Whoa is that a fwd from your email? friends of yours?

yeah funded by money Clinton gave to the Taliban after he screwed the tribal leaders that were working with the US

Dollard is right on!

was he over reacting?

thanks pilou

I couldn't remember the alt key!

In less than an hour people were claiming the USA deserved it.

They weren't tea partiers.

what, no cheering for Boston?

does nobody here see or read what I post???????

Farmers aren't forced to use Monsanto seeds.
Using GM seeds doesn't ruin the soil and make it only suitable for GM seeds.
Using GM seeds increases production..decreases fertilizer...increases resistance to insects and disease...
GM seeds makes food cheaper.

Just a moment...

(skeptico.blogs.com)

India was on the brink of mass famine. Huge shipments of food aid from America were all that stood between its swelling population and a terrible fate.

...

Borlaug refused to be so pessimistic. He arrived in India in March 1963 and began testing three new varieties of Mexican wheat. The yields were four or five times better than Indian varieties. In 1965, after overcoming much bureaucratic opposition, Swaminathan persuaded his government to order 18,000 tonnes of Borlaug's seed.

…

Eager farmers took it up with astonishing results. By 1974, India wheat production had tripled and India was self-sufficient in food; it has never faced a famine since. In 1970 Norman Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for firing the first shot in what came to be called the “green revolution”.

Today scientists use thermal neutrons, X-rays, or ethyl methane sulphonate, a harsh carcinogenic chemical—anything that will damage DNA—to generate mutant cereals. Virtually every variety of wheat and barley you see growing in the field was produced by this kind of “mutation breeding”. No safety tests are done; nobody protests. The irony is that genetic modification (GM) was invented in 1983 as a gentler, safer, more rational and more predictable alternative to mutation breeding—an organic technology, in fact. Instead of random mutations, scientists could now add the traits they wanted.

In 2004 200m acres of GM crops were grown worldwide with good effects on yield (up), pesticide use (down), biodiversity (up) and cost (down). There has not been a single human health problem. Yet, far from being welcomed as a greener green revolution, genetic modification soon ran into fierce opposition from the environmental movement.

I don't think we ever got to debate any real points about Monsanto.

You sound reasonable pbacot

I deleted the last post as per TomDCs request..

http://sketchucation.com/forums/download/file.php?id=104312

just as I suspected..hypocrite

So...are all you anti American sketchuppers gonna bail on trimble because they are a defense contractor? hmmm?

Ok I assume you mean DNA and of course nobody wants that.

Gilles...I always wanted to ask you..what is your avatar? I'm not seeing it. Is it something flying..dancing perhaps?

Is Trimble and evil corporation as well?

http://www.trimble.com/corporate/about_at_glance.aspx
Oh my GOSH! Trimble is AMERICAN AND RICH!
I suggest the management team here make some adjustments to their official and unofficial PR policies.

The only thing you know about me is that I use this website, profess US exceptionalism and am willing to debate with people on current and past events...

yet you seem to be inclined to attribute various character traits arbitrarily upon members of this forum for the mere fact that they commented on a subject concerning GMOs. In the last three posts you've concluded that I am religious, conservative, anti homosexual, watch or listen to Hannity....all of which may or may not be true...but you couldn't possibly know which because I've not commented on it.

What I know is...you didn't present any facts or assertions from other references claiming to be facts but then say "we should agree on a few facts".
The only assertion you've made that might be factual...is that Monsanto is a corporation and they made lots of money....and I bet you aren't even sure of that. Oh but you'll claim you are!

Did you even read the doctors blog on GMOs and why he is skeptical of the data in the studies in question? Did the big words confuse you? Were the colors too bland?

global climate change???? Are you going to wave the racism flag next?

Oblamer was just on tv using the "it's not about politics" line on the "gun violence issue"
Is he funny too?

This isn't a political issue...It's a science issue. You present evidence from an 11 yr old with basic speaking skills and a coloring book web page created by a people that sell dietary products.
You project your own motives on others and build strawmen based on half truths gained from a cursory examination of evidence that fits your perception of anything representing a corporation...why? Because that's your understanding of political division.
You begin every argument with a presupposition which automatically places any contradiction in the realm of religion, conservatism or just ignorance. That's because you are intolerant of anyone that has a viewpoint that varies from yours.

global moderator are two words I just don't see appropriate in your case...as you are neither.

Redirecting to https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement

(scienceblogs.com)

The doctor presenting this science isn't 11 and the reading may be too long and boring but if you DO entertain educated opinions you might find it interesting.

That's your argument? I expected a scientist or a doctor or at least an adult. Being 11 and able to deliver an oration is impressive but hardly what I would call convincing in this particular case.

But...I can see how the EMO team would embrace it.