant. Yes, they have a code of (sh*tty) conduct (google their very real history). And yes not every citizen of the USA is trying to help other citizens. Many of them are, in fact, trying to help themselves and anyone willing to pay for it. Go to your federal government and take a look around. Put on your goggles and you will see their corporate racing jackets and fat bank rolls. 

Your first reply to my anti-GMO post was: 

*So stupid. They are a pubic company and protected from you idiots by the Federal Govt. * 

Yet you say, "*Instead of stopping farther into base insults." 
*
Yes, the kettle is black, Mr Pot, isn't it?


----------



## Doer (Oct 29, 2013)

Solarves said:


> Your first reply to my anti-GMO post was:
> 
> *So stupid. They are a pubic company and protected from you idiots by the Federal Govt. *
> 
> ...


You bring no facts. And you identified with my generalized statement.

It is a stupid idea. I do like to be called Mr. Pot, though. 

Ethics do not apply to corporations. Only laws. Starbucks is just marketing, not ethical. All that Green stuff is just marketing, to me. The reason my company grinds me on it is purely legal.

So, don't buy Monsanto. But without the protection of We the people, there would be no Monsanto and maybe even hangings by the Mob. Our Constitutional Guarantees extend to them as well. You cannot just destroy it, for no reason.

You can boo-hoo for no reason.

You say have the reasons, but WE won't let you.

So, you made stupid blanket claims with no facts.

Give me an ethic they have broken. Simple enough.


----------



## Harrekin (Oct 29, 2013)

Omg mern-cern-toe!


----------



## see4 (Oct 29, 2013)

Doer, you are hilarious. You make the most noise but so far have provided nothing of substance to any of your posts.

Yea yea, I know, you will just copy and paste what I just said and say it back. Blah blah... heard it all before.

I gotta hand it to you. You are one of the most persistent trolls on RIU. Kudos!


----------



## Doer (Oct 29, 2013)

see4 said:


> Doer, you are hilarious. You make the most noise but so far have provided nothing of substance to any of your posts.
> 
> Yea yea, I know, you will just copy and paste what I just said and say it back. Blah blah... heard it all before.
> 
> I gotta hand it to you. You are one of the most persistent trolls on RIU. Kudos!


What did you bring? I dug up the Monsanto Code of Ethics and discussed my actual life experiences, in deposition.

What have you done but blab on and swing low? Give something. You can't even say a single life experience.

I told you I had been in a police riot outside Monsanto. A little one, but I got ARRESTED.

I fought the law. I'm an ex-dirty hippy, son.

You assume we all agree. HA.

You are just spew. I might be a bit more adult. You never know.


----------



## Doer (Oct 29, 2013)

So, is a troll disagreeable, 
or a faker/jerk around,
or just someone that calls you out for fact less, bs?


----------



## camillo (Jan 27, 2014)

Harrekin said:


> My question to the OP is: why the fuck not?It's a plant, we've been cross-breeding, inter-breeding, self breeding, "cloning", doing tissue cultures for years without any complaint. Why just use a computer as-is when you now know it's programming language?


because there's something called "COPYRIGHT"This means that Monsanto (or other dangerous companies ) could also create a "genetically modified THC-free Cannabis" .What happens when Monsanto or another company creates an agro-monopoly also for the Cannabis?take the example of an almost extinguished plant: Soya (or Soja). It is very difficult nowadays to be able to grow, find, consume natural soja (aka "not GMO soja")GMO means licenses and monopoly. You have to pay in order to grow a patented plant, and if that plant comes only in the "OGM version" you're f***ed Coming back to the computer/programming analogy:what happens when you will be able to use only propetary software because the "natural and free software" has been eliminated by a big company?And what if that "software" now comes without THC?think about iteverybody should be able to grow everything, without having to beg for an authorization or paying taxes to the State or paying a license of use to Monsanto or other sh*tty corporationsthere's a conflict between the interests of the GE companies and the one of the people.People should approve anti-OGM laws all over the world. Otherwise these greedy corporations will win and the citizens will lose.


----------



## camillo (Jan 27, 2014)

ChesusRice said:


> Another poster who backs up my model for legalizationLegal to possess and growIllegal to sell


i 'm another one who shares this opinion.I've passed the last few days arguing on an italian growers forum about the very same topic.M5S (an italian party) wants to legalize cannabis but the proposed law contains some sh*tt* things:1)authorization is required for growing (a maximum of 4 plants) for personal use2)you have to pay a tax to get the authorization I think that a good model could be instead the law adopted by Czech Republic:-5 plants for consumer-NO license required to grow for personal use-NO TAX to pay, if you want to grow for personal use--------------How is the legalization law in Colorado?Do you need to be in a database, in order to be authorized to grow your personal weed?Do you have to pay a tax for personal (non commercial) grow?


----------



## Doer (Jan 27, 2014)

How dare you rescue this retarded thread? Just kidding.  You are free to add these fear based, whatifs.

But, still. No litigated harm for Monsanto re: thread title.
Farm Bill passed handily, despite the weak opposition and smear of mis-labeling the Farm Bill para 7xx, (re:thread title) that you did not read, but I did.

But, let me ask you this, if I may? Are you for an injunction of this year's USA spring planting season? Yes or no? tellmetellmetellmetellmetellmetellmetellmetellme

See, that is what this thread is about. And I can show you how it all began with a dirty hippy, Mother Earth, trick on the American Farmer. For $$. Dirty....dirt..get it? 

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms 
Case Date:
*11/23/2009*


On June 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court *overturned* a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit* that upheld* a blanket, nationwide injunction against the future marketing, distribution, and planting of a genetically modified crop. In reversing the appeals court, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its previous holding that an injunction is a drastic remedy that does not automatically issue against proposed federal activity, even where a federal agency has not adequately completed an environmental impact review required by federal environmental law. The decision was a victory for WLF, which filed a brief in the case arguing that, even when a NEPA violation has been established, important constraints of equity require that an injunction be denied unless the plaintiff demonstrates that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. 
http://www.wlf.org/litigating/case_detail.asp?id=600

I don't endorse this site,s opinions. This little sneeky end run, flank block,put in Farm Bill was roundly upheld, to protect the food supply of a large part of the planet. Yeah. The anti-staving food we give away. Yeah, and the American Farmer that needs the yield. You don't know enough about this.

So the thread is dead. It was all a trick for power.

My friend, all this is nothing. CO? Don't go there. Although I will to a motor tour for the Real Deal,l this summer.  It is all good. I remember when you could even hitchhike there. But, i If they taxed hitchhiking it has to be protected. Any way.

And I can grow in bathtub. I can make gin, beer and mead, in a bath tub. Don't worry.


----------



## camillo (Jan 28, 2014)

Uh?!?Hey man please stop eating GMO food: It causes CANCER !and yes: also brain cancerSo stop eating that sh*t now, maybe you're still in time


----------



## camillo (Jan 29, 2014)

Fear based?I prefer "fear based" comments instead of "salary based" ones And no, your employer is not the only GMO-stuff company. It's only one of the most dangerous.Btw monsanto or another corp., it doesnt matter. we have to focus on THE problem of the people's health: CANCERand since GMO food is a major cause for today cancer cases, it's a good thing to avoid gmo stuff.There's also the 'copyright problem': people got their cultivations contaminated by firms like monsanto and others and then these firms sued the farmer for 'copyright infringment' so that they can steal the farmer property (house etc) So please INFORM YOURSELF!monsanto and thelike are criminals.it's in your best interests, as a citizen and as a consumer, to FIGHT THEM!


----------



## Doer (Jan 29, 2014)

camillo said:


> Uh?!?Hey man please stop eating GMO food: It causes CANCER !and yes: also brain cancerSo stop eating that sh*t now, maybe you're still in time


prove it, or it is only fear based


----------



## Doer (Jan 29, 2014)

See. If you are against genetic research, you are against renewable energy also.

The keys to the kingdom are in these bacterial codes. I am alive because of re-combinate DNA techniques.
http://www.gizmag.com/bacterial-spore-humidity-powered-electrical-generator/30625/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=ef8d94f100-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-ef8d94f100-91265109

Although the prototype only captures a small percentage of the energy released by evaporation, Sahin says efficiency could be improved by * genetically engineering the spores* to be stiffer and more elastic. In fact, in early experiments a mutant strain provided by Driks has already been shown to store twice as much energy as normal strains. The researchers believe the technology will one day make it possible to have electrical generators driven by changes in humidity from sun-warmed ponds and harbors.


----------



## canndo (Jan 29, 2014)

The works of man fail - all of them, when those works are a dam or a bridge, a few are injured, when they are an oil spill or a well blowout, more are. When they are a nuclear facility, the damage is extensive and long lasting. When they are chemicals spread across the planet, people get sick, perhaps lots of them. But now, for some reason, tampering deeply with the blueprint of life and then setting this tampering lose in the wild is perfectly dependable, and THIS time, THIS situation, well what could go wrong? It's only the food we eat three or four times a day every day.


----------



## Doer (Jan 29, 2014)

canndo said:


> The works of man fail - all of them, when those works are a dam or a bridge, a few are injured, when they are an oil spill or a well blowout, more are. When they are a nuclear facility, the damage is extensive and long lasting. When they are chemicals spread across the planet, people get sick, perhaps lots of them. But now, for some reason, tampering deeply with the blueprint of life and then setting this tampering lose in the wild is perfectly dependable, and THIS time, THIS situation, well what could go wrong? It's only the food we eat three or four times a day every day.


And the works of nature, never fail? Gee, I wish ask the fossil record about that.

It is a crock. We are nature. We unlock the code.

And if you think there is some kind of blueprint, you are seriously out of your depth on the subject.

Nature is modded my virus, mostly. And it is constant.

How can you possibly think there is a blueprint?


----------



## canndo (Jan 29, 2014)

Doer said:


> And the works of nature's discoveries, never fail?
> 
> It is a crock. We are nature. We unlock the code.
> 
> ...



I was waxing poetic.


We do not yet know the extent of the damage of GMO products. As I have said, I am all for genetic modification for a variety of purposes. Who could NOT (well, many are) be against a goat modified to produce human insulin in it's milk? Or novel antibiotics in modified yeast. But we are not capable as yet of being able to forsee the effects of our products loosed upon the world.

Now, forget that just for a moment. Other nations, consumer nations, nations we do business with are more and more refusing our crops - they may be wrong in doing so, but it is their right to eat and purchase what they wish while we are producing surpluses that they refuse to buy. Or should we simply force them to purchase those products?


----------



## Doer (Jan 29, 2014)

Well, show some harm. That is the rule. If you continue to cry wolf for nothing, you might get the wolf police of the next generation to go all Luddite and shut it all down for a generation or so.

You cannot show harm, so you must be blocked. I don't see it as personal, because it is political and not scientific.

You see here is what you (in the agregate) have done already. This fellow here is ready to lambaste me, because he fervently believes GMO causes cancer.

Now, just look back into history and see what fear and religion (evil Saganism, in this case) can do to THIS society.

No ganja for 80 years now. You are playing with fire to lie about this stuff. So, it must be blocked by all right thinking people and it is.

The 2013 Farm Bill was a gut shot to the evil Saganist. We will fight. You (r side) can only make it worse in self rule.

You can tip scales from science to stupidity. Look at all the minion of the Saganist horror already. Slap stupid but ready to be violent. I was and have been right outside Monsanto's gate.

It you cannot show the harm of "wrong thinking" you must form a religion of emotion and attempt a coup of emotion tampering.

I've studied it, OK? Saganism was a cult without a name until ole doer began calling them out.

No harm can be shown, except it has become a home for Saganists. That is harm.


----------



## canndo (Jan 29, 2014)

Doer said:


> Well, show some harm. That is the rule. If you continue to cry wolf for nothing, you might get the wolf police of the next generation to go all Luddite and shut it all down for a generation or so.
> 
> You cannot show harm, so you must be blocked. I don't see it as personal, because it is political and not scientific.
> 
> ...



No harm was shown before three mile island, Chernobyl or Fukashima. Concern was raised by those "saganists", yet total global premature deaths from these incidents may reach a million or more. 

Large tracts of land have been rendered unuseable for generations.

One does not experiment with long term, widespread alterations in food supplies and natural environments and then, ask for harm to be demonstrated. 

Benzene was once used as aftershave - harm was demonstrated only after the fact. No harm was shown from radium illuminated watches until after they were manufactured and sold. No harm was shown from heroin laced patent medicines until after the experience of addiction.

No harm in lead paint, no harm in asbestos, each resulting in death and hazardous conditions. It is not for us to show harm, it is for you to show safety.

90 day studies on rats is not a demonstration of long term safety.


----------



## Doer (Jan 29, 2014)

Yet you are perfectly willing to run the world on nukes....or...are you?


----------



## Doer (Jan 29, 2014)

Long term safety? NOTHING is tested for long term safety. We do that.

So, more poetry? 

You have to show harm. And let me remind you, nuke harm is not only theoretically predicted, it actually killed scientists. Officially that began with the Curie family, and is happening now in Japan.

So, being wrong again, is poetry?


----------



## canndo (Jan 29, 2014)

Doer said:


> Yet you are perfectly willing to run the world on nukes....or...are you?



Run the world? no, there are abiding problems, but nuclear facilities can be contained, failures can be predicted and even catestrophic ones are not national or global in nature. Failures are still singular and do not perpetuate themselves. This cannot be said for any failure in geneticly altered plants or many animals.

We saw the effects of a single, (non engineered but still altered) organism, killer bees that spread from country to country and state to state, edging out docile varieties and causing death and trauma. This can be dealt with but it demonstrates the danger of such manipulations and our inability to control the mistakes we unleash into the wild.


----------



## Doer (Jan 29, 2014)

So, Chernobyl was a hemispheric alteration of background, with an UN-inhababtle zone and people died. 

Fuk is sitting on the jet stream and the Alaska Current, with an UN-inhababtle zone and people died.

Just how many of the fine life zones on this planet, is an acceptable number to contaminate into an UN-inhabitable zone "forever?"

So, please fill me in on the, with an UN-inhababtle zone and people died, aspect of GMO.


----------



## canndo (Jan 29, 2014)

Doer said:


> So, Chernobyl was a hemispheric alteration of background, with an UN-inhababtle zone and people died.
> 
> Fuk is sitting on the jet stream and the Alaska Current, with an UN-inhababtle zone and people died.
> 
> ...




you are talking about after the fact incidences. I notice you neglect benzene, agent orange, DDT, DDD, PCBs Hexavalent Chromium and a host of other chemicals where no harm was shown until AFTER - AFTER the damage was done and we "learned our lesson".

You also neglect cigarettes, where cancer causality was only demonstrated in 1996. Where the companies that produced cigarettes maintained "no harm".


----------



## canndo (Jan 29, 2014)

Now even beyond my "hysteria". You can eat all the GMO products you want, but I am steadily being denied my choice NOT to eat them. They are being forced upon me when over 90 percent of crops that find their way into every sort of food I can obtain are modified.

Your insistance that everything is just fine and your insistance that I die or grow sick in order to prove to YOU that perhaps those products are dangerous is a bit selfish to say the least.


----------



## Doer (Jan 29, 2014)

canndo said:


> you are talking about after the fact incidences. I notice you neglect benzene, agent orange, DDT, DDD, PCBs Hexavalent Chromium and a host of other chemicals where no harm was shown until AFTER - AFTER the damage was done and we "learned our lesson".
> 
> You also neglect cigarettes, where cancer causality was only demonstrated in 1996. Where the companies that produced cigarettes maintained "no harm".


But, I did tell the fact of life.

We are the test cases, always and it cannot work any other way. It barely works this way, I agree. 

And this current solution, where we actually add science and test for harm, is new.

You are the control, if you don't eat any GMO. I am a willing subject. This is how it works.

And let me tell you. Cigs are only associated with one kind of cancer....small i.e. Oat cell lung cancer. Cigs are suspected in a vast horror show, because there is evidence.

No evidence, ZERO, of any harm for GMO in feed crop.

Really, you would have been against man flight and going faster than 20 mph on rails, with that logic.

You would have been and therefore are against it all. All human progress is this way.


----------



## canndo (Jan 29, 2014)

Doer said:


> But, I did tell the fact of life.
> 
> We are the test cases, always and it cannot work any other way. It barely works this way, I agree.
> 
> ...



I would have been against maned flight if we had put EVERY person on that first plane. And you aren't getting it, I am not the control for this experiment, I am being experimented with right along with you. I can not avoid them now. There is infact "evidence" of harm, not the sort of evidence you require but the same held true early on for cigarettes. You still brush off all the experiments by saying "people die", "that is the way things are done", but in THIS particular case, the change is not reverseable and self perpetuating.


----------



## Doer (Jan 29, 2014)

There is only one sort of evidence and that is the very point.


----------



## canndo (Jan 29, 2014)

Doer said:


> There is only one sort of evidence and that is the very point.



After the fact. in any ordinary situation, fine, but I have said that the works of man are flawed and their flaws unpredictable. Suppose in 20 years we find that every person who has eaten GMO corn begins to show, oh say, liver cancer. EVERY one. Which will include, well, everyone. Suppose further that there is no way to grow non-gmo corn any more (entirely possible). How will your evidence help anyone?


----------



## Doer (Jan 29, 2014)

If we wanted to live outside of the mud, we had to contend with the all the nay saying, and handwaving....what about this, what about that? The Dirt Gods won't like it, whatever.

Then, we couldn't live near a swamp, but didn't mind a mosquito bite. They don't bath in France to this day, though the Romans did and the Japanese always have.

The Curies' died so you may see the Time.

Can you not see my point? There is no other way if we don't want to live under a rock. Somebody has got to try it. That is me. I'm old, don't care, glad to do, would not be alive but for GMO, etc.

You do not have to and you know that. GMO is all labeled already, just look it up. I have.

The rest, you are just trying to teach ole, grandma Doer, how to suck an egg. I learned that from the snakes, long ago.


----------



## camillo (Feb 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> prove it, or it is only fear based


can you use the Net ? there're many search engines

and i say: prove that GMO is safe,
....or it's only MONEY based


----------



## camillo (Feb 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> See. If you are against genetic research, you are against renewable energy also


LOL
i'm against GMO 
AND
i'm NOT against Hemp! *


*Hemp is the only good renewable energy resource!


----------



## camillo (Feb 4, 2014)

:facepalm:

jeez, it's all going wrong just as it was predicted in a 1995 book!
`*The industrial society and its Future` (Theodore K.)*
It was considered a "Cassandra" at that time, but now it's all just as described in the book.

and it predicted that the genetic engineering will destroy humanity.

And here we are: 
we have such monsters like Monsanto


----------



## camillo (Feb 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> Long term safety? NOTHING is tested for long term safety. We do that.


CANNABIS (NATURAL cannabis) is TESTED for long term safety. Humans use it since 10000 years ago.


----------



## camillo (Feb 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> You do not have to and you know that. GMO is all labeled already, just look it up. I have.


not true!
there's no choice.
I can drink non-GMO milk but the cows can be feeded with GMO vegetables.
Is that milk natural?
no! And so i can get cancer.

Another case:
I grow NATURAL (not GMO) corn and my neighbour grow GMO corn.
When that GMO corn contaminates (seeds via wind, but in case of other coltures it could happens also via pollen) my soil i will grow , without even noticing it, some GMO corn.

What happens next,
simple: Monsanto or other GMO-stuff companies sue me for copyright/patent infrigment and i LOSE EVERYTHING:
my soil, my house , EVERYTHING. 
This continue to happend (many are the cases already occured like the one example i've just described, search it on the Net! ) and i suspet that the contamination has been, in many cases, deliberately done by the GMO-stuff firm....
...that's why they are so "speedy" in doing "random checks" on the cultivations sorrounding the licensed GMO crop

this apply to crop 
but it could apply to many other cultivation as well
think about HEMP:
you cultivation could create seeds 'cause of pollen coming from a nearby GMO-HEMP cultivation.
and then you're f*k*d!


----------



## Doer (Feb 5, 2014)

Hold on. You don't get cancer from GMO, and don't show that stupid relgious artifact, call the cancer mouse study.

Those were GMO mice, designed to get cancer.

There is no proof. There is no litigated harm except against Monsanto. That rip-off has been proven,\\
\
If this GMO stuff is so bad, why does Monstanto have to sue grain operators for stealing it?

It cannot be worthless and valuable at the same time.

Right now, NO harm is not shown to be present, yet you believe it causes cancer, with fake evidence.

But, I bet you support, Nuke power Poison. And is a known and proven, serious, 100,000 year, DNA deformation poison, you think that is OK, to solve Global warming....I bet.

If so, you are a card carrying evil Saganist that will believe nothing I say.


----------



## Doer (Feb 5, 2014)

If you think that accidentally crossing can happen, it cannot. Nor does corn seed blow around easily on the wind. You have been so lied to, and they way you spout the sound bites show that.

Not only that, I seriously doubt you have a neighbor growing GMO against your field. But, if so, aren't his yields in the bad years, just stunning compared to yours?

And you think Monsanto has to dough to go after you for a few accidental plants you ate? No.

If you stripped seed, to replant, then you are breaking the law. But, you don't want GMO, so you would not steal.

Law is based solely on intent, my son. 

Did you do anything, to promote GMO grow? Of course, you do not. You will chop that stuff as soon as you see it.

See the how the system works? It is nothing but the lie the GMO hippy lawyers claim. They are conducting the rip off of the American Farmer.

You are peddling their rip-off lies.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 5, 2014)

if you guys were gonna try and ressurect this thread, you shoulda called me, i woulda brought my kit.


----------



## camillo (Feb 10, 2014)

*Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize*


http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0278691512005637/1-s2.0-S0278691512005637-main.pdf?_tid=6cf64a2e-92c5-11e3-8938-00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1392086418_2dfd610689b1959fea9c354ce40c8098

Not long after the study came out, FCT created a new editorial positionAssociate Editor for Biotechnologyand appointed none other than a former Monsanto employee, Richard E. Goodman, to the post.
So the article was "retracted" (censored) by the monsanto employee


GMO causes CANCER.


and then you say nonsense like:*"If you think that accidentally crossing can happen,"*

*YES,* it *already* happened.
It happened in Mexico. *Mexico has been contaminated and all the mais (corn) mexican cultivations are at risk *

And* monsanto* also tried to *cover up* the scandal:
*Mexico Corn Contamination: How Monsanto & University of California Tried to Silence Dr. Ignacio Chapela

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17843.cfm*




GMO Cotton is causing a wave of suicides in the cotton cultivators of India.
The pattern is clear: ~ 90% of suicides are in zones where GE cotton is cultivated. They kill themself because they (and their economy) have been ruined by Monsanto GE cotton.


You can also watch the film (but i know you already watched it  ) "The World according to monsanto"
I dont post here the streaming-link for that film, 'cause i know that you will immediately inform Monsanto (your employer) so that it can make pressure to censore the video.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 10, 2014)

camillo said:


> *Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize*
> 
> 
> http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0278691512005637/1-s2.0-S0278691512005637-main.pdf?_tid=6cf64a2e-92c5-11e3-8938-00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1392086418_2dfd610689b1959fea9c354ce40c8098
> ...


the serelini "study" was retracted because it was SHIT (the same retarded nonsense that has been reposted in this thread no less then 12 times so far) 

it was examined and rejected as garbage by the peer review system, not by monstanto. 

even the results of his "study" didnt show what his press releases claimed. 

the actual results:

over their entire 2 year lifespan, Onco-Mice (gmo rodents _*designed *_to get cancer, for cancer research...) got cancer. 

they got cancer when fed "GMO" corn
they got cancer when fed "organic" corn
they got cancer when fed a mix of GMO and "organic" corn. 
they got LESS cancer when fed GMO corn, "organic" corn or a mix of the two, when their water was spiked with glyphosate (the active ingredient in roundup) far in excess of the safety standards for glyphosate exposure. 

so Roundup is a health potion. 

sounds legit.


----------



## camillo (Feb 10, 2014)

"* You will chop that stuff as soon as you see it."

*
how can i know if it's GE or not? 
I will know when monsanto sues me and so *steal my land and my house*

Or, if i'm "lucky" it will not happen so fast. But i will know that the plant is a GE plant when i GET CANCER after a few years.

so please stop marketing your firm. This's bullshit.
I know that you, as everybody else, have a family and you have someway to work to feed them. 
But the work that you're doing for monsanto (you're doing what i call "DEATH PROPAGANDA" ) is a very bad thing. 
Dont you want your child to leave in a *healty* world , eating *healty* food? or do you want them to get cancer?

So, my advice (dont take it as offensive) is:
PLEASE, stop working in the P.R. of Monsanto and FIND a honest  job!

remember, after the third reich some germans said "*we were only executing orders*"....
...Do you really want to use such a phrase, in the year ~ 2020, when your son gets cancer and he asks you "Dad, WHY, WHY have you done this? Why did you contribute in the cancer epidemics? *Why didnt you STOP monsanto, instead of aiding it ?*

i think we're done.
please consider my advice


----------



## camillo (Feb 10, 2014)

*doer's collegue: "over their entire 2 year lifespan, Onco-Mice (gmo rodents designed to get cancer, for cancer research...) got cancer. "*

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28863.cfm

But as Séralini and his supporters point out, &#8220;the offending strain of rat (the Sprague-Dawley) is used *routinely in the United States*&#8212;including sometimes* by Monsanto *to study the carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity of chemicals.&#8221; *What&#8217;s more, Séralini told Sustainable Pulse, the FCT in 2004 published a study by Monsanto finding the same strain of GMO corn (NK603) safe* after measuring its effects on only ten Sprague-Dawley rats for three months only.[/b]

_&#8220;__Only studies pointing to adverse effects of GMOs are rigorously scrutinized __on their experimental and statistical methods,&#8221; he said, &#8220;__while those who say GMOs are safe are taken at face value.&#8221;_

we're done.
&#1076;&#1086; &#1089;&#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103;


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 10, 2014)

camillo said:


> *doer's collegue: "over their entire 2 year lifespan, Onco-Mice (gmo rodents designed to get cancer, for cancer research...) got cancer. "*
> 
> http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28863.cfm
> 
> ...


youre retarded. 

thats not how you convince people of the "dangers" of GMO's. 

find a reputable study, ANY reputable study, cite it, and support your claims.

trotting out discredited shit from dopey eco-loon publications and websites and then declaring yourself infallible is NOT the way to succeed. 

but it does demonstrate your petulance and doucheyness in bold relief.


----------



## canndo (Feb 11, 2014)

Dr Kynes said:


> youre retarded.
> 
> thats not how you convince people of the "dangers" of GMO's.
> 
> ...


As always - follow the money. How much money is there in studies that show damage vs the money in studies that show no damage?


Monstanto not only used the same rats, but the same number, and their study showed no such tumors. But GMOs may or may not cause problems in and of themselves, what they DO is depleat the commons for company gain. Sooner or later, if nothing else, this will come back and bite us all.

GM crops adjusted to withstand 2,4,D have just been approved. Why do we need a variant if the first products are so successful?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 11, 2014)

canndo said:


> As always - follow the money. How much money is there in studies that show damage vs the money in studies that show no damage?
> 
> 
> Monstanto not only used the same rats, but the same number, and their study showed no such tumors. But GMOs may or may not cause problems in and of themselves, what they DO is depleat the commons for company gain. Sooner or later, if nothing else, this will come back and bite us all.
> ...


pointing at something being changed and murmuring "Cui Bono" does not transform something which has been demonstrated harmless into a poison. 

producers of products are required to demonstrate their shit isnt dangerous. 

this costs money. 

thus producers of new GMO's pay to have their shit tested, by GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENT not as a scheme to fool us into eating poison. 

that there is no Underwriter's Laboratory for Ag products doing independent testing is not terrifying to me. 

if this is so horrifying for you, then i suggest remedying the problem. 

of course any independent lab will be pilloried for employing scientists who might have worked for monsanto in the past, might have gone to university with a person who works for monasnto, or might have sat too close to a monsanto employee on a bus. 

conspiracy lunatics are never satisfied with any evidence, they just make more wild claims.


----------



## canndo (Feb 11, 2014)

Dr Kynes said:


> pointing at something being changed and murmuring "Cui Bono" does not transform something which has been demonstrated harmless into a poison.
> 
> producers of products are required to demonstrate their shit isnt dangerous.
> 
> ...



Funny thing, independent researchers are customarily denied access to the company's products for those purposes, and their reports tend to be marginalized or worse. Producers do pay for studies - which might very well skew the results. Again - the money. No, Monsanto wouldn't poison us, and neither would the tobaco comanies.


No conspirices in big business hmmm? Really?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 11, 2014)

canndo said:


> Funny thing, independent researchers are customarily denied access to the company's products for those purposes, and their reports tend to be marginalized or worse. Producers do pay for studies - which might very well skew the results. Again - the money. No, Monsanto wouldn't poison us, and neither would the tobaco comanies.
> 
> 
> No conspirices in big business hmmm? Really?


tobacco companies didnt poison anyone. 

they dint hold you down and force that first Lucky Strike between your lips. 

health professionals have been saying "Smoking is bad for you" since the 50's. 

the lefties just wanted to sue them for "defective products" and "being meanies", so the tobacco companies (made HUGE by regulation's pressures) covered their balls and went on the offensive. 

but thats just proof that they are "meanies"


----------



## canndo (Feb 11, 2014)

Dr Kynes said:


> tobacco companies didnt poison anyone.
> 
> they dint hold you down and force that first Lucky Strike between your lips.
> 
> ...



I know you better than that doc. No, no one held anyone down, but they managed to addict tens of millions, while making their product more addictive and more enticing at the same time. The "health professioals have been saying "smoking is bad for you" since the 50's is crap as well. You don't get to claim this and still demand hard proof that GMOs are bad before anything is done to curtail it's use. You might easily be saying the exact same thing you are about GMOs in those "50's" - no proof.

The tobacco companies had proof, they didn't release it. THey knew and had other "professionals" state and show that smoking wasn't bad - They introduced "scientific doubt" into the converstation about the safety of tobacco and inhibited all sorts of studies until the evidence was overwhelming. gee, maybe kinda like Monstanto might be doing hmmm?


They were meanies because the lied under oath to congress, they sought to and did make their products ever more addictive and they knew long before that their products tended to, over the long run, kill people. So you figure that "the lefties" managed to change the course of the tobacco industry and a "leftie" dropped all those secret documents off on a doorstep - damn those leftist communist scum.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Feb 12, 2014)

Back then they also didn't have the studies reviewed by the FDA. Now all of the GMO products get tested, then the results are viewed by the FDA and a determination is made. 

Apples and oranges.


----------



## canndo (Feb 12, 2014)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Back then they also didn't have the studies reviewed by the FDA. Now all of the GMO products get tested, then the results are viewed by the FDA and a determination is made.
> 
> Apples and oranges.



Who does the studies and who does the review of those studies? The principle is identical between the two cases, big companies dominating research upon their own products and then claiming that they are just fine, all the while knowing they may not be.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 12, 2014)

cant trust the "corporate scientists" cuz they want to poison you or enslave you with MK-Ultra mind control techniques... 

cant trust the "government scientists " cuz they are either in league with the coprorations in their MK-Ultra scheme, or, if thats too tough to sell, they can be impeached by previous "corporate" employment

who can you trust? 

alex jones, david icke, and the dopey "scientists" from "natural news dot com" of course. 
only on the conspiracy circlejerk can you find fools who will believe absence of evidence is evidence of POISON


----------



## canndo (Feb 12, 2014)

Dr Kynes said:


> cant trust the "corporate scientists" cuz they want to poison you or enslave you with MK-Ultra mind control techniques...
> 
> cant trust the "government scientists " cuz they are either in league with the coprorations in their MK-Ultra scheme, or, if thats too tough to sell, they can be impeached by previous "corporate" employment
> 
> ...



Dioxin:

http://home.comcast.net/~jurason/main/monsanto.htm
http://www.combat-monsanto.co.uk/spip.php?article240
http://www.organicconsumers.org/dioxcov.html
Glyphosate:
Journal of Pesticide Reform, Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1995. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Eugene, OR. Glyphosate, Part 1: Toxicology, by Caroline Cox
Extract:
Tests done on glyphosate to meet registration requirements have been associated with fraudulent practices.
Laboratory fraud first made headlines in 1983 when EPA publicly announced that a 1976 audit had discovered "serious deficiencies and improprieties" in toxicology studies conducted by Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT).44 Problems included "countless deaths of rats and mice that were not reported," "fabricated data tables," and "routine falsification of data."44
IBT was one of the largest laboratories performing tests in support of pesticide registrations.44 About 30 tests on glyphosate and glyphosate-containing products were performed by IBT, including 11 of the 19 chronic toxicology studies.45 A compelling example of the poor quality of IBT data comes from an EPA toxicologist who wrote, "It is also somewhat difficult not to doubt the scientific integrity of a study when the IBT stated that it took specimens from the uteri (of male rabbits) for histopathological examination."46 (Emphasis added.)
In 1991, laboratory fraud returned to the headlines when EPA alleged that Craven Laboratories, a company that performed contract studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto, had falsified test results.47 "Tricks" employed by Craven Labs included "falsifying laboratory notebook entries" and "manually manipulating scientific equipment to produce false reports."48 Roundup residue studies on plums, potatoes, grapes, and sugarbeets were among the tests in question.49
The following year, the owner/president of Craven Laboratories and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts. A number of other employees agreed to plead guilty on a number of related charges.50 The owner was sentenced to five years in prison and fined $50,000; Craven Labs was fined 15.5 million dollars, and ordered to pay 3.7 million dollars in restitution.48
Although the tests of glyphosate identified as fraudulent have been replaced, these practices cast shadows on the entire pesticide registration process.
References (relevant to the above extract)
44. U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Government Operations. 1984. Problems plague the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide registration activities. House Report 98-1147. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
45. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1983. Summary of the IBT review program. Washington, D.C. (July.)
46. U.S. EPA. 1978. Data validation. Memo from K. Locke, Toxicology Branch, to R. Taylor, Registration Branch. Washington, D.C. (August 9.)
47. U.S. EPA. Communications and Public Affairs. 1991. Note to correspondents. Washington, D.C. (March 1.)
48. U.S. EPA. Communications, Education, And Public Affairs. 1994. Press advisory. Craven Laboratories, owner, and 14 employees sentenced for falsifying pesticide tests. Washington, D.C. (March 4.)
49. U.S. EPA. Communications and Public Affairs. 1991. Press advisory. EPA lists crops associated with pesticides for which residue and environmental fate studies were allegedly manipulated. Washington, D.C. (March 29.)
50. U.S. Dept. of Justice. United States Attorney. Western District of Texas. 1992. Texas laboratory, its president, 3 employees indicted on 20 felony counts in connection with pesticide testing. Austin, TX. (September 29.) 

On two occasions, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.[57][58][59] In the first incident involving Industrial Biotest Laboratories, an EPA reviewer stated after finding "routine falsification of data" that it was "hard to believe the scientific integrity of the studies when they said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits".[60][61][62] In the second incident of falsifying test results in 1991, the owner of Craven Laboratories and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts, the owner was sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined $50,000, the lab was fined 15.5 million dollars and ordered to pay 3.7 million dollars in restitution.[43][63][64] Craven Laboratories performed studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto. {For 2-decades with a ruling from the FDA that the modified crops do not contain drugs, there is no regulatory safety review. There is still oversight in Europe&#8212;jk.} 
Monsanto has stated that the studies have been repeated, and that Roundup's EPA certification does not now use any studies from Craven Labs or IBT. Monsanto also said that the Craven Labs investigation was started by the EPA after a pesticide industry task force discovered irregularities.[65]
Difference between regulatory registered and commercialized formulations
In November 2009, a French environment group (MDRGF) accused Monsanto of using chemicals in Roundup formulations not disclosed to the country's regulatory bodies, and demanded the removal of those products from the market.[66][67]
False advertising
In 1996, Monsanto was accused of false and misleading advertising of glyphosate products, prompting a law suit by the New York State attorney general.[53] Monsanto had made claims that its spray-on glyphosate based herbicides, including Roundup, were safer than table salt and "practically non-toxic" to mammals, birds, and fish.[54]
Environmental and consumer rights campaigners brought a case in France in 2001 for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it left the soil clean after use; glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed by the European Union as "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms". In January 2007, Monsanto was convicted of false advertising.[55] The result was confirmed in 2009.[56]


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 12, 2014)

yeah, all that verbiage and NO CREDIBILITY

read the fucking label on roundup, or the MSDS(2006 version):

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/xmas/pesticides/labels/Roundup-orig-max-msds.pdf

heres the 1995 version: 
http://www.uww.edu/adminaffairs/riskmanagement/msds/files/roundup_ready-to-use_weed_and_grass_killer_the_solaris_group_9.25.95.pdf


the differences are obvious:

added notes on "Moderate Toxicity" in FISH, but the product directions have alwyas insisted the product not be used in aquatic weed control and should not be used in waterways pond or other places where fish and frogs hang out. 

its a weed killer for gardens and farm fields not rivers and lakes. 



ohh look a study from the calif dept of pesticide regulation:

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/glyphos.pdf

yep, shit's awful we gotta get rid of it. 

ohh wait, government regulators seem to think it is OK when used in accordance with the directions. 

you have painted yourself into a corner, relying on crazy bullshit from eco-loons and european eco-nauts. 

curiously even in europe, glyphosate is regarded as safe by science as well as the people who use it. 

only whiney lefty fearmongers have a problem with the product when used as directed. 

i used that shit for years, and i aint dead.


----------



## canndo (Feb 12, 2014)

Dr Kynes said:


> yeah, all that verbiage and NO CREDIBILITY
> 
> read the fucking label on roundup, or the MSDS(2006 version):
> 
> ...



You kinda skipped over the falsefication parts there didn't you. And then changed the reference to your anecdotal experience with one of their chemicals.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Feb 12, 2014)

canndo said:


> You kinda skipped over the falsefication parts there didn't you. And then changed the reference to your anecdotal experience with one of their chemicals.


does your car have a warning on the window informing you "Not for use as a boat"? 

glyphosate was never intended for use as an aquatic agricultural weed control, was never marketed as such, and the label's instructions have always specified "Not For Use In Ponds Streams Lakes and Rivers" 

table salt can kill fish too. that doesnt make it into fish poison. 

does your box of Morton's Iodized Salt warn you against dumping it into streams rivers ponds and lakes? 

Roundup has ALWAYS had these warnings. 

glyphosate doesnt have toxicity data for space aliens, unicorns, and the Tuatha De Dannan either. 

if it turns out to be toxic to these things, that would be "fraud" too in the damaged minds of the lefty eco-nauts. 

i DID use the shit for years, and suffered no ill effects. 

i realize REALITY is a tough pill to swallow, but sometimes the eco-loons will lie through their teeth to advance their agenda (see Silent Spring, The Population Bomb, "Hide The Decline", and the great garbage crisis of the 80's) 

this does not mean i assume every word out of a government or corporation's spokesmouth is true, but their motives are easy to identify, and thus their words can be measured logically, while the eco-loons lie for an agenda, and keep slinging those same lies despite the proof that it is entirely untrue.


----------



## DNAprotection (Nov 16, 2014)

http://prn.fm/monsanto-plans-patent-genetically-modified-marijuana-brand-uruguay/


----------



## DNAprotection (Nov 16, 2014)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharda-sekaran/ethan-nadelmanns-fiery-te_b_6146410.html
The link is to a recent talk (Oct 2014) by snake oil salesman for "legalization" Ethan Nadelmann. It's a desperate attempt to fool folks into thinking DPA effort's are in the name of human rights etc and not on behalf of Monsanto et al...He is a prime time example of sprinkling a little truth into the soup of lies so that folks think they are eating healthy. The cannabis plant along with many well intending yet narrowly focused unwitting folks are being used like a Trojan horse to solidify and reinforce biotech's place in the law and in our culture. 
Please take some time to check outhttp://gmocannabiswatch.blogspot.com/where you can read the rest of the piece below and discover much that has been researched and posted about this topic.
http://gmocannabiswatch.blogspot.com/…/proposition-19-monsa…
"The DPA is the leading organization spearheading the reform of Cannabis policies in the United States, and has been made up of some of the most powerful and influential characters in today’s global petro-bio-chemical-military-banking-industrial complex.
Some of the Directors of DPA include the following:
Paul Adolph Volcker is an Honorary Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) whose career is closely associated with that of the Federal Reserve Bank. He was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1975-1979, governing board member of the Federal Reserve in 1979, and was Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979-1987.
Volcker is believed to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and served as Undersecretary of the Treasury from 1969-1974 before his time with the Federal Reserve. Volcker is chairman of Wolfensohn & Co. and has ties to Chase Manhattan Bank. He is also linked to the Brookings Institute, as well as being an Honorary Trustee at the Aspen Institute, chairman of the Group of 30, and on the board of the Institute for International Economics.
Frank Charles Carlucci III is an Honorary Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations since at least 1995. His government service included positions as Deputy Secretary of Defense from 1980-1982 and Deputy Director of the CIA from 1978-1980.
Carlucci is a director on United Defense Industries (the United States' largest defense contractor), which is owned by the Carlyle Group, a merchant bank based in Washington, D.C., of which Carlucci is the chairman. Carlucci joined Carlyle in 1989.
Before returning to Government service, Carlucci was Chairman and CEO of Sears World Trade, a business he joined in 1983. He was President Ronald Reagan's National Security Advisor in 1987 and Secretary of Defense from 1987 to 1988.
Nicholas Katzenbach is an Honorary Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and became General Counsel of the IBM Corporation from 1969 until 1986.
Mathilde Krim is a standing Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and was a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation in 1980.
George Soros is a standing Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and is Chairman of Soros Fund Management. Soros was among the highest paid hedge fund managers in 2009, taking home about $3.3 billion. At the end of 2009, he owned about $6.95 billion distributed among 697 stocks.
Soros’ top 5 investment shareholdings are in gold, Petrobras petroleum company, Hess Corp petroleum company, Monsanto corporation, Citigroup Inc., and Suncor Energy Inc.(petroleum company).
That’s right, George Soros, who is famous for being one of the most powerful and influential persons in world economics and whose speculations alone are said to have ‘broke the Bank of England‘, is one of the key directors for the organization that is leading the charge to regulate, control and tax Cannabis in California. All the while George Soros is one of the major shareholders in the worlds largest GM Seed bio-technology corporation known as Monsanto."


----------



## ChesusRice (Nov 16, 2014)

anyone here turn down seeds that produce a crop of weed in 6 weeks total time from seed to harvest at 50% thc?


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 17, 2014)

Will it cause cancer? More cases of marijuana toxicity syndrome? Anaphylaxis shock? According to evolution the reason marijuana acts like it does is millions of years of selection. When man fucks with shit, bad happens. The cane toad in Australia is a menace. How would you get rid of marijuana which needs a genetic test to figure out the bad kind? 

No thanks. I'll take my under 20% THC. If weed were completely legal like any other plant, like a tomato, I could just make some killer bubble melt. 

Marijuana needs to be legal for you to do anything you want with, and taxed just like anything else people make money on. It's a plant so no sales tax, only on your revenue.

Fuck your stupid, legal to grow illegal to sell.



ChesusRice said:


> anyone here turn down seeds that produce a crop of weed in 6 weeks total time from seed to harvest at 50% thc?


----------



## ChesusRice (Nov 17, 2014)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Will it cause cancer? More cases of marijuana toxicity syndrome? Anaphylaxis shock? According to evolution the reason marijuana acts like it does is millions of years of selection. When man fucks with shit, bad happens. The cane toad in Australia is a menace. How would you get rid of marijuana which needs a genetic test to figure out the bad kind?
> My Medicine is wearing off
> No thanks. I'll take my under 20% THC. If weed were completely legal like any other plant, like a tomato, I could just make some killer bubble melt.
> lack of protein is making me crazy and aliens implanted a radio receiver in my head
> ...


Do you need help with the co pays for your psycotic meds?


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 17, 2014)

ChesusRice said:


> Do you need help with the co pays for your psycotic meds?


Maybe you could help by selling a truck or two that are on blocks in your front yard.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2014)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Will it cause cancer? More cases of marijuana toxicity syndrome? Anaphylaxis shock? According to evolution the reason marijuana acts like it does is millions of years of selection. When man fucks with shit, bad happens. The cane toad in Australia is a menace. How would you get rid of marijuana which needs a genetic test to figure out the bad kind?
> 
> No thanks. I'll take my under 20% THC. If weed were completely legal like any other plant, like a tomato, I could just make some killer bubble melt.
> 
> ...


Do you know what GMO even means? Why do you comment on things you don't know anything about? All that does is spread misinformation and propaganda

Genetically modified organism. Do you eat corn, bananas, peas, peaches, pears, and nearly 90% of the other shit on the market? Guess what? You're ingesting GMO's. GMO's feed the world, and we've been modifying our produce for nearly 12,000 years. We've simply shorthanded the process to where we can do it in a lab in a fraction of the time, and it's led to one of the biggest advancements in agriculture since it began. 

GMO's, vaccines, climate change.. all a liberal hoax to steal your tax dollars and kill off the population or put them in FEMA camps for the illuminati to train to spread chemtrails and have lizard people as babies.. 

9/11!!!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Nov 17, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Do you know what GMO even means? Why do you comment on things you don't know anything about? All that does is spread misinformation and propaganda
> 
> Genetically modified organism. Do you eat corn, bananas, peas, peaches, pears, and nearly 90% of the other shit on the market? Guess what? You're ingesting GMO's. GMO's feed the world, and we've been modifying our produce for nearly 12,000 years. We've simply shorthanded the process to where we can do it in a lab in a fraction of the time, and it's led to one of the biggest advancements in agriculture since it began.
> 
> ...




how awkward.


----------



## DNAprotection (Nov 17, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Do you know what GMO even means? Why do you comment on things you don't know anything about? All that does is spread misinformation and propaganda
> 
> Genetically modified organism. Do you eat corn, bananas, peas, peaches, pears, and nearly 90% of the other shit on the market? Guess what? You're ingesting GMO's. GMO's feed the world, and we've been modifying our produce for nearly 12,000 years. We've simply shorthanded the process to where we can do it in a lab in a fraction of the time, and it's led to one of the biggest advancements in agriculture since it began.
> 
> ...


Uh...er...lol yes quite awkward for Padawanbater2 = http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2008/09/19/genetic-modification-explained/
*The difference between GM and selective breeding.*

Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification which doesn’t involve the addition of any foreign genetic material (DNA) into the organism. Rather, it is the conscious selection for desirable traits. Pro-GM campaigners argue that humans have been ‘genetically modifying’ organisms for thousands of years, albeit without knowledge that the favourable traits they were selecting for were determined by genes. For example, humans have always selected cows with the highest milk yield and bred from these to produce herds with good milk production. A chance mutant grape with no seeds was bred to produce seedless grapes now available in our shops and supermarkets.


----------



## DNAprotection (Nov 17, 2014)

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Measure-P-The-Freedom-to-Garden-Human-Rights-Restoration-Act/850681861641320?ref=hl
The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act is now working with Americans for Cannabis and is asking all the anti GMO, seed saving, organic food and cannabis communities everywhere to join with us in working for truth, responsibility and fundamental human rights.
If you understand that the "legalization movement" was created and is propelled by corporate interests intent on solidifying government jurisdiction over all natural plants, thereby lending to the legal foundation needed for corporate control and privatization of the plants we all need to survive/live, then we hope you will join with us to stand up for the self evident unalienable human rights that you and every human is naturally endowed with when born into this interdependent web of life.
Restoring your natural human rights not only secures your right to take care of yourself to the best of your abilities, but it also protects all naturally occurring plants&seeds under the wing of your restored and protected human rights. Such protections of your rights and of natural plants&seeds creates liability for any cross pollination from genetically engineered crops (currently non existent in law) thereby making every individual into a firewall of protection between Monsanto et al and the natural world we are all born from and need to live.
Even "decriminalization" of cannabis is not sufficient because we must trim back governments assumed 'god like' jurisdiction over natural plants by reasserting our natural human rights to grow the natural plants of earth for our own needs/necessities if we are to have any realistic chance to stop Monsanto et al before they have genetically polluted/contaminated and achieved 'legal' control of the entire natural food chain.
Constitutionally, the US governments jurisdiction over plants&seeds should end with commerce (not reach into areas of doing for yourself) and such jurisdiction is to be exercised only in ways that enhances and protects your naturally endowed human rights and is never to be used for extinguishing said rights as it is being used for now due to the corporate take over/occupation of the US government. 
We the people of the cannabis community of the US have the glaringly obvious opportunity/responsibility to repair this unjust abuse of law and power that is inherently self destructive to all humans the world over, but will we live up to that responsibility?
The US constitution has accounted for our one day needing to repair the circumstance we now collectively find ourselves in. The words we need to engage as 'the people' have always been there waiting for us and they reside under the 9th amendment in the federal constitution as well as being repeated in every state constitution I know of:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Those words when combined with any states reproduction of said words in their respective constitutions, give every 'body' legally recognized as 'the people' (even at the county level or any incorporated area within any county etc) the ability to repair these self evident human rights etc. if they can vote such into their local laws as we attempted to do in LC California in the last election with the Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/americans4repeal/


----------



## DNAprotection (Nov 17, 2014)

http://www.occupycorporatism.com/washington-state-pot-scare-rise-gmo-marijuana/


----------



## ChesusRice (Nov 17, 2014)

DNAprotection said:


> http://www.occupycorporatism.com/washington-state-pot-scare-rise-gmo-marijuana/


 So you support legal to grow and possess
Illegal to sell

Because once you put profit into it with legalization this will be the end result


----------



## Dr Kynes (Nov 17, 2014)

ChesusRice said:


> So you support legal to grow and possess
> Illegal to sell
> 
> Because once you put profit into it with legalization this will be the end result


NOBODY supports your "illegal to sell" nonsense. 

i dont sell my dope






but some people wanna get that cheddar, and some fools dont wanna grow. 

thats how commerce works. 

no matter how you plot and scheme, some people are gonna move bricks, and some people are gonna buy their dope.


----------



## DNAprotection (Nov 17, 2014)

ChesusRice said:


> So you support legal to grow and possess
> Illegal to sell
> 
> Because once you put profit into it with legalization this will be the end result


No, I support common sense (which your proposal is far from) = 2 separate matters (jurisdictions,or need to be etc) and should be handled separately. Folks should as 'the people' restore and secure their natural self evident rights to do for themselves ie The Freedom to Garden Act etc (as long as not harming others or the environment etc) and then Caesar etc can hash out the commerce issues just as long as such does not begin to deny or disparage your natural human rights to garden for your own needs. GMO cross pollination would begin to disparage your right to 'grow the natural plants of the earth' as described and defied in the above mentioned attempted Act.


----------



## ChesusRice (Nov 17, 2014)

Then prepare to grow for yourself if you will legally be able to. 
Because GMO weed is on the way


----------



## Dr Kynes (Nov 18, 2014)

ChesusRice said:


> Then prepare to grow for yourself if you will legally be able to.
> Because GMO weed is on the way


citation needed.


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 17, 2014)

(especially if you are doc or dd )
Please consider helping us with this text asap.
This is a ruff draft of the text that can be adapted for any locality. All suggestions are encouraged, welcome and will be thoroughly considered. Please use this if you can. If you can make it better, please do so and send it back to us so we can forward it to others, thanks! Here's what we have so far...

'The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration And Natural Seed & Plant Protection Act'
An Act to restore and protect the natural Human Right to grow and use natural seeds and plants for the basic necessities of life.
Whereas in the State of (here using the Ca. example where any state/county etc can be inserted/substituted) California, the People of the County of Lake do hereby Find, Declare and Ordain as follows:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for people to declare and restore the fundamental human rights with which they are naturally endowed, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's origins entitle them, and to recognize a decent respect for the opinions of humankind, requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to come forward toward the restoration of those rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all humans beings are created equal. That human beings are naturally endowed with certain rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to declare, restore and protect such inherent self evident human rights in effort to repair such governmental negligence, and to enumerate such in a form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Therefore, in accordance with the 9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America,
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.",
and also in accordance with the (using the Ca. example where any other state and state constitution can be sited inserted/substituted in this regard) California State Constitution, Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 24.:
(states vary slightly on how they word this part, this is the CA. example)
"This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.",
and, whereas disregard and contempt for certain human rights have resulted in acts which have outraged the conscience of humankind, be it here proclaimed that it has become necessary to declare, restore and specifically protect the self evident inherent freedom to grow and use natural seeds and the plants thereof as described and defined in Section 4.(d) herein, and to protect the same natural seeds and plants from cross pollination induced genetic modifications or other contamination's related to genetically engineered DNA:
Section 1., Findings:
That human beings are naturally endowed with the fundamental self evident right to have and plant the naturally occurring seeds of this earth, as defined in Sec 4 (d) herein, and care for the naturally occurring plants thereof , to be used for their own needs as individuals in pursuit of life and in effort to live, and that such fundamental human rights have been recognized as self evident, and that these rights are held in perpetuity outside and apart from the jurisdictional responsibility of government to regulate commercial endeavors and activities as defined in Sec 4 (a) herein. And further, that commercial jurisdiction has allowed for the genetic engineering of DNA, seeds and plants and has allowed for the privatizing/patenting and legal protections of such which has left all naturally occurring seeds and plants legally unprotected and physically vulnerable to irreparable genetic modifications from cross pollination contamination with said genetically engineered DNA, seeds and plants, and that human beings have a naturally endowed right to have and plant the naturally occurring seeds and plants of this earth free of genetic modifications stemming from contamination from genetically engineered DNA, seeds and plants.
Section 1.(a)
That all (example)County of Lake residents residing within the (example)unincorporated areas of the County who exercise the rights described in Section 1. of this Act at their residence within said area, and are compliant with Section 2., Section 2.(a) and all other Sections and provisions of this Act, and are gardening outside (outdoors) or in a greenhouse (and not withstanding any generally applicable urgency ordinance(s) specifically relating to water conservation), are, as accorded in the paragraphs above, necessarily exempt from any county permitting or other state statutes that would limit an individual's home gardening efforts or abilities in conjunction with Section 1.
Section 2., Responsibilities:
Any individual exercising the rights and exemptions described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a) of this Act, shall be in compliance with all other provisions of this Act, and shall take reasonable care to prevent all negative impacts on the environment relating to all types of run off or any other preventable negative impacts to the environment including any toxic health risks to humans related to the growing and processing of natural seeds and plants, and any individual exercising the rights and exemptions described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a) of this Act, shall be responsible to mitigate any circumstances of negative impacts to the environment or possible toxic health risks to humans related to the growing and processing of natural seeds and plants as determined and directed by the (example)county Environmental Health Department as directed by Section 2.(a), in response to any complaint or other circumstance as described in Section 2.(a) herein.
Section 2.(a)
The (example)County of Lake Environmental Health Department shall respond and administer to complaints and other circumstances that may arise related to Section 2., and Section 3.(b) of this Act, and shall develop whatever standards, protocols, definitions and appeals processes necessary to implement its authority under this Act as consistent with existing law and as described in Section 2., and in Section 3.(b) herein pertaining to protecting the environment and guarding against public health risks as long as such standards, protocols, definitions and appeals processes are not in conflict with any Sections, provisions or definitions of this Act, and all such administrative authority and compliance inquiries shall be restricted to circumstances where a neighbor (or other resident of the county) complaint in writing and signed by the complainant has been officially registered with the county, except In circumstances of a clear and present immediate toxic threat to public health, in which case(s) a written and signed complaint is not required.
(continued on next post)


----------



## DNAprotection (Dec 17, 2014)

(continued from previous post)
Section 3., Special Circumstances:
Any law, to the extent that it would specifically deny or disparage the Human Rights as described in Section 1. of this Act, is to be set aside unless it can be determined that the individual circumstance is occurring within the context of commerce related activities as defined in Section 4.(a) herein, or if an individual's violation(s) of Section 2. or Section 2.(a) of this Act are to the extent of violating a criminal statute, or if an individual is in violation of using illegal gardening chemicals, including but not limited to, certain pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers.
Section 3.(a)
This Act shall not apply in circumstances where (a) private rental or lease agreement(s) (contract) exist(s) pertaining to the occupancy and or use of any private land unless such is otherwise specifically enumerated within said agreement(s) (contract), or unless the agreement(s) (contract) does not specify any conditions or agreement pertaining to outside (or greenhouse) home gardening.
Section 3.(b)
In effort to further assure protection of the restored rights and the other needed protections established by this Act, the (example)county Environmental Health Department shall continually remain vigilant to do everything possible within it's authority under law to protect all naturally occurring seeds and plants from cross pollination or any other contamination's related to genetically engineered DNA, including, but not limited to not allowing open air grown genetically engineered crops.
Section 3.(c)
With respect to any litigation that might arise within the jurisdictional reach of this Act, in regards to Section 1., and protecting home gardeners and naturally occurring seeds and plants from irreparable genetic modifications from genetically engineered DNA cross pollination or any other contamination's related to genetically engineered DNA, seeds and plants, in every circumstance of cross pollination or other contamination to a home gardener's natural seeds or plants, this Act shall be applied to hold individual's, corporations, and patent holders of said genetically engineered DNA, liable and monetarily responsible for all reparations, including, but not limited to environmental restorations and all other types monetary restorations that might arise from such irreparable genetic modifications to a home gardeners naturally occurring heirloom seeds and plants, including punitive awards. 
Further, with respect to any litigation that might arise within the jurisdictional reach of this Act, in every circumstance of cross pollination or other contamination to a home gardener's natural seeds or plants resulting from a genetically engineered source, this Act shall be applied to deny individual's, corporations, and patent holders of said genetically engineered DNA, any counter claims or other claims against any home gardener relating to patent infringement.
Section 3.(d)
The protections, exemptions and rights established by this Act, including Section 3.(c), shall not apply in circumstances where it can be shown that a home gardener knowingly and intentionally planted genetically engineered DNA as seeds, or plants, or where a home gardener has by whatever method knowingly and intentionally cross pollinated their own garden's seeds or plants with genetically engineered DNA as defined in Section 4.(g) herein.
Section 4., Definitions:
(a) For the expressed purposes of this Act, in Section 3., the word "commerce", and in Section 1., the words phrased as "commercial endeavors and activities " shall be taken to mean:
The buying and selling of goods or services in any form, and in direct reference to the exchange of United States currency (or other such legally recognized tender) for such goods or services.
(b) For the expressed purposes of this Act, the words phrased as "compliance inquiries" shall be taken to mean:
A written and delivered inquiry or an in person inquiry as to responding to (a) specific complaint(s), and to which access to inspect private property shall only be in circumstances where the respondent has voluntarily agreed to and granted such access, or where on an individual basis, a court order has provided for such access.
(c) For the expressed purposes of this Act, and in particular Section 1. of this Act, the words phrased as "to be used for their own needs" shall be taken to mean: 
For use as food, medicine, fiber, building materials, environmental damage mitigation or other environmental concerns, privacy, spiritual/religious requirement, (or other) basic necessities of life. 
(d) For the expressed purposes of this Act, and in particular Section 1. and Section 3.(b) of this Act, the word "natural" and the words phrased as "naturally occurring" shall be taken to mean:
Seeds and plants species and varieties of such that have evolved in nature exclusively through the traditional pollination and cross pollination processes, be that by wind/weather, or animal (including human) assistance, and specifically free from (absent of) genetic modifications induced by cross pollination from genetically engineered DNA or contamination in any way related to genetically engineered DNA, seeds, plants and/or the pollen thereof.
(e) For the expressed purposes of this Act, and in particular Section 1.(a) and Section 3.(a) of this Act, the word "greenhouse" shall be taken to mean:
Any structure where the sun's light can penetrate at least 50% of the roof (ceiling or top) surface to allow for said sun light to shine inside the structure for the intended purpose of sprouting seeds and/or growing plants in, and is being used for sprouting seeds and/or growing plants in. 
(f) For the expressed purposes of this Act, the words phrased as "genetic engineering" shall be taken to mean:
The development and application of scientific procedures and technologies that permit direct manipulation of genetic material in order to alter the hereditary traits of a cell, organism, or population, and more specifically the group of applied techniques of genetics and biotechnology used to cut up and join together genetic material and especially DNA from one or more species of organism and to introduce the result into an organism in order to change one or more of its characteristics.
(g) For the expressed purposes of this Act, the words phrased as “Genetically Engineered” (also commonly referred to as “Genetically Modified”, “GM”, “Genetically Modified Organism”, or “GMO”) , shall be taken to mean produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed through the application of:
(a) In vitro nucleic acid techniques which include, but are not limited to, recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA), direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, encapsulation, gene deletion, and doubling; or
(b) Methods of fusing cells beyond the taxonomic family that overcome natural physiological, reproductive, or recombination barriers, and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection such as conjugation, transduction, and hybridization.
For purposes of this definition: “In vitro nucleic acid techniques” include, but are not limited to, recombinant DNA or RNA techniques that use vector systems; techniques involving the direct introduction into the organisms of hereditary materials prepared outside the organisms such as biolistics, microinjection, macro-injection, chemoporation, electroporation, microencapsulation, and liposome fusion.
Section 5., Severability:
If any provision, or any part of any provision and/or Section of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. The People of the (example)County of Lake hereby declare that we would have adopted this Act irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.


----------



## DNAprotection (Apr 15, 2015)

Not sure if this story is fake or real news...?
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/monsanto-creates-first-genetically-modified-strain-of-marijuana/ 
*MONSANTO CREATES FIRST GENETICALLY MODIFIED STRAIN OF MARIJUANA*
April 9th, 2015 | by Bob Flanagan





BIOTECH
87
FacebookTwitter*100.5k
St-Louis, MO | Monsanto, the multi-billion agribusiness giant, has announced today it has patented the first genetically modified strain of marijuana.*

The news that has been welcomed by scientists and leaders of the agriculture business alike as a move forward towards the industrial use of marijuana and hemp products could bring a major shift towards marijuana policies in the U.S.A. and ultimately, to the world.

Under present US federal law, it is illegal to possess, use, buy, sell, or cultivate marijuana, since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, although it has been decriminalized to some extent in certain states, Monsanto’s interest in the field has been interpreted by experts as the precursor to “a major shift in marijuana policy in the US” as it is believed the company would not have invested so much time and energy if it had not had “previous knowledge” of the Federal government’s “openness” towards the future legalization of marijuana.


Advocates for the legalization of marijuana see the bold move of Monsanto to work on GM marijuana strains as a “great step towards legalization on a massive scale” in the US

Lawyer and marijuana law specialist, Edmund Groensch, of the Drug Policy Alliance, admits Monsanto’s involvement in marijuana projects could definitely help the pro-legalization activists.

*“Currently, Federal law criminalizes marijuana and hemp derivatives because public opinion is still against it and legal commercial production in the U.S. is currently handled by a patchwork of small farmers whom are not trusted by investors. A major player as Monsanto could bring confidence within government and towards investors in the market if it were to own a large part of the exploitable lands and commercial products”*.


Other experts, such as James Adamson, president of Medical Marijuana Technologies, believe the only way marijuana is to become legal in the US is through the branding of a GM strain

*“There is presently no way to control the production of marijuana and the quality of the strains. A GM strain produced by a company with the credentials and prestige of Monsanto would definitely lend a massive hand to pro-legalization activists within certain spheres of government and within the business world”* he explains.

Although Monsanto’s testing on cannabis is only at an experimental stage, no plan has yet been released by the agriculture business firm as to what purposes the patented strain would be used for, although specialists believe answers should come this fall as rumors of a controversial new bill which could “loosen up laws around medical marijuana” is reportedly scheduled to pass before congress coming this fall.

Critics fear genetically modified cannabis will mix with other strains and could destroy the diversity of DNA, a reality dismissed by most studies claim experts.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 17, 2015)

5/27/15...
Turning Point interviews the President of the California Grange Bob McFarland about GMO's and the new seed regulation law in Ca. We also talk with Bob about the latest Ca hemp regulations and the need for guarding against GMO cannabis.
https://soundcloud.com/turningpointkpfz/turning-point-interview-with-california-grange-president-bob-mcfarland


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 17, 2015)

Today on Turning Point (10am - 11am pst, kpfz.org) we will ask Sheriff Tom Allman about his conclusion that GMO cannabis is being grown in Mendocino county in spite of the Mendo GMO ban...
https://soundcloud.com/turningpointkpfz/mendo-sheriff-exposes-gmo-cannabis-labs


----------



## schuylaar (Jun 17, 2015)

i'm still not sure how they'd go about patenting a 'living' plant life.

vidalia onions can only be called that if they come from vidalia, ga..what happens when you grow a vidalia outside of vidalia? they're called sweet onions.

therefore, the name is the patent NOT the plant.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 18, 2015)

6/17/15, Turning Point interviews Dr. Vandana Shiva about the threat of GMO cannabis. Dr. Shiva voices support for the Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act effort/concept etc.We also talk about other genetic engineering concerns.
<iframe src="https://app.box.com/embed/preview/s8h7ez40dmlr6vwwxlxya4hg40sl81he?theme=dark" width="500" height="88" frameborder="0"allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
http://vandanashiva.com/


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 24, 2015)

6/24/15 Turning Point: Urgent call to action to demand language banning GMO cannabis on the 2016 CA ballot. We also discuss United Cannabis and their biotech interests and connections, and much more <3
<iframe src="https://app.box.com/embed/preview/2xn8zajw3qyypwvf0nu60of8enkwbzed?theme=dark" width="500" height="88" frameborder="0"allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 29, 2015)

Fight for your natural human rights and to end discrimination so that future generations may enjoy their natural birth rights. Please don't negotiate for the evolution of prohibition where somehow you trade your human rights (and the rights of the yet unborn) for a chance to be treated like anyone on parole or probation etc. If someone has a natural right to grow carrots in their yard for their own needs (non commercial), then of course you have the same equal rights to grow cannabis for your own needs, that's called equal protection and it's what we all should be fighting for. It's the least we owe to those who come after us. Instead we fight to institutionalize and regulate and continue to profit from unconstitutional discrimination. We should all be demanding justice for crimes against humanity because thats what cannabis prohibition amounts to. What would the world look like if we had never been robbed of this plant = best food, fiber, medicine etc and our basic most fundamental human rights to grow natural plants for our own needs? Why aren't the Soros gangs = DPA, MPP etc fighting to expose these crimes against humanity that have impacted the whole world? Why aren't they at least fighting for restoration of your natural human rights? Why aren't they fighting to end unconstitutional discrimination? Why are they funding the evolution of prohibition instead of funding the fight to end prohibition? The better question is why are you helping with their efforts instead of fighting on behalf of all that I have just stated?


----------



## DNAprotection (May 20, 2016)

I feel that simply supporting "legalization" without a full understanding of the consequences of what we gain verses what we give up in the scenario of the corporate "legalization" scheme now coming to fruition without first resetting the jurisdictional lines governing the process. I exist to do my part in living up to our responsibilities to our children and all of our fellow humans, that's why I cannot support what's going on in Colorado, as it is happening at the true cost of everyone's naturally endowed human rights. Do we really have the right to extinguish the rights of even the yet unborn? I'm posting this interview in hopes that you seriously take the time to hear it and then let me know what you think or if you have questions I can respond to in hopes of communicating a complete understanding of the core issues I'm working on and trying to explain here:

1. Does government have jurisdictional authority to "schedule", or "regulate" your access to naturally occurring plants outside of commercial activity?

2. Do you understand that by agreeing to government holding such jurisdictional reach as to essentially have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species, does in fact extinguish your naturally endowed constitutionally protected right to grow even a carrot, and that the only reason you can do so now is because they still allow you to?

3. Do you understand that by supporting and passing any "regulation" at this point (without first addressing the 1st question posed here), is viewed in the broader sense of the law as consenting to the jurisdictional authority and agreeing that government does have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species and thereby your access to it even outside of commercial jurisdiction/activities? The so called cannabis issue is really a fundamental jurisdictional and human rights issue that anyone who eats food and is concerned about privatization of the food chain should be deeply concerned about. If you think you've heard it all in terms of "legalization" , please hear this interview and maybe think again...Lorraine Dechter, General Manager of KZYX interviews Ron Kiczenski for the Cannabis Hour's May 5, 2016 episode. This is a show Monsanto, the Drug Policy Alliance, MPP , and NORML (and Colorado) would not want you to hear:


----------



## Grandpapy (May 20, 2016)

Well I'm gonna do my part Monday.


Equal Rights. Fair Taxation. Sensible Regulations.

ASA's annual California Citizen Lobby Day is the state's largest medical cannabis lobby day. We bring hundreds of medical cannabis patients and stakeholders to Sacramento to talk with lawmakers and staff about legilsation that affects their lives. This is a great chance for patients, advocates, industry workers, researchers, and concerned community members to make a difference in California.

There is a lot on the table this year:


ASA is promoting a bill to protect medical cannabis patients from discrimination in employment, parental rights, housing, and access to health care.
Two bills on the table this year will impose excessive taxation on medical cannabis consumption and cultivation - on top of existing sales tax and local taxes!
Other bills make changes in the way that commercial medical cannabis businesses and organizations are licensed and regulated. 
http://www.californiacitizenlobbyday.org/


----------



## Fogdog (May 20, 2016)

Dr Kynes said:


> cant trust the "corporate scientists" cuz they want to poison you or enslave you with MK-Ultra mind control techniques...
> 
> cant trust the "government scientists " cuz they are either in league with the coprorations in their MK-Ultra scheme, or, if thats too tough to sell, they can be impeached by previous "corporate" employment
> 
> ...


No matter how one looks at the potential up side or down side of GMO, the absence of proof is not proof, . At one time, lead in paint was not known to cause brain damage to children, so it was used everywhere. At one time PCB's were not known to be a carcinogen, so it was used all over this country and even evaluated as a softening agent in chewing gum. In both cases, the proof of harm was missed in small trials and only later was it determined to cause harm long after those products had caused serious harm to large groups of people and the environment. The kinds of tests currently used to evaluate safety are limited and insufficient for the kinds of risks imposed by GMO.

When risks are low, then, yes, a test that demonstrate the absence of harm would be enough to release a product for general use. When the risks are high, such as harming people or permanent harm to the environment, then no, a test that fails to prove harm isn't enough. Failure to prove harm is not the same as proving the product is safe. We simply don't know enough about the technology of GMO to release it into the environment. Carefully monitored and controlled research into GMO is fine. As is the use of GMO technology to aid in development or production of naturally produced strains of crops. GMO MJ, maybe later, but not now.


----------



## DNAprotection (May 20, 2016)

Grandpapy said:


> Equal Rights. Fair Taxation. Sensible Regulations


The only thing to advocate for at this point is the full restoration of our naturally endowed human rights, and all other commercial regulations need to necessarily be constructed on that foundation or the injustice simply continues termed as "legalization". So while it sounds like a good thing your doing Grandpapy, it's truly a big mistake and is the perfect example of the cart before the horse, or better yet, like trying to count to 3 using only 2 fingers that can only be counted once each I'm sorry to say because I'm guessing you truly do have good intentions. Please take the the time to hear the interview and understand my previous post.


----------



## DNAprotection (May 20, 2016)

Fogdog said:


> GMO MJ, maybe later, but not now.


The camels nose is already inside the tent as GMO cannabis is being distributed in Colorado. Conveniently the Colorado laws have no requirement to disclose GMO cannabis and in fact avoid any mention of GMO's all together. Normally a GMO crop needs to be approved by the FDA before it is allowed to be sold to the public, (even though FDA does no testing and relies entirely on the applicants own testing results. In my opinion, if allowed, all GMO's should be banned from open air cultivation and only be allowed in strictly controlled and contained environments as to protect the commons from cross pollination contamination. Fogdog, did you have time to check out the interview I posted 2 posts back?


----------



## Grandpapy (May 20, 2016)

DNAprotection said:


> The only thing to advocate for at this point is the full restoration of our naturally endowed human rights, and all other commercial regulations need to necessarily be constructed on that foundation or the injustice simply continues termed as "legalization". So while it sounds like a good thing your doing Grandpapy, it's truly a big mistake and is the perfect example of the cart before the horse, or better yet, like trying to count to 3 using only 2 fingers that can only be counted once each I'm sorry to say because I'm guessing you truly do have good intentions. Please take the the time to hear the interview and understand my previous post.


I can't think of an easier way to tell my Rep., face to face it's a God given Right.


----------



## DNAprotection (May 21, 2016)

Grandpapy said:


> I can't think of an easier way to tell my Rep., face to face it's a God given Right


We should be telling this to federal judges face to face in civil proceeding based on these three questions:

1. Does government have jurisdictional authority to "schedule", or "regulate" your access to naturally occurring plants outside of commercial activity?

2. Do you understand that by agreeing to government holding such jurisdictional reach as to essentially have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species, does in fact extinguish your naturally endowed constitutionally protected right to grow even a carrot, and that the only reason you can do so now is because they still allow you to?

3. Do you understand that by supporting and passing any "regulation" at this point (without first addressing the 1st question posed here), is viewed in the broader sense of the law as consenting to the jurisdictional authority and agreeing that government does have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species and thereby your access to it even outside of commercial jurisdiction/activities? 

Legislators are exactly the wrong place to go for proper remedy in our circumstance. If we don't first settle settle the jurisdictional issue, the legislators will just continue to serve their corporate sponsors while baiting us into thinking we are getting something done, Colorado is a perfect example = human rights ignored in trade for corporate ability and dependency access for 'the people'.


----------



## ChesusRice (May 21, 2016)

I want GMO weed
- auto flower
- high potency
- very fast harvest time
-smooth taste
and if you can infuse some Coca DNA into it


----------



## DNAprotection (May 22, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> I want GMO weed
> - auto flower
> - high potency
> - very fast harvest time
> ...


ChesusRice, I'm not saying you shouldn't have that choice, but the fact remains that many (possibly the majority) folks do not want to consume GMO cannabis, so as long as you keep the offspring separated we will all get along just fine


----------



## ChesusRice (May 22, 2016)

DNAprotection said:


> ChesusRice, I'm not saying you shouldn't have that choice, but the fact remains that many (possibly the majority) folks do not want to consume GMO cannabis, so as long as you keep the offspring separated we will all get along just fine


You have failed to show that there is more harm burning GMO weed versus non GMO weed
Are you worried GMO weed will be more carcinogenic?


----------



## DNAprotection (May 22, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> You have failed to show that there is more harm burning GMO weed versus non GMO weed
> Are you worried GMO weed will be more carcinogenic?


Chesus do you even read before you respond? Because t seems that it is you that has "failed" entirely to grasp the issue here. Some how you still seem to think the question is if GMO cannabis is good for you or bad for you and plainly such is not the question at hand. In fact your summation is not even relevant to the question. 
You want to access patented commercial intellectual property that would pollute the gene pool of the general commons if not kept separated. We all have in common ownership of the commons and have the natural human right to access such to live. Your choice to access the privatized for commerce plant varieties is fine as long as it doesn't degrade 'the people's' protected rights to access the general commons. Cross pollination contamination is where you cross the jurisdictional line and begin to degrade the overriding human right to access the naturally occurring commons.
I'll once again repeat the questions you have failed to address:

1. Does government have jurisdictional authority to "schedule", or "regulate" your access to naturally occurring plants outside of commercial activity?

2. Do you understand that by agreeing to government holding such jurisdictional reach as to essentially have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species, does in fact extinguish your naturally endowed constitutionally protected right to grow even a carrot, and that the only reason you can do so now is because they still allow you to?

3. Do you understand that by supporting and passing any "regulation" at this point (without first addressing the 1st question posed here), is viewed in the broader sense of the law as consenting to the jurisdictional authority and agreeing that government does have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species and thereby your access to it even outside of commercial jurisdiction/activities?


----------



## ChesusRice (May 22, 2016)

We have been genetically modifying crops for 1000s of years


----------



## DNAprotection (May 22, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> We have been genetically modifying crops for 1000s of years


Oh CR are you really still playing that debunked card? Do you really think folks reading here are that unfamiliar with the facts that they would fall for such TRUMPeting? 
Well if anyone reading here still doesn't understand the difference between traditional horticulture practices (where DNA is non patentable) and gene splicing to achieve "original intellectual property", then please hear this interview with DR Vandana Shiva that I co-hosted on Turning Point:


----------



## ChesusRice (May 22, 2016)

DNAprotection said:


> Oh CR are you really still playing that debunked card? Do you really think folks reading here are that unfamiliar with the facts that they would fall for such TRUMPeting?
> Well if anyone reading here still doesn't understand the difference between traditional horticulture practices (where DNA is non patentable) and gene splicing to achieve "original intellectual property", then please hear this interview with DR Vandana Shiva that I co-hosted on Turning Point:


Ill buy GMO seeds
And I'm still going to vaccinate my kids,self and dogs


----------



## bluntmassa1 (May 23, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> We have been genetically modifying crops for 1000s of years


I think you mean selective breeding not genetically modified...

But, you being for Hillary Clinton I didn't think you where that bright anyway.


----------



## ChesusRice (May 23, 2016)

bluntmassa1 said:


> I think you mean selective breeding not genetically modified...
> 
> But, you being for Hillary Clinton I didn't think you where that bright anyway.


I definantly want some GMO seeds
And I'm voting for whoever the democrats get on the ballot in November


----------



## bluntmassa1 (May 23, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> I definantly want some GMO seeds


Because you do a shit job growing regular seeds?

I could care less unless them GMOs suck and fuck.


----------



## ChesusRice (May 23, 2016)

bluntmassa1 said:


> Because you do a shit job growing regular seeds?
> 
> I could care less unless them GMOs suck and fuck.


Maybe science can help with that as well


----------



## ChesusRice (May 23, 2016)

bluntmassa1 said:


> Because you do a shit job growing regular seeds?
> 
> I could care less unless them GMOs suck and fuck.


I don't grow. 
1 plant is a felony here and they will seize EVERYTHING


----------



## Grandpapy (May 23, 2016)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-23/germany-s-bayer-offers-62-billion-cash-to-acquire-monsanto

Now all we need is Bayer to buy Dow and well be ever so close to:


----------



## Rob Roy (May 23, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> I don't grow.
> 1 plant is a felony here and they will seize EVERYTHING



Maybe you should move to Somalia ?


----------



## Fogdog (May 23, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> Ill buy GMO seeds
> And I'm still going to vaccinate my kids,self and dogs


GMO is not the same thing at all.

When one is vaccinated, it stops there. A person who doesn't get a vaccination cannot be affected by your choice.

When one plants GMOs capable of reproducing and releasing pollen, their plants contaminate any other plants around that are able to cross pollinate with the GMOs. Once in the environment, its too late. And then the mega-corporation has a lock on any previously natural plants in the area because they now contain their patented genes. Not only that, but people who don't want or need that patented gene in their plants will have to take special measures to prevent it. In other words, GMO's contaminate the environment yet it's everybody else's responsibility to avoid the contamination if they want to live free of it. The GMO laws are a completely bassackwards legal construct that's being foisted on a mostly unwilling population. 

Its not just about MJ, all agriculture are in play..


----------



## ChesusRice (May 23, 2016)

Fogdog said:


> GMO is not the same thing at all.
> 
> When one is vaccinated, it stops there. A person who doesn't get a vaccination cannot be affected by your choice.
> 
> ...


Commercialization of weed

You aint going to stop it


----------



## Fogdog (May 23, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> Commercialization of weed
> 
> You aint going to stop it


I think you are confused about what GMOs are. Commericially available and high quality weed is already being produced with stunningly powerful and tasty quality. Produced using the same techniques used to grow excellent crops. And they keep coming up with better genetics all the time. Commercialization is already happening without Monsanto's help. And people are free to exchange seed and continue the work of improving MJ genetics.

Standard methods of horticulture are proven safe and effective. GMOs cannot be tested to prove safety. The science is too new to really understand what the long term effects will be from unnaturally produced mutations of crops. And to benefit nobody but Monsanto, they patent an entire genome because they managed to splice in one set of genes. People end up accidentally illegally growing Monsanto's synthetic genetics because Monsanto puts the onus of keeping one's own line of seed pure while Monsanto does all it can to contaminate it. All the while, they put all the risk on the community and the environment to truly test the safety of this new tech which Monsanto will own and protect. Its a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition which should be rejected at the outset.


----------



## ChesusRice (May 23, 2016)

Fogdog said:


> I think you are confused about what GMOs are. Commericially available and high quality weed is already being produced with stunningly powerful and tasty quality. Produced using the same techniques used to grow excellent crops. And they keep coming up with better genetics all the time. Commercialization is already happening without Monsanto's help. And people are free to exchange seed and continue the work of improving MJ genetics.
> 
> Standard methods of horticulture are proven safe and effective. GMOs cannot be tested to prove safety. The science is too new to really understand what the long term effects will be from unnaturally produced mutations of crops. And to benefit nobody but Monsanto, they patent an entire genome because they managed to splice in one set of genes. People end up accidentally illegally growing Monsanto's synthetic genetics because Monsanto puts the onus of keeping one's own line of seed pure while Monsanto does all it can to contaminate it. All the while, they put all the risk on the community and the environment to truly test the safety of this new tech which Monsanto will own and protect. Its a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition which should be rejected at the outset.


When it is legal federally then companys like Monsanto and Bayer will sink money into GMO weed. And you cannot stop it


----------



## Fogdog (May 23, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> When it is legal federally then companys like Monsanto and Bayer will sink money into GMO weed. And you cannot stop it


We'll see. Its not about weed anyway.


----------



## ChesusRice (May 23, 2016)

Fogdog said:


> We'll see. Its not about weed anyway.





Fogdog said:


> We'll see. Its not about weed anyway.


Then you didn't read the first post


----------



## Fogdog (May 23, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> Then you didn't read the first post


*Simple Definition of all*

: the whole, entire, total amount, quantity, or extent of


: every member or part of


: the whole number or sum of
What I said was "it's not all about weed anyway". The operative word is all (see definition). You might also go back and check the original post. MJ was mentioned in the introduction but the DNA protection act doesn't say a word about cannabis. The act would protect the market from GMO weed but it is much broader than that. . Its about banning living genetically engineered organisms from the state of California.

So, again, its not all about weed, anyway.


----------



## bluntmassa1 (May 23, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> I don't grow.
> 1 plant is a felony here and they will seize EVERYTHING


Don't get caught it's a felony for me too. They can seize everything too but I don't technically own my home I couldn't wash that kind of money. Lol

Plus I go to prison I see my friends but that ain't happening I don't talk to rats and I don't deliver.


----------



## ChesusRice (May 23, 2016)

bluntmassa1 said:


> Don't get caught it's a felony for me too. They can seize everything too but I don't technically own my home I couldn't wash that kind of money. Lol
> 
> Plus I go to prison I see my friends but that ain't happening I don't talk to rats and I don't deliver.


My rat lives with me


----------



## ChesusRice (May 23, 2016)

bluntmassa1 said:


> Don't get caught it's a felony for me too. They can seize everything too but I don't technically own my home I couldn't wash that kind of money. Lol
> 
> Plus I go to prison I see my friends but that ain't happening I don't talk to rats and I don't deliver.


I still want some GMO weed


----------



## ttystikk (May 23, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> I don't grow.
> 1 plant is a felony here and they will seize EVERYTHING


This explains your attitude. Problem.


----------



## bluntmassa1 (May 23, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> I still want some GMO weed


Going to need to wait until Budweiser comes out with their shitty commercial weed. Corona is better and more than worth the extra change.


----------



## ChesusRice (May 23, 2016)

bluntmassa1 said:


> Going to need to wait until Budweiser comes out with their shitty commercial weed. Corona is better and more than worth the extra change.


Philip Morris will jump the gate first


----------



## ChesusRice (May 23, 2016)

ttystikk said:


> This explains your attitude. Problem.


Need a hankerchief to cry into?


----------



## ttystikk (May 23, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> Need a hankerchief to cry into?


No thanks, I have weed to smoke.


----------



## bluntmassa1 (May 23, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> Philip Morris will jump the gate first


Yet they don't have shit on a good cigar.


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 11, 2016)

Fogdog said:


> GMO is not the same thing at all.
> 
> When one is vaccinated, it stops there. A person who doesn't get a vaccination cannot be affected by your choice.
> 
> ...


This is exactly the basis of the suit we are writing at this time and hope to file in the next 30 days. There is much more to it including restoring your naturally endowed rights as the basis for protecting the natural heritage from the eminent threat you have described here, We need more Fogdogs in this world <3


----------



## OddBall1st (Jun 11, 2016)

Fogdog said:


> I think you are confused about what GMOs are. Commericially available and high quality weed is already being produced with stunningly powerful and tasty quality. Produced using the same techniques used to grow excellent crops. And they keep coming up with better genetics all the time. Commercialization is already happening without Monsanto's help. And people are free to exchange seed and continue the work of improving MJ genetics.
> 
> Standard methods of horticulture are proven safe and effective. GMOs cannot be tested to prove safety. The science is too new to really understand what the long term effects will be from unnaturally produced mutations of crops. And to benefit nobody but Monsanto, they patent an entire genome because they managed to splice in one set of genes. People end up accidentally illegally growing Monsanto's synthetic genetics because Monsanto puts the onus of keeping one's own line of seed pure while Monsanto does all it can to contaminate it. All the while, they put all the risk on the community and the environment to truly test the safety of this new tech which Monsanto will own and protect. Its a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition which should be rejected at the outset.



What exactly is the protection for Monsanto from being sued for damaging other crops ? You will have the proof in your non sellable plants. If I can sue a paint company for over spraying their patented paint on my next door house, Why can`t people do the same to Monsanto ?


----------



## DNAprotection (Jun 11, 2016)

OddBall1st said:


> What exactly is the protection for Monsanto from being sued for damaging other crops ? You will have the proof in your non sellable plants. If I can sue a paint company for over spraying their patented paint on my next door house, Why can`t people do the same to Monsanto ?


Because the only foundation you would have for such a suit is the protection of your human right, such then in turn creates the basis by which you then can protect the natural heritage. At this point, in the void where your human right once existed, now exists only commercial jurisdiction and thereby prevails commercial laws concerning 'intellectual property'.
Once again I will try and convey this life choice we should all be very seriously considering, in fact considering such as if your life depended on it.
Are you satisfied with your current status in law with respect to your extremely fragile 'civil right' to grow and eat a carrot outside of commercial activity?
The equation of life necessarily endowed you with a human right to grow and eat a carrot, and the protection of such naturally endowed human rights is the foundational basis for the existence of the U.S. Constitution.
At present, and at the will of corporate influences, commercial jurisdiction has supplanted your human right with a reversibly fragile 'civil right' to grow and utilize natural plants, and such is the basis for jurisdictional authority to 'schedule' (regulate, tax, outlaw) beyond commercial activity.
Maybe you are satisfied with your fragile 'civil right' to live, but in your capitulation, the systematic resulting consequence of your life choice is to extinguish the natural rights of the yet unborn, so what gives you that right?
Please understand and consider the following questions:
1. Does government have jurisdictional authority to "schedule", or "regulate" your access to naturally occurring plants outside of commercial activity?
2. Do you understand that by agreeing to government holding such jurisdictional reach as to essentially have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species, does in fact extinguish your naturally endowed constitutionally protected right to grow even a carrot, and that the only reason you can do so now is because they still allow you to?
3. Do you understand that by supporting and passing any "regulation" at this point (without first addressing the 1st question posed here), is viewed in the broader sense of the law as consenting to the jurisdictional authority and agreeing that government does have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species and thereby your access to it even outside of commercial jurisdiction/activities?
Please forward this message along with this simple carrot test on human rights:




The so called cannabis issue is really a fundamental jurisdictional and human rights issue that anyone who eats food and is concerned about privatization of the food chain should be deeply concerned about. If you think you've heard it all in terms of "legalization" , please hear this interview and maybe think again...Lorraine Dechter, General Manager of KZYX interviews Ron Kiczenski for the Cannabis Hour's May 5, 2016 episode. This is a show Monsanto, the Drug Policy Alliance, MPP , and NORML (and Colorado) would not want you to hear:




Thanks and have a thoughtful day <3


----------



## OddBall1st (Jun 11, 2016)

If my documented and tested garden contains no Monsanto genetics during veg, then the damage shows after flower, How did it get there ?

You can`t pollinate a plant in veg.


----------



## OddBall1st (Jun 11, 2016)

I`m growing in Mexico just over the boarder, or Canada, just over the boarder, US regulations do not apply in either Country.


----------



## OddBall1st (Jun 11, 2016)

Monsanto pollen was all over my ship that is now docked in Italy.


----------



## OddBall1st (Jun 11, 2016)

Or, the plane that landed in Russia.


----------



## OddBall1st (Jun 11, 2016)

States have invasive plant laws too.


----------



## OddBall1st (Jun 11, 2016)

Maine is very strict about it.


----------

