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

[Ninjabowler]

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]

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

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’s clothes. If anything, genetic engineering will probably encourage, not discourage, racial harmony and diversity."

 

[Dr Kynes]

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.

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’ 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]

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]

You are making your boss at monsanto headquarters proud arent you? kiss-ass

 

[cannabineer]

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

Dang. I'm gonna start eating my carrots. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

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]

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]

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


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?








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

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.

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.

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]

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.



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.



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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

without monoculture we would have no modern farming, so no urban centers could develop, and you would have to actually toil away growing your own food, thus most of the worthless twats (like yourself) would never have the opportunity to exist, much less air your weak arguments on the interwebs.

monoculture was pioneered by ancient rome, to provide the food for their urban centers. if we went back to smallholders and subsistence farming your fat ass would starve.

if i'm hitler, the leader of the theird reich, then youre just one of the nazi SS goons pushing jews into the shower so you can go home to your tiny apartment and a supper of boiled cabbage greasy sausage and sour beer.
you sure do sacrifice a lot for so little. but the Fatherland knows best.

have another hotpocket fatty.
it exists because of monoculture farming, and so do you.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.