Uncategorized

Debating GMOs, the recession, renewable energy, and whether the DPRK is “communist” or “rightwing”

Faisal Saeed Al Mutar
Yesterday at 9:31am ·
I don’t agree with many of what Ayan Hirsi Ali’s views and I have sent her countless emails of disagreements but I favor Mrs. Ali over any disgusting white guilt studies graduate and politically correct extreme left winger anytime of the day, no I don’t think all left wingers are politically correct and that’s why I used the word. “extreme” and I believe that this small but vocal faction of the left ought to be challenged everywhere and everyday in venues and university campuses because of their anti Liberalism and double standards. I didn’t come to the west to be silenced, I came to be free and live freely.
Unlike · · Share
You, Conny Charles Lindström and 92 others like this.
3 shares

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Amen, brother….I am extremely lib…but I take the other liberals to task when they start in with their science denying bullshit…..vaccines, GMO’s, and what not……
Yesterday at 9:34am · Unlike · 8

Debbie Hall Sigh at comparing vaccines to GMOs…
Yesterday at 9:36am · Like

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Please elaborate, Debbie.
Yesterday at 9:37am · Like · 1

Compton Ecks why it gotta be vaccines vs. GMOs??? cant we choose one but not accept the other? thats weird to me.
Yesterday at 9:38am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid…

Institute for Responsible Technology – 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs
http://www.responsibletechnology.org
1. GMOs are unhealthy. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urg…See More
Yesterday at 9:39am · Like

Jenniffer L. Korsund Sloan Because the stances of both are based on ignorance of the science behind them
Yesterday at 9:39am · Like · 1

Jenniffer L. Korsund Sloan And here come the links to b.s. sciency looking sites.
Yesterday at 9:40am · Like · 2

Timothy Kachinski What don’t you agree with her on?
Yesterday at 9:40am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall http://www.thenation.com/…/twenty-six-countries-ban…#

Twenty-Six Countries Ban GMOs—Why Won’t the US?
http://www.thenation.com
The case against GMOs has strengthened steadily over the last few years, even as the industry has expanded all over the world.
Yesterday at 9:41am · Like

Ed Emmer GMOs are important because they reduce the genetic diversity of our food supply and involve patents used to screw over regular as well as indigenous farmers. See: Monsanto.
Yesterday at 9:41am · Like

Jenniffer L. Korsund Sloan At least this one doesn’t have a shop now button, only a donate button
Yesterday at 9:41am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Sorry, this post isn’t about GMOs and I wish the person who posted that as an equivalence to PC BS re: Ayaan Hirsi Ali wouldn’t have done that.
Yesterday at 9:41am · Like

Jenniffer L. Korsund Sloan And at least 26 countries have banned marijuana, your point?
Yesterday at 9:42am · Like · 2

Ed Emmer If you think Monsanto is an imaginary figment, you’re the one who needs their head examined.
Yesterday at 9:42am · Like

Sarah A. McCloud I appreciate Ali’s working against FGM, and I agree with her views on Islam.

I don’t favor Ali’s (nor especially her husband’s) extremely conservative right wing views over the extreme left’s because even though the left is misguided, they mean to take care of the minority and the underprivileged. I don’t think austerity economics work or that the unemployed are lazy or that Obamacare will destroy the economy or that climate change is a lie… all things considered, I disagree with you.
Yesterday at 9:42am · Like · 4

Liam Devlin The “extreme leftist” you’re criticizing is a straw man, aka the conservative boogie man.
Yesterday at 9:42am · Edited · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski Ed, your position makes no sense. GMO’s are wonderful and they feed the world.
Timothy Kachinski’s photo.
Yesterday at 9:43am · Like · 8

Debbie Hall I don’t think AHA is rightwing. It’s just that the rightwing has been the only one to embrace her views because it bolsters their anti-Islam/pro-Christian positions.
Yesterday at 9:43am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall One word, Kachinski: Bees.
Yesterday at 9:43am · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski The bees are fine.
Yesterday at 9:44am · Like · 4

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Follow the science……good or bad…..and Debbie, I see that you cannot express it in your own words, but need to use links based on science denial…..I guess 35+ years of double-blind, peer-reviewed studies, along with the world’s scientific consensus means nothing to you…..fine, you don’t have to look the 9 million children under the age of 5 starve to death. So enjoy your organics…..for whatever that means….at your local stop and shop…….
Yesterday at 9:44am · Like · 2

Sarah A. McCloud AHA works for a right wing think tank.
Yesterday at 9:44am · Like

Debbie Hall Liam – they’re not boogeymen. Haven’t you ever dealt with them? I think what happened to AHA indicates that they do, in fact, exist.
Yesterday at 9:44am · Like

Debbie Hall Because that’s who would hire her, Sarah. The woman needs to make a living.
Yesterday at 9:44am · Unlike · 2

Sarah A. McCloud Do you know who her husband is?
Yesterday at 9:45am · Like

Debbie Hall The “liberals” in the Islamic world are embraced by the conservatives in the US, and rejected by the left in the US.
Yesterday at 9:45am · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski AHA is adamantly pro-free market, anti-Islam, and pro-American. For many people that is just too much. For me it is just perfect.
Yesterday at 9:45am · Like · 4

Ozy Miani “GMOs yadda yadda yadda”…
Ozy Miani’s photo.
Yesterday at 9:46am · Like · 3

Debbie Hall Why would it matter who her husband is, Sarah?
Yesterday at 9:46am · Like

Debbie Hall Yeah, the bees are just fine…http://blogs.reuters.com/…/mystery-of-the-disappearing…/

Mystery of the disappearing bees: Solved!
blogs.reuters.com
For a decade, scientists have fretted over the disappearance without a trace of …See More
Yesterday at 9:47am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Niall Ferguson, right? His books “Civilization” and “The Great Degeneration” are great.
Yesterday at 9:47am · Like · 1

Sarah A. McCloud You’re trying to paint Ali as a moderate. Knowing her views and her husband’s, I can’t see that at all.
Yesterday at 9:47am · Like

Francisco Magana Ruiz Monsanto does not equal all GMOs. I’m tired of people always resorting to Monsanto when saying GMOs are bad.
Yesterday at 9:48am · Unlike · 6

Sarah A. McCloud Timothy, if you like Niall Ferguson, you might be a conservative lol.
Yesterday at 9:48am · Edited · Like · 1

Debbie Hall LOL What the fuck do you think Monsanto produces?
Yesterday at 9:48am · Like

Ozy Miani “paint Ali as a moderate”…?!? The woman has a couple of reasons NOT to be “moderate” as far as issues as freedom and …er… SURVIVAL are concerned
Yesterday at 9:48am · Like · 3

Debbie Hall Sarah, is the woman an individual or is she defined by her husband’s views? I find that extremely misogynistic.
Yesterday at 9:49am · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski Christopher Hitchens said that he respected his work and it is highly scholarly. Furthermore, I am a conservative.
Yesterday at 9:49am · Like · 1

Francisco Magana Ruiz Because Monsanto produces all GMOs. Yeah. You can disagree with Monsanto and their practices all you want, but it doesn’t make all Genetically Modified Organisms bad.
Yesterday at 9:50am · Unlike · 3

Sarah A. McCloud I find it unrealistic to think that one isn’t judged by one’s partner’s views to some extent. ?
Yesterday at 9:50am · Like

Debbie Hall That’s ridiculous, Sarah.
Yesterday at 9:51am · Like

Timothy Kachinski You mean like Andrea Mitchell and Allen Greenspan?
Yesterday at 9:51am · Like

Debbie Hall Francisco, read the article I posted at the beginning.
Yesterday at 9:51am · Like

Ozy Miani Know what? I am not a conservative, and I feel entitled to reading Niall Ferguson (and others) without asking permission to ANY-F-ing-BODY
Yesterday at 9:51am · Edited · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Or like James Carville and his wife, whatever her name is.
Yesterday at 9:51am · Like

Timothy Kachinski I’m partially though the bee article, though it is hard to read while following the conversation. So far I am not convinced that a couple billion people should lie down and die to save bees who may or may not be dying.
Yesterday at 9:52am · Like

Debbie Hall It’s sad when we can’t be free thinkers and read all sorts of stuff lest we be labeled “conservative.”
Yesterday at 9:52am · Like

ABel AShes Crops have been gentically modified throughout history. Natural processes of evolution are genetic modification. Adaptation to new environments involve non-human caused genetic modification. Horticultural hybridization is deliberate man-made genetic modification that has been going on for thousands of years. Suddenly when genetic modification can be done in a more controlled, clinical way people automatically reject the entire proposition that anything good could ever come of it, which is in my mind a form of neo-Ludditism and quite backwards thinking. On the other hand many of the ways in which certain companies such as the hugely powerful and most often mentioned Monsanto have chosen to modify certain crops have some very serious downsides and it is no less absurd to assume something is safe than it is to assume that something is unsafe. Each genetic modification is a separate case that should be evaluated scientifically, ethically, and ecologically independently from other instances of genetic modification. Do pro-GMO people want more toxic pesticides in their food because the crops have been modified to survive levels of pesticide that would kill non-modified crops and possibly increasing soil and water contamination, while poisoning those who harvest and eat said crops? Do anti-GMO people want to prevent crops from being modified by taking genes from other species and splicing them into the genome in order to make subsequent crops naturally more resistant to pests and drought and reducing costs to farmers, preventing soil and water pollution, and creating higher yields that could save lives in famine stricken areas which are sure to be more numerous as anthropomorphic climate change, overpopulation, and the aforementioned soil and water contamination make survival harder for more and more people?
Yesterday at 9:52am · Like · 4

Timothy Kachinski The biggest threat to the food supply is the anti-GMO movement.
Yesterday at 9:52am · Like · 2

Debbie Hall Abel – genetic modification is not the same as genetic splicing.
Yesterday at 9:52am · Like

Compton Ecks Their relationship is so weird. Ferguson loves to disparage “childless homosexuals” while leaving his own wife & kids to be with AHA. Such typical conservative behavior….would be tragic if it weren’t so cliche.
Yesterday at 9:53am · Like

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Monsanto produces the future, Debbie…..a way to feed the starving….hell, I think they haven’t gone far enough….and Timothy is right, the fucking bees are just fine……
Yesterday at 9:53am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall For our purposes, GMO means “food-type” things created in a laboratory and mixing in materials, organic or otherwise, that would never occur in nature.
Yesterday at 9:53am · Edited · Like

ABel AShes Debbie genetic splicing is a form of genetic modification.
Yesterday at 9:54am · Like

Debbie Hall Raoul, keep drinking the konservative koolaid.
Yesterday at 9:54am · Like

Debbie Hall Abel – I just gave you the definition of GMO when it comes to this discussion.
Yesterday at 9:54am · Like

ABel AShes Debbie, there is literally nothing that would “never occur in nature”. Humans almost didn’t occur in nature.
Yesterday at 9:55am · Like · 2

Ozy Miani I am not a conservative, but I am to the right enough on the political spectrum, to think that any consideration about the “weirdness” of a “relation” is not in your jurisdiction
Yesterday at 9:55am · Like

Mike Ferry We can never be right or left in all things. The terms are without real substance.
Yesterday at 9:55am · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski Compton, I don’t think that it is accurate to say that. I know very little about Ferguson’s personal life, but wasn’t he divorced before getting together with AHA?
Yesterday at 9:55am · Like

Ozy Miani “would never occur in nature” based on…? probability? end of evolution? What?
Yesterday at 9:56am · Edited · Like

Debbie Hall Abel – that’s just stupid.
Yesterday at 9:55am · Like

Francisco Magana Ruiz A source for the “independent research” claims in that article would be nice.
Yesterday at 9:55am · Like

Debbie Hall what occurs in nature, duh.
Yesterday at 9:56am · Like

Sarah A. McCloud I have been a skeptic and freethinker for longer than Faisal has been alive. I like facts and people who deal in facts, Debbie. You obviously don’t share the same views. There are conservatives. That’s a fact. I can agree with some of Ali’s views and not others. I disagree with all of her husband’s political and economic views and as Ali agrees with his political views, as evidenced by her own essays, I can disagree with them too.
Yesterday at 9:56am · Unlike · 2

Louis Joon “Anti liberal left”, thats a new one on me. What does that even mean… Is it like the “anti conservative right?”
Yesterday at 9:56am · Like · 1

Ozy Miani everything and its contrary has been happening in nature for zillions years, and Evolution was not repealed as far as I know
Yesterday at 9:56am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Every animal-based research done re: gmos shows some sort of malady caused to the test subjects, Francisco. None of fared 100% healthy as a result of the testing.
Yesterday at 9:56am · Like

Ozy Miani Or do you seriously think that Evolution stopped at Homo Agriculus Asceticus XIX-Centurius?
Yesterday at 9:57am · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski Airplanes would never occur in nature. Neither would hydroelectric dams.
Yesterday at 9:57am · Like · 2

Debbie Hall If evolution occurs in nature, fine, but when it’s attempted in a lab, that’s not occuring in nature.
Yesterday at 9:57am · Like

Debbie Hall Well we don’t ingest airplanes do we?
Yesterday at 9:57am · Like

Ozy Miani Evolution generated Homo Engineericus, and Homo Engineericus is working his way through survival by changing the environment
Yesterday at 9:58am · Like

Ozy Miani We ingest micro-robots. we ingest small plastic containers with drugs. we ingest every kind of survival tools
Yesterday at 9:58am · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski Anti-liberal left sounds like the left period, if liberal is meant to mean classical liberal. People who want to ban transfats and certain sized soda drinks for instance.
Yesterday at 9:59am · Like

Debbie Hall As history has shown us, man is generally the cause of his own downfall. Man isn’t that fucking smart.
Yesterday at 9:59am · Like

Ozy Miani Well, I’ll always choose Man over Dinosaurs, thank you. Speaking of History…
Yesterday at 9:59am · Edited · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski Debbie, your claims about GMO’s showing damage to animal test subjects is undoubtedly false. Please present evidence to support this claim.
Yesterday at 10:00am · Like · 2

Debbie Hall Kachinski – google it. Do your own damn research.
Yesterday at 10:00am · Like

Francisco Magana Ruiz “Every animal research done”

Again, a cited study is appreciated. I am not a conservative, by the way, I just like seeing sources. “I saw it, take my word for it” isn’t enough.
Yesterday at 10:00am · Like · 2

Louis Joon So what if its done in the lab, its probably safer than in nature. Nature doesnt do anything for the benefit of humans or any other organism, when something evolves it does it at the expense of all things except itself, any benefit any other organism gets a bit of luck.
Yesterday at 10:00am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall and if you choose not to, that’s fine. I don’t care if you agree with me or not.
Yesterday at 10:00am · Like

Ozy Miani “do research” = “google”. ooooookeiiii…
See Translation
Yesterday at 10:01am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Debbie, evolution in the lab is the basis of pretty much every vaccine in existence.
Yesterday at 10:01am · Like

Francisco Magana Ruiz You’re making the claim. You should provide evidence for your claim.
Yesterday at 10:01am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Claims made without evidence can be dismissed, without evidence.
Yesterday at 10:01am · Like

Louis Joon There is no such thing as the balance of nature, it doesnt exist. Move on…
Yesterday at 10:01am · Like

Debbie Hall Do you think scientific papers aren’t available via a google search, Ozy?
Yesterday at 10:01am · Like

Debbie Hall Dismiss away or do your own research. You’ve obviously bought the line without investigating it on your own. So Tim, time to dive in and see if you’re wrong or not.
Yesterday at 10:02am · Like

Ozy Miani “balance of nature” being… what? ten of billions years of neverending change, instability, evolution, death of species? is that “equilibrium”?
Yesterday at 10:02am · Like · 1

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Oh, so what we humans do in a lab is not nature, Debbie? Are we not mammals, animals of this world? Just because we’re smart enough to produce a lab, now we’re no longer part of nature…..?
Yesterday at 10:02am · Like · 1

Compton Ecks “inconsistent” then, Ozy….I have little use for anyone who disparages homosexuals or the childless in any way and that has gotten him into quite a bit of hot water, considering his own treatment of his family. No, he was not divorced when he began dating AHA.
Yesterday at 10:02am · Like

Debbie Hall <<<<never mentioned balance of nature.
Yesterday at 10:02am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Debbie, I work between 60 and 70 hours a week. I have today and tomorrow off work. I'm not wasting my time doing your research to support your position for you.
Yesterday at 10:03am · Like · 1

Ozy Miani These people really don't consider human mind and actions as part of Nature. That's weird. Human intelligence is PART OF NATURE, as much as Oceans are!
Yesterday at 10:03am · Edited · Like

Louis Joon Tim you work too hard mate…
Yesterday at 10:03am · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski I'm a foreman in a factory.
Yesterday at 10:03am · Like

Debbie Hall Then you shouldn't have an opinion on something you've never researched, Tim. Make the time or shut your piehole.
Yesterday at 10:03am · Like

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke "There are hidden contradictions within the minds of people who “love nature” while deploring the “artificialities” with which “Man has spoiled ‘Nature.” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of “Nature”–but beavers and their damns are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver damn (erected by beavers for beaver’s purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purpose of men) the “Naturist” reveals his hatred for his own race–i.e., his own self-hatred. In the case of “Naturists” such self—hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate. As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. Sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women– it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly “natural.” Believe it or not, there were “Naturists” who opposed the first flight to old Earth’s Moon as being “unnatural” and a “despoiling of nature.”
Yesterday at 10:03am · Like · 3

Francisco Magana Ruiz You should enlighten us.

"You've obviously bought the line without investigating it on your own".

Nice assumption.
Yesterday at 10:04am · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski I have done the research on the topic and I am unfamiliar with your evidence about "every study" so I asked for it.
Yesterday at 10:04am · Like · 3

Debbie Hall Francisco, he just admitted he didn't have the time to look into it.
Yesterday at 10:04am · Like

Ozy Miani Yep. Everybody here is an illiterate moron who never read anything, except Debbie Hall
Yesterday at 10:05am · Like · 2

Debbie Hall If you'd researched it from all points of view, you'd be very familiar with those studies, Tim.
Yesterday at 10:05am · Like

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Debbie, you shut your fucking "piehole" You've already used lies and bullshit science for your case, so why should anyone even listen to your crap.
Yesterday at 10:05am · Like

Timothy Kachinski To re-quote Christopher Hitchens, "Claims made without evidence can be dismissed, without evidence."
Yesterday at 10:05am · Like

Debbie Hall So dismiss 'em. Like I said, I don't care if you agree with me or not.
Yesterday at 10:05am · Like

Debbie Hall Ozy, project much?
Yesterday at 10:05am · Like

Ozy Miani You said that twice already. So, stop caring.
Yesterday at 10:06am · Like

Alonzo Machiraju I think you should write a full essay explaining how you have deep respect for AHA's work even while disagreeing profoundly with many of her opinions.
Yesterday at 10:06am · Like · 1

Trish Delaney I like to call them the loony left and they are the flip side of any right wing fundamentalist
Yesterday at 10:06am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Here, for some myth busting:

http://www.amazon.com/…/161039…/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_4&#8230;

Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left
http://www.amazon.com
To listen to most pundits and political writers, evolution, stem cells, and clim…See More
Yesterday at 10:06am · Like · 3

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Yes, stop caring and read a fucking book
Yesterday at 10:06am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Ozy, was I addressing you with that statement? Nope. I was speaking to Tim.
Yesterday at 10:06am · Like

Ozy Miani Debbie, I was always on the losing end in my "debate classes" in college. Do you know what that means?
Yesterday at 10:06am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall So the leaders of 26 countries are wrong? LOL
Yesterday at 10:07am · Like

Debbie Hall Ozy, you're on my last nerve. Talk about a self-important douchebag. Be gone.
Yesterday at 10:07am · Like

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Debbie, you are addressing all of us, you know, the people that except scientific consensus……
Yesterday at 10:07am · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski A discussion board is an odd place to be if you are unconcerned with convincing people and refusing to present evidence when "all the studies" agree with you is even more strange…if that's a true statement.
Yesterday at 10:07am · Like · 2

Debbie Hall do you mean accept, Raoul?
Yesterday at 10:08am · Like

Vic Demented Debbie hall, the burden of proof lies with you…
Yesterday at 10:08am · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski You know he does. Everyone turns grammar nazi when it starts getting heated.
Yesterday at 10:08am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Like I said, do your own research.
Yesterday at 10:09am · Like

ABel AShes religion has polluted our minds when it comes to the whole concept of "nature". "Nature" is an abstact concept. Everything that is unnatural is made up entirely of elements derived from "nature". Humans are nature so everything we do is a natural process. We should get this "Garden of Eden" nonsense out of the way and look at whether something is beneficial or not. The list of "natural" (if that is meant to mean "not caused by humans") diseases of the body and mind is endless. The number of genetic defects that have occured in nature throughout history is horrifying. The fact that our genome is preprogammed to give us an inclination toward superstition, greed, and violence should be enough to demonstrate that "nature" should not be worshipped but understood instead.
Yesterday at 10:09am · Edited · Like · 2

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Yes, 26 countries are wrong……like Jennifer said earlier, more countries than that ban marijuana……
Yesterday at 10:09am · Like · 1

Ozy Miani @debbie hall: "Ozy, you're on my last nerve. Talk about a self-important douchebag. Be gone.": ok, this one was a strong, convincing argument.
Yesterday at 10:09am · Edited · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Seriously, you need to. It's important to research from each perspective.
Yesterday at 10:09am · Like

Karen Dupont The bees are NOT fine.
Yesterday at 10:09am · Unlike · 2

Timothy Kachinski I did my research Debbie and it doesn't agree with you.
Yesterday at 10:09am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall The bee article I posted has citations to many scientific studies, but they're choosing to ignore those. Typical when people don't like the when their position is challenged.
Yesterday at 10:10am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Karen, if you care about the bees then focus on the bees. Don't ban food for poor people.
Yesterday at 10:10am · Like · 2

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Yes, accept, Debbie….see how easy that was, admitting I was wrong……point out a flaw in my thinking and I'll change my thinking……
Yesterday at 10:10am · Like · 2

Debbie Hall That's great, Raoul. Now read the article I posted about the disappearing bees and learn some more about how you're wrong.
Yesterday at 10:11am · Like

Ed Emmer "Monsanto’s patented genetically modified (GM) seeds comprise roughly 90 percent of the U.S. seed market, driving conventional seeds to near extinction. Now, the company has set its sights on the rest of the world."
http://thinkprogress.org/…/monsanto-global-food-diversity/

How Monsanto Is Threatening Global Food Diversity With The State Department’s Help
thinkprogress.org
After a big win in the Supreme Court on Monday, biotech firm Monsanto Company ha…See More
Yesterday at 10:12am · Like

Vic Demented And the Harvard bee study has been challenged by other scientists, it fails to account for countries where bees are thriving even though the pesticides are in use, the study makes many assertions that aren't backed by data, shall I go on?
Yesterday at 10:12am · Like · 2

Timothy Kachinski Vic, do you have links to those challenges?
Yesterday at 10:12am · Like

Debbie Hall I'm still laughing at "the bees are fine."
Yesterday at 10:13am · Unlike · 1

Ed Emmer "Mexico, which is gradually opening its borders to GM crops, is a case study in the clashes between indigenous farmers and biotech giants. Mexican farmers are protesting the erosion of protections for the nation’s unique maize diversity to make way for Monsanto’s GM corn. In 2007, lawmakers passed an unprecedented seed law banning Mexican farmers from trading or giving away their own seeds and making it harder for non-commercial entities to sell their seeds."
Yesterday at 10:15am · Like

Louis Joon I am probably well left of Debbie politically, and I still dont believe in hippy anti science. being anti science seems to stand out on its own, its an independent ideology.

Every one of those 26 including my country the UK were going to except GMO crops, and then cancelled not because of scientific research, but because of people pressure, people afraid of science… People like Debbie.
Yesterday at 10:15am · Like · 3

Susan Amanda I am amazed at how almost every thread on FB is taken over by GMO. I honestly can not determine who is for or against it and why! It's turned into a dogma and everyone must believe my way. Monsanto is satan! Read DNA the Secret of Life by James Watson if want to decide for yourself.
Yesterday at 10:15am · Like · 1

ABel AShes If you want to avoid being factually correct too frequently, pick a side in a debate and never, ever question the dogma and orthodoxy of "your side"….works everytime!
Yesterday at 10:16am · Edited · Like · 1

Ozy Miani "being anti science seems to stand out on its own, its an independent ideology": yes
Yesterday at 10:16am · Like · 2

Vic Demented http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/

News and blogs page @ Scientific Beekeeping
scientificbeekeeping.com
Dr. Lu of Harvard Medical School, who has no background with honey bees, attempt…See More
Yesterday at 10:17am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Oh yeah, that's right Susan. This was about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. How the hell did it turn into a GMO argument? I am still interested to know where Faisal disagrees with her.
Yesterday at 10:17am · Like · 3

Vic Demented http://www.bostonglobe.com/…/nXvIA5I6IcxFRxE…/story.html

The Harvard scientist linking pesticides to honeybee colony collapse disorder – The Boston Globe
http://www.bostonglobe.com
The tale of how Harvard researcher Chensheng “Alex” Lu, beekeeper Ken Warchol of…See More
Yesterday at 10:18am · Like · 1

Susan Amanda Me too Timothy. I wondered the same thing.
Yesterday at 10:19am · Like · 1

Vic Demented ^. According to this article he had trouble getting his paper passed peer review in the us which is why it was published in an obscure journal in Italy
Yesterday at 10:19am · Like · 2

Timothy Kachinski Ah yes, the Wakefield method.
Yesterday at 10:20am · Unlike · 3

Paul Loebe GMO conspiracy theorists are the climate deniers of the left
Yesterday at 10:20am · Like · 2

Vic Demented See Debbie…that's how it works. You make a claim that is based on data, someone asks you for the data, you present it.
Yesterday at 10:21am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Pro-GMOers are like climate change deniers.
Yesterday at 10:21am · Like

Louis Joon The evolution of the anti science movement starts with Hiroshima and really gets a hold in the counter culture of the 60's where Agent Orange Thalidomide and DDT were discovered to be so bad, but it steam rolled once climate change had been discovered, yet the only thing that can put right mistakes made by science and humanity is, guess what ,more science, its on going theme.
Yesterday at 10:22am · Like · 1

Vic Demented In what way Debbie?
Yesterday at 10:22am · Like · 1

Louis Joon Because she wants to.
Yesterday at 10:22am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Anti-GMOers are like Holocaust deniers. There. Nanner nanner nanner!
Yesterday at 10:22am · Like · 2

Karen Dupont I have empirical evidence. I have seen only 2 bumble bees and NO honeybees. I have a very bee friendly yard. All dandelions and clover. I have to hand pollinate my zuchinni. Speaks to the future : /
Yesterday at 10:22am · Like

Vic Demented Not to mention antiVax
Yesterday at 10:22am · Like · 2

Ed Emmer It's not anti-science to want crop diversity preserved. Currently, support of GMO's provides a wedge for Monsanto to destroy crop diversity and take away native control of seeds (which it sees as competition and "theft"). Anything touched by Monsanto's pollen suddenly belongs to Monsanto. To oppose that is not anti-science.
Yesterday at 10:23am · Like · 1

Louis Joon GMO lovers are like Nazi's. Fact.
Yesterday at 10:23am · Like · 1

Vic Demented @karen: correlation does not equal causation
Yesterday at 10:23am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Because the science is there, when it's ALLOWED to be there, yet you haven't looked at it at all. You do realize that the companies that genetically modify our foods attempt to block independent studies constantly.
Yesterday at 10:24am · Like

Ozy Miani
Ozy Miani's photo.
Yesterday at 10:24am · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski Chuck Norris can genetically modify an organism by roundhouse kicking it. Fact.
Yesterday at 10:24am · Like · 1

Francisco Magana Ruiz Ed: which is why I said you can be against Monsanto and their practices, but it doesn't necessarily make GMOs bad.
Yesterday at 10:24am · Like · 2

Vic Demented If everything you said is true, it's still a false equivocation since there is scientific evidence that GMOs are not harmful, that they save lives
Yesterday at 10:24am · Like · 2

Ozy Miani
Ozy Miani's photo.
Yesterday at 10:25am · Like · 1

ABel AShes There is a very serious ecological (and therefore economic and social) issue occuring with bee colony collapse but the cause(s) are not 100% certain. I don't think the issue is that neonicotinoids cannot be the culprit or one of the culprits, but that more study needs to be done as there are other pesticides, parasites, and immunodifficiencies that may just as likely be the cause. Activists are not going to get tto the bottom of this, nor are politicians, scientists are.
Yesterday at 10:25am · Like · 1

Mallorie Nasrallah I give like zero shits about "the bees" and such, I know enough to know that I dont fucking know what their problem is, but I'd rather go with the answers we know work for feeding a semi-crowded planet right now.
Thats just personal preference.

But holy shit the fallacies here, "So the leaders of 26 countries are wrong? LOL." Seriously? For real? Yes of course they could be wrong. authority followed by incredulity does not a good argument make.

Its ok if *you* find these things persuasive, but before you go ranting and raving all over the place with clearly fallacious thinking, its just good practice to ask yourself, "is it fair to expect anyone else to be persuaded by this?"

And Faisal, why construct an argument against specifically the extremists? In an area were they are the majority, I understand that, but I think you are clearly talking about a very small minority. Maybe dont define them by something as remote and removed from the issue as their left / right alignment, but rather by the stupid thing they are doing which you wish to address. Doing otherwise is hugely divisive, creates all sorts of stawmen and is just bad politicking.
Yesterday at 10:25am · Like · 2

Ed Emmer Right now Monsanto (et al) and GMOs are strongly linked, and it's having devastating consequences.
Yesterday at 10:25am · Edited · Like

Louis Joon I could use Hitler Polpot and Stalin never used GMO crops there go GMO must be good. That would be good argument.
Yesterday at 10:25am · Like · 1

ABel AShes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder

Colony collapse disorder – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is a phenomenon in which worker bees from a beehi…See More
Yesterday at 10:25am · Like · Remove Preview

Vic Demented Ahh…so now we invoke the scientific conspiracy theory…just like climate change denialists who claim studies disproving climate change are being silenced
Yesterday at 10:26am · Like

Ozy Miani
Ozy Miani's photo.
Yesterday at 10:26am · Like · 1

Ozy Miani
Ozy Miani's photo.
Yesterday at 10:26am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall http://www.globalresearch.ca/ten-scientific…/5377054

Ten Scientific Studies Prove that Genetically Modified Food Can Be Harmful To Human Health
http://www.globalresearch.ca
"GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use…There i…See More
Yesterday at 10:26am · Like

Ozy Miani I am sorry, but I needed a strong dose of graphic scepticism. My blood sugar level was skyrocketing
Yesterday at 10:27am · Like

ABel AShes Mallorie, bees are essential to feeding a semi-crowded planet unless we find some artificial means of pollinating all of the crops that depend on bees. Bee colony collapse is a serious ecological catastrophe if it is not reversed.
Yesterday at 10:28am · Like · 3

Ozy Miani There, some New Age image to restore peace and benevolence in the discussion after all the sarcasm:
Ozy Miani's photo.
Yesterday at 10:28am · Unlike · 2

Karen Dupont I will bow out. I know what i know because i live with nature.
Yesterday at 10:28am · Like

Vic Demented Holy shit did you just post a link that lists the debunked rat tumor study?
Yesterday at 10:28am · Like · 1

Vic Demented http://www.scientificamerican.com/…/study-linking…/

Study Linking Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors Is Retracted
http://www.scientificamerican.com
Publisher withdraws paper despite authors' objections, citing weak evidence
Yesterday at 10:29am · Like · 2

Debbie Hall There are nine other studies there, Vic. I'm not vetting these, I'm just posting. The sun is out and I'm heading to the beach.
Yesterday at 10:29am · Like

ABel AShes New Age bullshit makes me want to punch holes in walls until my fists bleed…so thanks for that…hhhhhh
Yesterday at 10:29am · Like

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke
Raoul StinkyBritches Duke's photo.
Yesterday at 10:30am · Like

Ed Emmer No bees = no food, so it's sort of short sighted to not care about colony collapse.
Yesterday at 10:30am · Unlike · 1

Timothy Kachinski Ozy, it is a good image to be sarcastic to Karen's last comment. I take it that way and it makes me smile.
Yesterday at 10:30am · Like · 1

Vic Demented No one said we weren't concerned about Ccd, but you solve it with science…not intuition
Yesterday at 10:31am · Like · 1

Ed Emmer Kind of odd that that Raoul StinkyBritches Duke posts "here we go again," given that he derailed the conversation with GMOs in the first place.
Yesterday at 10:31am · Like

Louis Joon When you go to the about section of the website Debbie puts up, you see they're a media group lead by hippies, and not scientists.

"The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) is an independent research and media organization based in Montreal."

It sounds a bit like about the Answers in Genesis website.
Yesterday at 10:31am · Like · 2

Ozy Miani "No bees = no food": if you are a crab spider, indeed
Yesterday at 10:31am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Bottomline is climate change denial=money for multi-national, billion dollar corporations. GMO safety asumptions=money for multi-national, billion dollar corporations.
Yesterday at 10:32am · Like

Ozy Miani Canada! I knew it! The Canucks are behind all this! They pretend to be gentle and slightly dumb, but they are the real driving force of all conspiracies!
Yesterday at 10:32am · Edited · Like

Debbie Hall Louis, so? They cite actual peer-reviewed scientific studies. Read up on the studies.
Yesterday at 10:32am · Like

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Now, now….I did not. I just used GMO's and vaccines as an example of when I get frustrated with other liberals…..Debbie took it down the crazy train……so go and derail your fucking self, Ed….
Yesterday at 10:35am · Like · 1

Vic Demented So if GMO supporter = climate change denialists
And GMOs = food for starving people
Then environmentalists are responsible for increased starvation
Yesterday at 10:35am · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski Yes Debbie, IT IS THE JEWS! They and their billions are secretly behind everything! Well, everything wrong that is. Climate change denial and the pushing of GMO's is all for shadowing un-named figures who secretly are behind everything and motivated by super-greed making all their money from the suffering of others. The answer to all of our problems is to get 'em! Yes, I am convinced by your reasoning.
Yesterday at 10:35am · Like · 1

ABel AShes The Centre for Research on Globalization is this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist. A professor of economic…See More
Yesterday at 10:35am · Like · Remove Preview

Vic Demented See how flawed logic can backfire?
Yesterday at 10:35am · Like · 1

Ozy Miani Canadian Jews? he, nu?
Yesterday at 10:36am · Like · 1

Mallorie Nasrallah ABel, I know that. What I dont know is how to personally fix that. Do you absolutely know how to personally fix that? Do any of us? Probably not. If one were to claim they did personally know for sure how to fix "the bees" right here in this thread, I would think they were lying.

On the other hand we do have very good reason to believe that were we to eliminate or severely reduce the GMO population on this planet many many people would have to go without.

We may be on a very bad path with GMOs, I dont personally think we are, but hey, maybe. But for sure it is not one we can just reverse and expect people to suddenly gain the ability to live on mud. Thats hyperbolic, but only to a degree.

Its silly to me to take something we suspect (GMO contribution to possible bee colony decline) and take radical action (elimination or severe reduction of GMO populations), in hopes of maybe reversing it (colony decline) but for sure with the consequence of starving massive numbers of people.

Thats the problem, little evidence on one side, expecting the other side with lots of evidence to act, when their actions could kill billions.

No thank you, I do not want that.
Yesterday at 10:37am · Edited · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Tim, I'm not a conspiracy theorist so sorry to disappoint you. I also happen to be a Hebrew.
Yesterday at 10:37am · Like

Timothy Kachinski You sound like one.
Yesterday at 10:37am · Like · 2

Ozy Miani And now for another brief interlude of Nature, Peace, Harmony and cheesy graphics:
Ozy Miani's photo.
Yesterday at 10:39am · Like · 1

Ed Emmer Ha ha, have a nice day, Raoul StinkyBritches Duke!
Yesterday at 10:39am · Like

Mark Edward Caddo Debbie, "Organic Food" means billion dollar corporations like Whole Foods and Trader Joe's can make money off people without actually giving you a product that is any better than say a normal vegetable or fruit.
The problem of bees also has no known link to GMOs. There are some studies showing it linked to certain pesticides though.
Yesterday at 10:40am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Tim, not at all. I think the Citizens United decision provides the evidence that lobbyists wield massive power.
Yesterday at 10:42am · Like

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke I will Ed, sorry that you were shown to be wrong……I easily admitted it when I was wrong, too bad that you can't do the same. Cunt.
Yesterday at 10:43am · Like

Debbie Hall Mark, except the common man can produce his own organic food and those companies aren't interfering. Why do you think GMO labeling was fought so hard with billions of dollars thrown behind it?
Yesterday at 10:44am · Like

Timothy Kachinski You realize that in a discussion of AHA that was hijacked by anti-GMO people you just brought up Citizens United? Can you really not see how you sound like a conspiracy theorist? We can talk about Citizens United and I can try to persuade you that that decision was actually good while others who agree with me now may disagree with me on that because it is a different issue, but can't you see how your reasoning is based on powerful secret interests controlling world events and issues?
Yesterday at 10:44am · Like · 1

ABel AShes Again the the problem is that some genetic modifications are beneficial and others are detrimental (I'm not talking about the bees issue). But on the issue of colony collapse we need to figure out what is causing it and reverse it or billions may starve because of it. Right now 21,000 people or so die from the effects of starvation everyday and I fully support modifying crops to produce higher yields, with less water usage, less pesticide and herbicide usage, in higher and lower temperatures than previously optimal, with higher nutritional yields ("golden rice" for instance). I don't support anything that is designed to force farmers to buy expensive seeds or go bankrupt, or to not allow seeds to be replanted, or to increase use of toxic hydrocarbon based pesticides that have the effect of drastically decreasing the soil's ability to grow subsequent crops in coming years.
Yesterday at 10:46am · Edited · Like · 2

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Why should a company be forced to label their product if 35 years of scientific study says there is NO health concerns?
Yesterday at 10:45am · Like · 1

Mark Edward Caddo I think GMO labeling is a big deal because some countries freaked out and banned GMO foods despite there being no science to back up the claims and there being a ton of science on the other side.
Also, if a normal person had access to a GMO crop they would have all the same benefits.
Yesterday at 10:46am · Edited · Like · 2

Timothy Kachinski Rauol, because CoRpOrAtIoNs!
Yesterday at 10:46am · Like · 1

Ozy Miani Ed Emmer, sorry for googling you, but… are you really a cat-owning chick with a fixation for odd christian relics, especially "eye-rolling bearded crucifixes"? Cool!!!
Yesterday at 10:47am · Edited · Like · 1

Vic Demented Why do you think labeling was fought against by doctors, relief agencies etc?
Yesterday at 10:47am · Like

Debbie Hall Tim, it was hijacked when the person who made the first comment equated raling against AHA the equivalent of anti-GMO people.
Yesterday at 10:47am · Unlike · 2

Vic Demented Damnit mark,you beat me to it
Yesterday at 10:47am · Like · 2

Timothy Kachinski Yes, fanatics. Okay, that makes sense.
Yesterday at 10:48am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall If it's GMO and there's nothing wrong with it, fucking label it. They're forced to put ingredients on labels, so they should have to put how the "food" was created. Can't have it both ways.
Yesterday at 10:49am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Your comments are conspiratorial and wrong, can we require you to label them that way?
Yesterday at 10:49am · Like · 1

Mark Edward Caddo I also think the hate for Monsanto should be directed toward their corporate practices (Which do suck) rather than their science (Which seems to be mostly solid).
Yesterday at 10:51am · Like · 4

Mallorie Nasrallah ABel, I dont think we actually disagree. If your issue is an issue with the current intellectual property laws, and specifically an issue with Monsanto's application of those IP laws, then I would suggest you look in to the actual cases (there are shockingly few), but I over all would be inclined to agree that our country specifically has huge problems with IP.

But thats a whole other thing.
Yesterday at 10:51am · Unlike · 3

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke I used GMO's and vaccines as a comparison to the point I was making, and I did it very nonchalantly….you're crazy ass took us down this path.
Yesterday at 10:51am · Like

Timothy Kachinski I'll tell you what, if you are concerned about GMO's then why don't you put on a monster mask, make a sign that says "Frankenfood", and dance in front of local supermarkets to educate people about it.
Yesterday at 10:52am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Tim, sorry but that's intellectually dishonest to equate your opinion as fact GMO is not inherently good or bad, as you've stated, so labeling something as GMO shouldn't be a big deal.
Yesterday at 10:52am · Like

Timothy Kachinski There is no evidence GMO's do harm so compulsory speech is not justified like warning on bleach.
Yesterday at 10:53am · Like · 1

Jenniffer L. Korsund Sloan American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.”
http://www.apsnet.org/…/positi…/Pages/Biotechnology.aspx

American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of geneticallyengineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified(GM) crop plants.”
http://www.ascb.org/index.php?option=com_content&#8230;

Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): “GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.”
http://bit.ly/166WHYZ

American Society of Plant Biologists: “The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.”
http://bit.ly/13bLJiR

International Seed Federation: “The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” http://bit.ly/138rZLW

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: “Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.”
http://bit.ly/11cTKq9

Crop Science Society of America: “The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology.”
http://bit.ly/138sQMB

International Society of African Scientists: “Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.”
http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK

Federation of Animal Science Societies: “Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.” http://bit.ly/133F79K

French Academy of Science: “All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.”
http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO

Biotechnology
http://www.apsnet.org
The American Phytopathological Society’s (APS) governing Council approved on Aug…See More
Yesterday at 10:53am · Like · 3

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Again, why should a company be forced by law to label their product as something that is not harmful?
Yesterday at 10:53am · Like

Jenniffer L. Korsund Sloan Scientific consensus always outweighs fear-mongering, paranoia, ignorance of biology and chemistry, and authority opinion. Period.

Please take the time to consider that you may be wrong on this subject.

American Association for the Advancement of Science: "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques, the AAAS Board of Directors has concluded. Legally mandating labels on GM foods could therefore “mislead and falsely alarm consumers…”
http://www.aaas.org/…/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

U.S. National Academy of Sciences: "To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of any human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified."
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977

Food and Agriculture Organization: "Scientists generally agree that genetic engineering can offer direct and indirect health benefits to consumers (ICSU). Direct benefits can come from improving the nutritional quality of foods (e.g. Golden Rice), reducing the presence of toxic compounds (e.g. cassava with less cyanide) and by reducing allergens in certain foods (e.g. groundnuts and wheat)."
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm#P3_1651The

American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”
http://www.ama-assn.org/…/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods&#8230;
Yesterday at 10:54am · Like · 3

ABel AShes Timothy, are you 100% certain that ALL human-caused genetic modifications to food crops are beneficial and have no potentially negative effect on the environment, improverished communities, or human health? Debbie, are you 100% certain that ALL human-caused genetic modifications to food crops are detrimental and offer no potential benefits to the environment, impoverished communities, or human health?
Yesterday at 10:55am · Like · 2

Debbie Hall Lobbyist groups.
Yesterday at 10:56am · Like

Jenniffer L. Korsund Sloan …if those are not enough, here are 2000+ studies and over half of them are independent.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/…/with-2000…/&#8230;

With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science |…
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org
Anti-GMO activists can no longer claim that there is no independent research of …See More
Yesterday at 10:56am · Like · 3

Mallorie Nasrallah Jenniffer, youre brilliant for posting that, but everyone can see that. I want to take a special moment aside to thank you for removing the "previews". Holy shit do those annoy the fuck out of me, and also look like butthole.
So cheers to you.
Yesterday at 10:56am · Like · 3

Timothy Kachinski Of course I'm 100% sure, because that is a reasonable requirement and an intellectual possibility.
Yesterday at 10:57am · Like

Jenniffer L. Korsund Sloan Debbie Hall, when you say things like "lobbyist groups", have you considered the amount of money companies like Mercola off of fear mongering and the scientific ignorance of the paranoid public?
Yesterday at 10:58am · Like · 2

Debbie Hall Here's a guy on YOUR side of the argument. Some of the key issues that support MY side of the argument in this interview are as follows:

"What are people so worried about, then? Some have argued that new allergies could be induced by the creation of new proteins—Novella calls this a "legitimate concern" but says that GM foods undergo testing to prevent this from happening."

"Novella acknowledges that the complicated nature of genetics means that GM technology could conceivably have "unanticipated consequences," but, he says, "we've been doing this for decades now, and there have been tons of studies looking at the results of genetic modification, and we're not producing these scary monsters—this so-called Frankenfood. It just hasn't happened."

"Unfortunately, Novella explains, the success of these GM crops can create perverse incentives to grow one type of plant exclusively. And just like with antibiotics, overuse of pest-resistant crops can lead to the creation of "superpests"—the agricultural counterpart of superbugs."

http://www.motherjones.com/…/inquiring-minds-steven&#8230;

No, GMOs won't harm your health
http://www.motherjones.com
Dr. Steven Novella argues that many of the fears surrounding genetically modified crops are unsupported.
Yesterday at 10:59am · Like

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Just wait…..she's been holding back…..but I feel like she's ready to use the "shill" for Monsanto and "sheeple" very soon…..
Yesterday at 10:59am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall They've only been employed for a decade. There are no long-term studies.
Yesterday at 11:00am · Like

Debbie Hall Well, since 96, so almost 2 decades now.
Yesterday at 11:00am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Genetically modified sheeple.
Yesterday at 11:00am · Like · 1

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Again, ignorance, Debbie…..over 35 years of studies……
Yesterday at 11:01am · Like

Debbie Hall Raoul, if you can only interject your belief of what I am in the form of ridicule instead of challenging what I've put forth, then you're simply a douchebag who can't employ critical thinking.
Yesterday at 11:01am · Like

Debbie Hall And no long term, bitch.
Yesterday at 11:01am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Debbie, by 2 decades do you mean "all of recorded history" since all crops have been genetically modified through selective breeding? If so then I totally agree with you.
Yesterday at 11:01am · Like · 1

ABel AShes I think vaccines are quite different than GMOs because vaccines at least all have the same objective, to prevent disease, and employ a similar method of doing so. Crops are genetically modified for many different reasons and in many different ways. .I am more inclined to support modifying crops to not need toxic pesticides than to modify them to survive what would have previously been levels of pesticide that would have killed the crop.
Yesterday at 11:02am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Tim – selective breeding of one type of apple with another type of apple, or one citrus with another type of citrus is not what we're referring to as genetic modification. Another false equivalency.
Yesterday at 11:02am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Debbie, I refer you to Jennifer for research on the topic. She has taken the time and effort to compile the peer reviewed research on the point.
Yesterday at 11:02am · Like · 1

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke :Ridicule? Being ignorant of something is not ridicule…..I'm ignorant of many subjects…..sincerely, Simple Douchebag…..
Yesterday at 11:03am · Like

Debbie Hall Every one of those groups are a lobbyist group. Every one of them.
Yesterday at 11:03am · Like

Debbie Hall Raoul, you're painfully ignorant on this topic. Go color or something.
Yesterday at 11:03am · Like

Timothy Kachinski You have an obsession with saying "every" and "all" when talking about studies don't you?
Yesterday at 11:04am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall No, I avoid absolutism. In this case, however, every one of those groups she posted is in fact a lobbyist group.
Yesterday at 11:04am · Like

Timothy Kachinski People who say "every" and "all" typically have not read "one".
Yesterday at 11:04am · Like

Timothy Kachinski THAT'S JEWISH RESEARCH!
Yesterday at 11:05am · Like · 1

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke I'm painfully ignorant, I resort to ridicule….? Hmmmmm, what's that saying about the pot and kettle?
Yesterday at 11:05am · Like

Debbie Hall Raoul, if you don't like it handed back to you, don't dish it out.
Yesterday at 11:05am · Like

Ozy Miani Time for some refreshing nonsense
Ozy Miani's photo.
Yesterday at 11:06am · Like · 1

Debbie Hall Whiny little bitches.
Yesterday at 11:06am · Like

Debbie Hall I'm off to enjoy nature. Keep on buying the bullshit, conservatards.
Yesterday at 11:07am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Genetically modified nature.
Yesterday at 11:07am · Like · 3

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Would love to see the empirical evidence of myself "dishing out" the ridicule….
Yesterday at 11:08am · Like

Francisco Magana Ruiz Any proof that all those are lobbyist groups? Should I take your word for it or are you gonna tell me to google it myself again?
Yesterday at 11:08am · Like · 1

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Conservatards…? I guess I ruined her "sheeple" attack….
Yesterday at 11:09am · Like · 1

ABel AShes I support this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

Golden rice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Golden rice is a variety of Oryza sativarice produced through genetic engineerin…See More
Yesterday at 11:09am · Like · Remove Preview

ABel AShes I oppose this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready_soybean

Roundup Ready soybean – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
GTS 40-3-2 (OECD UI: MON-04032-6, also known as Roundup Ready Soybean) is a gene…See More
Yesterday at 11:10am · Like · Remove Preview

Ozy Miani May I as a question?
Yesterday at 11:11am · Like

Timothy Kachinski No, this is wrapping up and it's 75 and sunny outside.
Yesterday at 11:11am · Like · 2

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Of course.
Yesterday at 11:11am · Like

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Does that mean I have to put pants on?
Yesterday at 11:12am · Like

Timothy Kachinski I'm not.
Yesterday at 11:12am · Like · 1

Ozy Miani The question is the following: isn't "genetic" by definition about "modification"?
Yesterday at 11:14am · Unlike · 2

Ozy Miani
Ozy Miani's photo.
Yesterday at 11:15am · Like

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Yeah, in an way.
Yesterday at 11:15am · Like

Ozy Miani Just asking, because I often read people talking of "genetic heritage" as if it meant "carbon copy", "unmutable", "stable". Real conservatives!
Yesterday at 11:16am · Edited · Unlike · 2

Ozy Miani My very limited knowledge of biology tells me that there is more chaos and variation to be expected in any single "natural" human sexual conception, than in ANY lab experiment
Yesterday at 11:18am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Young man, you were denied permission to ask that question.
Yesterday at 11:18am · Like

Ozy Miani I am not young
Yesterday at 11:18am · Like

Timothy Kachinski I am. Denied. Go outside.
Yesterday at 11:19am · Like

ABel AShes As for AHA, I can't speak for Faisal but I for one admire her a great deal for her courage and audacity but I think she made a mistake by getting involved with rightwing think tanks and endorsing "libertarian" economic superstition, but then I have the same problem with a few other atheist intellectuals I otherwise admire.
Yesterday at 11:19am · Edited · Like · 1

Debbie Hall and here's something that a anti anti-GMO person wrote…

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/stop-monsanto/

How Do We Stop Monsanto? It's as Easy as This… – Forward Progressives
http://www.forwardprogressives.com
TweetIt seems that nearly everyone needs a boogeyman, and for many, it is Monsan…See More
Yesterday at 11:19am · Like

Debbie Hall I agree Abel, and that's part of why I've always encouraged Faisal to avoid anything considered "right-wing."
Yesterday at 11:20am · Like

Debbie Hall okay – clouds finally dispersed and I really am going to go to the beach and then for a boat ride.
Yesterday at 11:21am · Like

Timothy Kachinski Read AHA's autobiography. She joined a left wing think tank when she moved to Denmark and then began moving towards libertarianism long before she was threatened with murder via murder.
Yesterday at 11:21am · Unlike · 3

Philippe Assouline I thought you came for the burritos
Yesterday at 11:23am · Like

ABel AShes I think Ayaan's economic views are her own. I disagree with them nonetheless. I disagree with people who dismiss her because they disagree with her on issues other than her central fields of activism: opposition to Islamic oppression of nonbelievers, women, and minorities. I am a huge admirerer of her.
Yesterday at 11:27am · Like · 2

Timothy Kachinski You shouldn't disagree with her economic views. They are correct. I too admire her.
Yesterday at 11:28am · Like · 1

Ozy Miani "libertarian economic superstition": that's another quite scientific definition
Yesterday at 11:29am · Like

ABel AShes There are many more problematic people such as Walid Phares who writes brilliantly educational studies on Islamism such as Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against The West" and "The Coming Revolution: Struggle For Freedom In The Middle East" in which he argues in favor of secular governments in the Middle East and in opposition to theocracy but he is a regular guest on Pat Robertson's 700 Club and supported Mitt Romney for President.
Yesterday at 11:31am · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski Alright, let's call truce. I want to do my work out, take a shower, and enjoy my rare two day weekend.
Yesterday at 11:31am · Like · 2

ABel AShes …of course he used to be a regular on MSNBC until they got too scared to criticize Islam and he had to jump ship and get in bed with the American rightwing…well then there is the issue that he was a commander in the rightwing Christian Phalange militia in Lebanon which fought a civil war with the rightwing Shiite Muslim Hezbollah.
Yesterday at 11:34am · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski Rightwing Hezbollah. Because Hezballah loves free markets.
Yesterday at 11:36am · Like · 1

Jenniffer L. Korsund Sloan Sigh. Without reading one article I posted, she dismisses the lot with the word lobbyist. Talking to people who are religious about their misinformation is like clapping with one hand. I'm out.
Yesterday at 11:36am · Unlike · 4

ABel AShes "libertarian economic superstition": that's another quite scientific definition…obviously meant to be sarcastic but in fact demonstrably true in many ways: "the invisible hand", "the magic of the market place", "self-regulating markets"….
Yesterday at 11:37am · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski You understand that the "invisible hand" is the same concept as "evolution", right?
Yesterday at 11:37am · Like

Jenniffer L. Korsund Sloan Not sure I follow Timothy Kachinski
Yesterday at 11:38am · Like

ABel AShes right wing
noun
1.
members of a conservative or reactionary political party, or those opposing extensive political reform.
2.
such a political party or a group of such parties.
3.
that part of a political or social organization advocating a conservative or reactionary position: The union's right wing favored a moderate course of action.
Yesterday at 11:40am · Unlike · 1

ABel AShes Capitalism was, at the time of Adam Smith, definitely not a "right-wing" movement or idea. It was a form of radical redistribution of wealth wherein a person could earn wealth by work rather than inheritance and nepotism. Adam Smith was also a proponent of social welfare programs.
Yesterday at 11:42am · Like · 2

Timothy Kachinski Evolution is the systemic adaptation of an ecology to its environment. For example take foxes chasing rabbits. The foxes are not trying to breed faster rabbits by eating the slowest ones, but that is the systemic result of their interaction. The fast rabbits survive and reproduce while the foxes continue to eat the slowest rabbits. The evolutionary result is faster rabbits.

When Smith wrote of the invisible hand he was talking about this process. It is not through the intentions of the business people that we get out products, but through the systemic interactions. The butcher doesn't intend to reduce prices and profits by introducing new methods, he just intends to compete and earn money. The results of the market are through the interactions and what emerges is the product, not what was intended.
Yesterday at 11:42am · Like · 1

ABel AShes Are you making the ascertion that evolution always produces favorable results when left unregulated?
Yesterday at 11:44am · Like

Jenniffer L. Korsund Sloan I missed ABel AShes comment. Lol. I was on a completely different train of thought.
Yesterday at 11:44am · Like

Jenniffer L. Korsund Sloan Oh wow, your conversation is way out of my league. I think I'll take this as a learning opportunity and just observe.
23 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski No, I'm saying that evolution adapts to the environment it is in. This type of thinking is what gave birth to modern economics. Capitalism is good because the rules set an environment where what evolves are interactions where you make money by serving your fellow man. If governments change the rules then evolution adapts. That is not necessarily good for people as a result and it is not good because those most fit for that environment are evolving. If the rules say you get your wealth by government favor then those best at getting such favors will rise to the top. Since government is finances through taxes that means a sort of "pollution" that drags the entire economy down.
23 hours ago · Like · 1

Ozy Miani Timothy Kachinski: "it's winding down"… yeah, right!
Ozy Miani's photo.
23 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Can you explain how taxes drag the economy down more than rising costs of goods and services in the "free market" do?
23 hours ago · Like

Jenniffer L. Korsund Sloan ABel AShes, evolution doesn't produce favorable or unfavorable results. The mechanics of evolution determine whether a trait will be selected for in its existing environment. I don't understand much of the economics you're talking about but if evolution is being used as a comparison then there's my two cents.
23 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 2

Timothy Kachinski Well first, higher taxes by definition raise costs. Second, markets have a very clear empirical tendency to reduce costs, not raise them. Also, getting back to thinking like an economist, taxes are an involuntary interaction. As a result the party getting the money only needs to be concerned with their end of it. As a result productivity is reduced.
23 hours ago · Like · 1

ABel AShes I agree that any increase in expenses to a business, household, or government has that effect, which can be offset by other effects (or not), but it seems a bit religious (sorry) to say that private and public expenses have an instrinsically different effect on a person's pocketbook or bank account.
23 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Deregulation of market speculation has a clear empirical tendency to increase uncertainty as tto he actual market value of any given commodity or service leading to unrealistically high or low average pricing and economic instability.
23 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski Well nobody says that. It can seem that way from the outside looking in because libertarians say that most of the time government has a negative effect, but it is important to look at the mechanics of the argument. Most of the time what government does is inefficient because the incentive structures are all wrong and what develops within those set of incentives produces all sorts of unintended consequences.
23 hours ago · Like · 2

Timothy Kachinski It is not at all clear that deregulation of market speculation does that. Market speculation plays an important role in the economy, not the least of which are the signals that it sends. It is also important to note that everyone speculates and various market institutions that deal with speculation may simply transfer existing risk rather than create new risk.

Often Wall Street is compared to gambling, but in many cases it is the opposite. For example take futures markets. Wall Street brokers offer to buy certain crops (say soybeans) in the future at a given price. If the market at that time has a price that is higher than the contract then the speculator makes money. If the price is lower, than the speculator loses money. However this is the opposite of gambling because the speculation is built into the reality of farming. Whether the speculator existed or not the risk of the future price not covering the costs of farming still exists. What the farmer is buying is peace of mind while the speculator can use the Law of Large Numbers to sell a huge number of futures contracts and while losing money on some of them will make money on enough others to cover his costs.

Speculation is often about risk management, not the particular field in which speculation is taking place. This leads to greater stability for the farmer since he doesn't risk going bankrupt because he has a guaranteed price when harvest time comes and greater stability for the economy as a whole as now those who specialize in risk management can consolidate all this existing risk into large financial packages.
23 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Government gave us: the internet, public highways, mass transit systems including railroads, public energy infrastructure such as power plants and power grids, constitutions which limit the powers of said governments, laws and regulations to enable legal remedies when wronged by others rather than having to solely rely on violence, civil rights protections for minorities, funding for scientific and medical research….government should not be treated as a boogieman or something that should be "small enought to drown in a bathtub".
23 hours ago · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski Actually most of those things existed prior to the government's action. Highways have been constructed apart from government, electricity was certainly a development by private institutions and inventors, railroads were also private (and while the government sponsored intercontinental railroad was plagued with corruption that built by James J. Hill produced far more efficient results than the Union Pacific), and many other things that we now think of as public were once private, including the New York subway system.

Again though, what is important is the economic way of thinking about things and that is not a strict government vs. private market dichotomy.
23 hours ago · Like · 1

ABel AShes Greed is about the worst incentive one could have and one that needs to be regulated just as surely as violent tendencies do. We should never assume that people will behave rationally or ethically in any sector of society from the markets to government to family affairs as we know that humans are not always rational or ethical and we should have systems in place to reduce the damage that such irrational and unethical behavior can have on the lives of others.
23 hours ago · Like · 1

ABel AShes I agree with your last sentence "Again though, what is important is the economic way of thinking about things and that is not a strict government vs. private market dichotomy". Mixed economies function best. Neither "public" nor "private" should be a "boogieman".
23 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski The simple fact that government did this or that doesn't mean that (1) it wouldn't have been done without them, (2) that is has produced a net gain for society by producing it, or (3) that private institutions cannot do it better. For example government played a (highly exaggerated) role in the development of the internet, but there was virtually no development of it until private institutions began to get involved. Government can put a man on the moon, but doing so did not produce anything but a feather in the hat of the glory of America. While awesome and great it was ultimately a multi-billion dollar vacation that had a net negative impact on the economy. Now you can say it was a great achievement, and it was, but it was not economically efficient and had costs.
23 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski I don't agree that mixed economies function best, as that term is commonly used, but it is important to understand economics.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say greed. If you mean wanting things regardless of the impact it has on others then I would argue that capitalism is the system that checks it. In capitalism exchange must be voluntary which forces those who want more to get it by persuasion. Adopting other methods of gaining money, such as through redistribution, gives greed a coercive angle to gain wealth. I also believe this brief statement on greed is worth the two minutes:

Milton Friedman – Greed
In his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962) Milton Friedman (1912-2006) advocate…See More
23 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Everytime someone gets paid there is a "redistribution of wealth". "Economics" has become more of a philosophy than a science as it has gotten away from some of the basics of classical economics. At it's root all economic activity is a result of human thought, effort, and the utilization of natural resources and available technology and infrastrcuture. Any economic theory that ignores ecological impacts is ignoring something far more fundamental to economic stability and resilience than even currency and credit. Any economic theory that ignores the negative effects of allowing the majority of any said society to do most of the work and earn the least of the profits is very far removed from both morality and reason.
23 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2

ABel AShes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

History of the Internet – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
The history of the Internet begins with the development of electronic computers …See More
23 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview

ABel AShes One of the things destroying American capitalism is the incentive structure created by the stockmarket. The incentive is to avoid long range thinking when you have to worry about pleasing shareholders 3 months down the line and to increase shareholder value (or perception of value) regardless of actual profitability. This was the primary cause of the "dot com implosion" and one of the factors in the 2007/2008 economic recession.
23 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Profit isn;'t about good to society. It's about good to certain people in a society. I think that is fine, but we do need public programs that benefit everyone and Friedman is very wrong about greed.
23 hours ago · Like

Ed Emmer "Why should a company be forced to label their product if 35 years of scientific study says there is NO health concerns?" Simple: because even if GMOs are safe to eat, there are numerous other reasons why they are harmful, which have already been mentioned earlier in the thread: namely, they threaten diversity in our seed stock, and allow Monsanto to screw over farmers using their own seed — and if someone doesn't want to contribute to that, they should be able to know if the food they are buying contributes to Monsanto and Co. or not. An added note: it makes no sense to argue for a free market AND say that consumers should be kept in the dark about what they are buying.
23 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes The Institute for Responsible Technology is this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_M._Smith

Jeffrey M. Smith – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Jeffrey M. Smith (born 1956) is an American consumer activist,[2] self-published…See More
22 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Ozy Miani bullshit: here's the proof:
Ozy Miani's photo.
22 hours ago · Unlike · 1

Timothy Kachinski Redistribution of wealth is a phrase that, in it's common usage, implies coercion. A redistribution of wealth in that sense does not occur every time somebody gets paid. There are important differences between voluntary and involuntary exchanges, not the least of them being moral.

With all due respect I do not think you have a firm understand or interest in the history of economics. I do not think you are prepared to debate its history and I believe your statement about it changing from a science to a philosophy as it moved away from classical economics is a rhetorical rather than historical statement on your part.

Economics doesn't ignore ecological impacts. The very term externality is a term invented by the economics profession.

"The incentive is to avoid long range thinking when you have to worry about pleasing shareholders 3 months down the line and to increase shareholder value (or perception of value) regardless of actual profitability."

That's interesting, how would you test for that? How would you treat this as a scientific hypothesis to be tested against evidence?

Profit doesn't just play a role for benefiting those who create it. It plays a very important role in the economy as well. Economist Walter Williams does an excellent job explaining that:

Walter E Williams – The Function of Profits
Dr. Walter E Williams explains how the prospect of profits and the specter of lo…See More
22 hours ago · Like

Thomas Harvey There is a marked degree of difference between a liberal-oriented person and a Libertarian , and some people haven't been paying attention to the "T" 's . I try to be humane but sometimes I am just a human.
22 hours ago · Unlike · 1

Ed Emmer There's also a contradiction between the idea that the marketplace is the sum of rational agents' choices and the point of most advertising, which is to get people to purchase irrationally.
22 hours ago · Unlike · 1

Timothy Kachinski Ed, first of all the notion of rationality in economics is one of systemic rationality, not individual rationality. Second, I know of no evidence that advertizing exists to get people to purchase things irrationally. Third, I know of very few government actions that can be described as rational.
22 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Shareholders who hold on to stock as a lomgterm investment have an incentive to see the companies they invest in profit, but companies seeking investment also have an incentive to deceive shareholders into thinking they are more profitable than they actually are and this is what caused the "dot com implosion".
22 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski As for the 2007/08 recession, I shall provide this 30 minute interview with economist Thomas Sowell on the topic which discusses the nature of the collapse in great empirical detail (he is being interviewed for his book on the subject). I know it is weinery to post long videos in debates, but it is fairly comprehensive and I am looking to take a shower and get out of the house.

Thomas Sowell on the Housing Boom and Bust
Thomas Sowell discusses how we got into the current economic disaster that developed out of the economics and politics of the housing boom and bust.
22 hours ago · Like · 1

Ed Emmer No evidence? Watch some advertisements. We're supposed to buy a car or a beer because of a woman's breasts, etc.
22 hours ago · Unlike · 1

Ed Emmer Raoul, that's a laugh: "Would love to see the empirical evidence of myself "dishing out" the ridicule…." You say I'm a fucking cunt. That's pretty clear evidence of ridicule. I have said nothing of the sort to you.
22 hours ago · Unlike · 1

Timothy Kachinski I know of no evidence to suggest that is what happened with the dot.com bust. As far as I can tell with that is that you had a brand new technology and marketing device for which people had no past evidence to go off of and the discovery process of how efficient these new things are simply led to over-investment, along with some excess stimulus from the federal reserve keeping the interest rates for borrowing money artificially low. Your explanation also doesn't hold water internationally. Canada for instance has experienced virtually no financial crises in its history in spite of having shareholders, stock markets, and speculators. If this were a natural defect of the market then why doesn't it occur everywhere all the time?
22 hours ago · Like

Sassan K. Darian Where do you disagree with her on?
22 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Sowell's analysis is at best an oversimplification and at worst deliberately dishonest. I'm not saying that everything he says is untrue but that he twists the trust and commits enormous sins of ommission.
22 hours ago · Like · 1

ABel AShes https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLABA61ABFAE086C3D

Everything Thomas Sowell Thinks is Wrong
http://www.youtube.com
Thomas Sowell's ideas debunked
22 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview

ABel AShes Although I disagree with him about the environmental and economic utility of nuclear fission energy (and told him so when I met him) I think Kevin Phillips's Bad Money is far more "on the money" to use a pun, as to the causes of the recession than Sowell';s analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEe3dI3TJ2A

Kevin Phillips – Bad Money: the Global Crisis of American Capitalism
Author and columnist, Kevin Phillips, talks about his newest book, BAD MONEY: RE…See More
22 hours ago · Edited · Like · Remove Preview

Timothy Kachinski If I watch this hour and a half thing and then comment, is there any chance of you changing your mind or will this be a waste of my Sunday? Have you actually read anything Sowell has written or watched him speak, or did you just google his name, find a video set called "everything Thomas Sowell thinks is wrong", and post it? In other words, if I continue am I continuing with an honest debate or are you just trying to post tit for tat on the theory that matching quantity of sources equals matching quality?
21 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Sowell is not exactly an obscure figure. I have followed many things he has written and said over the years including the video you posted and many of his columns. I have also watched many debates in which he was a participant.
21 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Alright, so when you say that his explanation is an oversimplification, you know what his explanation is, right? Just so I know I am not wasting my precious day off, can you tell me real quick as well as the theory of Kevin Phillips.
21 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Sowell correctly blames much of the mortgage issue on people being given loans that they could not afford and correctly blames government programs that encouraged this practice. However, he doesn't seem to want to give mortgage banks, real estate appraisors, and Wall Street speculators the full measure of debt blame they deserve.
21 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski What about Mr. Phillips? Your explanation of Sowell's position is incomplete, but accurate. Where does Phillip's theory make up the difference?
21 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes We could be here all day discussing this and we both have things to do, but to continue on a bit. It wasn't just the mortagages but the default of mortages but the spreading and expansion of economic risk by an underegulated, overcomplicated, and risk addicted financial sector. Speculative banking and the repackaging of risky debt as financial investment opportunities….combined with oil prices that lead to $5.00 per gallon gasoline at the same time that people were struggling to pay mortgages they could not afford.
21 hours ago · Like

Raoul StinkyBritches Duke Ed, Ed, Ed….I never said you were a "fucking" cunt……I just finished my thought with an obvious truth. But other than one small word at the end of my text, where else is the evidence of me "dishing it out?" I'm sorry, what's that…..? Oh its the sound of you being wrong….again….And yes, why should a product proven to be safe have to label itself by law. because people are stupid and ignorant of the science behind it and don't want to purchase a GMO product? Please, should they put on the label saying,"I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand the science behind our product…..GMO….?" Cunt…..
21 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes The fact that real estate was being deliberately overvalued for nearly a decade played a role of course, as did the fact that over the preceeding 30 years the financial sector, which trades in credit, debt, and rsiky investment had grown to 20 percent of GDP while the manufacturing sector had been halved and sat at around 13% of GDP.
21 hours ago · Edited · Like

Chuck Angeline George Carlin called them 'PC campus liberals' which is appropriate.
21 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Consumer prices and inflation had been increasing while real earnings of the avergae American had been in decline for a very long time when adjusted for inflation. Economic inequality was and is growing to unsustainably rediculous levels. Our middle class is shriking. Even our upper class is shrinking. The top eschelon of the upper class is getting richer and the ranks of working poor is growing. When you have to choose between putting gas in the car to get to work or paying a mortgage you could barely afford of course you will choose to default as you can't afford anything if you lose your job.
21 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski I disagree. The problem was overregulation. Because regulation was so tight it limited the market to 3 competitors (Moody's, Fitch, and Standard and Poors) which effectively eliminated competition. The elimination of competition in ratings agencies prevented the new subprime mortgages from being priced accurately and as a result they were lumped in with traditional housing mortgages when being put into financial packages on Wall Street. This likely would not have happened if the ratings agencies were not so tightly regulated because competition would have exposed the inaccuracy of these ratings.

More over none of this would have been a problem at all if people had just kept paying their mortgages. If there hadn't been widespread default then these loans would have been sound and there would have been no stock market crash or financial crisis. The reason there was widespread default was because these loans were unaffordable to the people who took them out. Banks made these unaffordable loans because the government bought the loans from the banks as soon as they were made via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so it made sense to give out loans that were not likely to be paid back because you made your money from the government when you sold them the loan.

The reason why people took out loans they couldn't afford was because they stood to profit from it. Why? Extreme zoning, historical preservation, green space, and other such restrictive housing regulations in areas like coastal California kept people from building new houses. This mean that there was an enormous amount of money available for loans because of government regulations demanding banks give out more loans and because the Federal Reserve was lowering interest rates, but no new houses could be built. As a result prices began to shoot up for existing houses which created a bubble. People took out loans that they couldn't afford in the long run because they expected to buy it now, see the prices shoot up in a couple of months, and then sell it for an enormous profit paying off the loan before any of the higher interest payments could kick in.

Then when prices peaked everyone sold, the bubble burst, and all these loans which were now integrated into financial packages all over the place were worthless. This causes the stock market to freeze up as nobody knew what anything was worth.

This is why we had the recession.
21 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Of course it wasn't just banks and investors that were speculating and manipulating housing prices for profit while putting the whole economy at risk. It was also the real estate industry itself as well as homeowners as the culture of "home flipping" and using houses as collateral for loans in irresponsible ways became more common and real estate appraisors were pressured into appraising according to the needs of mortgage investors rather than accurately.
21 hours ago · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski That is exactly true. The reason they got away with it was because the government was willing to buy these subprime mortgages so the banks could wash their hands of it, banks that didn't want to make the loans were pressured by regulators and government lawyers to make the loans, and excessive regulation kept the market from adapting both locally and nationally (locally with restrictive land policies that caused places like California to be heavily affected while areas like Dallas and Houston were not affected at all, and nationally from heavy regulation of the financial industry which froze ratings standards and kept subprime mortgages from being priced differently than traditional housing loans when putting them into financial packages).
21 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes My sister sold her house recently because the anonymous investors who collectively purchased her mortagage wouldn't let her refinance. She is a CPA.
21 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski That sucks.
21 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes That is true but private investors were also purchasing these mortgages and it wasn't the government that went broke. It was huge sectors of the private financial industry which the government then bailed out. The government (we the taxpayers) absorbed much of the risk twice.
21 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski I know Casey Mulligan also has some research on labor markets and their effect on the economy, but I haven't had time to read his book yet on the topic "The Redistribution Recession". I'll have to make time for it though.
21 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Yes, many private investors went broke. Lehman Brothers went out of business.
21 hours ago · Like

Daniel Bailey Amen to the sentiments of your post!!
21 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Well I guess my point would be that I agree that the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs were a major part of the problem and influenced other parts of the problem but I think that it just happened to be in the real estate sector that the financial industry created a bubble. I think a bubble is almost inevitable when finance is overrepresented as a sector of the economy. I remember in 2007 when we started to hear all of the debate "Are we in a recession or not? Are we headed for a recession?" the first thing I thought of was a radio program I heard as the "dot com implosion" was occurring in which a guest "expert" (really wish I could remember who it was) said not to worry about the loss of wealth in the technology and internet sectors because all of that wealth would move into real estate and real estate was the one investment that would always increase in value. I remember hearing that at the time and saying to myself "bullshit!…that's where the next financial bubble will occur."
20 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski Yes, but how does the financial industry create the bubble? Bubbles are more common among financial instruments than assets (see the book "Paving Wall Street" on experimental economics), but the bubble wasn't universal. If it were the financial industry then there is little reason that it would be concentrated in particular areas with restrictive housing legislation and regulations. With the dot com bubble you had a new thing that people knew nothing about and you don't know what is enough unless you know what is too much. Experimental economics shows that when participants are engaging in the first round of exchanges you often get a bubble, but then that disappears quickly as people gain more knowledge from that. The housing industry has a century of data on loans. The problem that happened there was that government pushed for these new types of loans and then prevented them from being rated any differently than previous loans. That led not only to a housing bubble, but a financial crisis as well as these loans were integrated as though they were no different than the well understood and predictable housing loans of the past.
20 hours ago · Like

Ed Emmer Raoul, you're getting more laughable each time. First you claim that you *didn't* de-rail the thread by changing the topic (with the very first reply!), and your evidence *against* it was that so many people were discussing your new de-rail topic — which, however, means that your de-rail was *fully successful*! Then you claim you're not using ridicule against people, because you only used the 'little' word 'cunt' against me. Wow. (That's like saying that, outside of one 'little' day, the US was never attacked under Bush.) And then you called me a 'cunt' a second time. Why you think that's sneaky instead of obvious, I don't know. I am aware that I have participated in your de-rail topic (one which you asked someone to expand upon at the top of the thread, so of course, you weren't encouraging the new topic), but that doesn't make it *not* a de-railed topic. Why it's so important to you to call people 'cunts' is not clear to me, but it clearly has nothing to do with presenting evidence or support for claims.
20 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

Alternate Inflation Charts
http://www.shadowstats.com
The CPI chart on the home page reflects our estimate of inflation for today as i…See More
20 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview

Sassan K. Darian Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a true heroine.
20 hours ago · Unlike · 3

Daniel Zwick There's a good documentary about these types and they seem to be pretty "mainstream" at campus. That's why many universities have become toxic for free-thinking individuals.

Indoctrinate U.; Marxism on Campus (Full Version)
Indoctrinate U is an incredibly illuminating look into the active and open attac…See More
20 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes The Leftist brand of Islamist apologism is a leftover from the Cold War when the USA and USSR thought of such movements are ways to destabilize the other. Both the US and USSR supported certain Islamists when they saw it as good strategy. They were both laughed at by said Islamists who oppose capitalism, communism, democracy, and secularism, but were more thanglad to take the money and weapons of infidels and crusaders and use them to strengthen themselves in their jihad.
18 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Interesting, but the Left's anti-communist positions were pretty much dead by the 1970's. I think it has more to do with moral relativism and non-judgmental attitudes. Evan Sayet gave an interesting lecture a few years ago on the subject called "How Modern Liberals Think" which I think has the most explanatory power for their apologism for Islam.

HERITAGE FOUNDATION: "How Modern Liberals Think"
Monday, March 5, 2007 Featuring: Evan Sayet Writer, Lecturer and Pundit Hosted b…See More
18 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Many of the same rightwing Republicans connected to the fundamentalist evangelical and pentacostal movements supported the funding of Islamist fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s for the same reason that they now oppose such movements: that they were fighting for their god.
18 hours ago · Like

Toni Gandel When a right wing think tank is defining a liberal I have no real interest in what it has to say about it. I am a liberal but against Islam which has put me at odds with other liberals.
18 hours ago · Edited · Like

ABel AShes I think you are right when it comes to "liberal" appologists for Islamism, who often also have a nationalistic and xenophobic and condescending racist element to their view of people from "Muslim countries", but I think "liberal" and "Left" are very different categories at least as I use the terms. It is a betrayal of liberal values to support ultraconservative fundamentalism anywhere on Earth or to give excuses for it in anyway.
18 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Oh I would agree in terms of rightwing sympathy for such groups, but you said Leftwing. The political right supported the Northern Alliance's predecessors in Afghanistan simply for real politic reasons of opposing Soviet Communism. When the US went into Afghanistan we had to deal with some embarrassing finds such as US government printed textbooks in schools that promoted violent jihad. Principles have a way of going out the window when you are fighting for principles.
18 hours ago · Unlike · 2

ABel AShes I don't think "liberal" implies any connection with communism or anarchism or any kind of "radical" poltics as "left" tends to.
18 hours ago · Like · 2

Toni Gandel Oh, listening to this guy and it is nothing but total bullshit.
18 hours ago · Unlike · 1

Timothy Kachinski Well I think you are operating on a false dichotomy of left and right when you speak of "ultraconservatives worldwide". Fundamentalist Christians in the US are fundamentally different from fundamentalist Islamists on the Arabian peninsula. For example I disagree (to put it mildly) with Communism and Islamism, but they are not the same as each other. There is a wide variety of wrong in the world and I think it only sows division within this country when you compare political conservatives here with violent child marrying bigots over there.
18 hours ago · Like · 1

ABel AShes The Heritage Foundation is a reliable source of bullshit.
18 hours ago · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski Hey, listen to it or don't. All I would say is give him a minute to make his point. If you consider yourself on the Left and you want to know why people also on the Left take up positions you fiercely disagree with, then expect to hear people talking about the Left when they describe these other people you disagree with. It may piss you off because it sounds like he's talking about you, but bite your lip and hear him out.
18 hours ago · Like

Heidi Vogel Ayaan's condemnation of inhumane treatment of women is aligned with Western Feminism. I think her views on this subject are spot on. My issue is that she seems to be too focused on Muslims being the only perpetrators of said inhumane treatment. Ayaan has developed a certain tunnel-vision, just like we ex-Christians who focus on the "devil" we know. The main focus should be that ALL religions can fuck us women over. None are without flaws. Just look at Buddhist Monks who think they can reach enlightenment by forsaking sexuality. How many women do you see in those enclaves? How many Dali Lama's were female…
18 hours ago · Edited · Like

ABel AShes I grew up in radical rightwing Christian churches, mostly the Assemblies of God, but some others as well. I can tell you for certain that the primary difference is that those churches exist in the USA where they are under control of a secular constitution and a mostly secular governement and must operate in the context of multicultural and multidenominational communities. The rhetorical arguments and sick logic of the Jihadists is mirrored quite nicely by much of the thinking in American evangelical, penacostal, and born-again Christian communities.
18 hours ago · Like · 2

Heidi Vogel Exactly, Abel… Christianity can be just as cruel and destructive if given control over government policy.
18 hours ago · Like

Toni Gandel Heidi, Yes, all religions are a detriment to progress and peace and we all should speak out against them all equally.
18 hours ago · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski That may be your perspective of it (which as an atheist is not terribly different from my perspective of it), but they are clearly different in terms of actions. Their actions may be curbed by a secular Constitution and the American culture which celebrates values of freedom, but those things would make them different and if you came out of such a community then you of all people should understand that they can be reached with argument and converted.
18 hours ago · Like

Heidi Vogel Exactly… Christianity's tru nature has been controlled by Secular Government. Uganda is proof that Christianity can be as horrible as Islam if allowed to it's own nature.
18 hours ago · Unlike · 2

ABel AShes The biggest similarities would be the obsession with "End Times" and apocalyptic prophecy and the obession with the supposed evils of secularism, humanism, globalism, feminism, welfare, science, evolution, art, music, homosexuality, "witchcraft", "Satan worship", "demons"…..the mullahs who control Iran sound exactly like the Christians I grew up with….wanting a global conflict to settle the Israel/Palestine conflict with nuclear weapons…wanting an apocalypse to bring on the return of the occulted 12th Imam/Second Coming of Christ.
18 hours ago · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski Yeah, they are pretty fucking nuts. But it's not your claim that this represents all, a majority, or even a plurality of conservatives is it?
18 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes It's worse than that according to many polls I've seen. It appears to be nearly half of Americans that think this way, dreaming of the end of the world……Mullahs in Iran blaming Earthquakes on women wearing makeup…sounds a lot like Pat Robertson and the Jimmy Swaggart (remember him?)
18 hours ago · Like · 1

Heidi Vogel Oh and Tony Braxton.
18 hours ago · Like

Toni Gandel Ok, I must admit that there is one thing he has said that I agree with BUT is has nothing to do with democrats or liberals and that is not using the logical racial profiling for instance at airports, and they pat down people who have no reason to be suspected. This was done when Bush was President, so it is not only unfair but totally untrue to call this a liberal policy.
17 hours ago · Like · 1

ABel AShes There are three things that are reducing this problem though…one: There is a new younger demographic in the churches that is far more liberal and rational and educated in a real sense than their parents and are embracing gay rights and taking meaningful action on climate change for instance….two. more and more people "conservative", "liberal", "left", "libertarian", et cetera are leaving religion behind altogether…three. There are more and more "conservatives" who are actaully "liberal" when it comes to social issues like seperation of church and state.
17 hours ago · Like · 2

Timothy Kachinski Well then you're seeing conservatives as a caricature and no wonder you have such distrust and disdain for them.
17 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes con·serv·a·tive
kənˈsərvətiv/Submit
adjective
1.
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
synonyms: traditionalist, traditional, conventional, orthodox, old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, hidebound, unadventurous, set in one's ways; More
antonyms: radical
(of dress or taste) sober and conventional.
"a conservative suit"
synonyms: conventional, sober, modest, plain, unobtrusive, restrained, subtle, low-key, demure, unshowy, unflashy; More
antonyms: ostentatious
(of an estimate) purposely low for the sake of caution.
"the film was not cheap—$30,000 is a conservative estimate"
synonyms: low, cautious, understated, moderate, reasonable More
(of surgery or medical treatment) intended to control rather than eliminate a condition, with existing tissue preserved as far as possible.
of or relating to the Conservative Party of Great Britain or a similar party in another country.
adjective: Conservative
synonyms: right-wing, reactionary, traditionalist; More
antonyms: socialist
noun
noun: conservative; plural noun: conservatives
1.
a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.
synonyms: right-winger, reactionary, rightist, diehard; More
17 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Forgive me if a chuckle a bit when I hear the the measure of a reduction of radicalism and fanaticism is one's support for climate change legislation.
17 hours ago · Like

Heidi Vogel The problem with the use of Liberal and Conservative is in the charged political rhetoric that goes with such labels. Most people, that have a brain, are not 100% in alignment with any one camp's platform. I for one am for less Mommy and Daddy regs of the people that BOTH Republicans and Democrats seem to use as a pandering agent. However, I am all for the regulation of Big Business, but NOT the kind of regulations that Big Business drafts into law to "regulate" themselves into a monopoly.
17 hours ago · Edited · Like

ABel AShes ..and you want to pretend to care about the preponderance of scientific evidence…
17 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski No, that would just relate to whether or not you accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Support for climate change legislation requires profound intellectual negligence when it comes to science and engineering when it comes to (1) energy, (2) the ability to consciously and deliberately affect the climate through human action, (3) the actual impacts positive and negative of a changing climate, and (4) the empirical record of similar climate change legislation implemented abroad.
17 hours ago · Like

Heidi Vogel I care about scientific evidence. I also consider my memory. Climate is changing DRASTICALLY, and not in the same way as they had predicted in the 80's. As per core drilling samples over thousands of years of ice, our climate should be going towards another ice-age. Therefore, the fact that we are warming up instead of following historical cycle evidence, proves that we are indeed in a global warming issue. It takes a certain amount of additional energy to stop a cycle from moving in one direction. Then an additional amount of energy is needed to move the cycle in the opposite direction. I say our global warming issue is far more dire than we realize.
17 hours ago · Edited · Like

ABel AShes So let the market fix the climate huh? Brilliant!
17 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski What do you support doing? Banning oil?
17 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Banning oil? Yeah that's exactly the same thing as reducing oil, gas, and coal usage by increasing use of renewable energy sources and increasing energy usage efficiency.
17 hours ago · Like

Heidi Vogel Problem is that the market is controlled by those who profit from it. Just like The blacksmiths who fought against the horseless carriage (because they would lose money when no shoe-ing is necessary) or Edison's manipulations against Tesla's idea of generating Alternating Current electricity because his lightbulbs worked on Direct Current. Those who profit from the unsustainable fuels of today will fight to keep the status quo. It's a sociopath issue. Money is more important that the future health of our planet.

I Am Fishhead – Are Corporate Leaders Psychopaths? (2011)
I Am Fishhead – Are Corporate Leaders Psychopaths? (2011) http://www.fisheadmovi…See More
17 hours ago · Like

Heidi Vogel As technology changes, the new powerhouses of the future are born.
17 hours ago · Unlike · 1

Timothy Kachinski You don't know what you are talking about. The power density of "alternative" fuel is incredibly low. Alternative fuel is about as sensible as "alternative medicine". Ethanol is a scam that requires more than a gallon worth of gasoline to produce a gallon worth of electricity, wind power is inefficient and requires a massive natural gas infrastructure to back it up to meet peak demand and to ensure that the lights don't go out when the wind isn't blowing, alternative energy requires large amounts of rare earth elements in order to operated (95-100% of which are in China), and there is no evidence that they reduce CO2 emissions. When implemented the inefficiencies of running those back up natural gas power plants at lower levels causes them to emit more CO2 which cancels out any positive effects.
17 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski Intelligence Squared had an excellent debate on the "clean energy" topic which I shall link to below. It's not just the economics of alternative energy that make them wasteful, inefficient, and ironically bad for the environment, it is the physics of it.

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/…/558-clean-energy-can&#8230;

Clean Energy Can Drive America's Economic Recovery
intelligencesquaredus.org
Check out the results, watch highlights and learn more about the panelists for the "Clean Energy Can Drive America's Economic Recovery" debate.
17 hours ago · Like

Heidi Vogel Sorry, I studied Mechanical Engineering with an emphasis on conversion of existing technology to less polluting fuels. I agree that ethanol was a boondoggle as it was primarily produced from corn. Switch-grass has more cellulose and takes much less effort to grow and harvest.

I can never say that new technology growing pains will not happen. For instance, Edison screwed us all over when he became more interested in his own profiteering efforts than in helping Tesla realize his dream of free energy.

The idea is to try and continue to push the envelope. Some might suggest that we just give up and become jaded just because a troll came in and screwed up the initial attempt. The effort towards better tech is necessary for our survival. It's part of our evolution and no amount of naysayers will stop us.
17 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski "Free energy"? Like violating the physical law of the conservation of energy?

Cellulose is a pipe dream. "From our cellulose waste products on the farm such as straw, corn stalks, corn cobs, and all similar sorts of material we throw away, we can get, by present known methods, enough alcohol to run our automotive equipment in the United States."

– 1921
17 hours ago · Like

Heidi Vogel Cellulose is not a pipe dream.. They talk about corn… Have you heard of switch-grass?

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

Panicum virgatum – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Panicum virgatum, commonly known as switchgrass, is a perennial warm season bunc…See More
17 hours ago · Edited · Like

Heidi Vogel However, ethanol has less energy per mass as gasoline. Hydrogen is better. The main issue with converting the engines of today to hydrogen gas is in the infrastructure of our country. Just like Branson said about his ground to space award, "It's cool to be the first, but it's better to be the second."
17 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski Yes. Oak Ridge National Laboratory put the production possibilities of that at a rate of 11.5 tons of biomass from switchgrass per acre. The US consumes about 320 billion gallons of oil a year. Ethanol's energy density is only about 2/3rd that of gasoline. That means that if you wanted to produce just 10% of the US's energy needs currently met by oil you would need 48.5 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year.

If you wanted to replace that 10% of oil you would need so much land producing nothing but switchgrass that it would equal the land area of the entire State of Oklahoma.

Pipe dream.
17 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 1

Heidi Vogel Ethanol replacing gasoline in engines that provide motive force is indeed a pipe dream. For stationary generation of electricity it still is feasible. As I said, Hydrogen is our best bet.
17 hours ago · Like

Sassan K. Darian Here comes Heidi Vogel the conspiracy theorist loon with her lovely conspiracies. Remember bildenberger, rothschild control the world! Lmfao
17 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Brazil has the most successful ethanol program in the world and they use sugarbeets and sugarcane. It allows them to run most of their vehicles without hydrocrabon energy at all but I think the amount of land decicated to sugar beet and cane growth is substantial.
17 hours ago · Like · 1

Heidi Vogel Here comes our fave village idiot, Sassan…
17 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Not even a little bit, especially with the revolution going on with natural gas that comes from horizontal drilling using fracking. Natural gas produces far fewer CO2 emission than coal and is economically efficient. It is already being used and people are pouring billions of their own money into without subsidy precisely for that reason.
17 hours ago · Like

Sassan K. Darian Coming from a loon like you that's a compliment
17 hours ago · Like

Heidi Vogel Loon's have such a pretty sound… Natural gas is a good replacement for oil-refined gasoline, but the damn fracking practices are not being regulated.
17 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski If by not you mean they are then I agree with you.
17 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Get out of the way of fracking and stop strangling nuclear power (which produces zero CO2 and who's negative environmental byproduct comes in solid form) if you want to reduce CO2.
17 hours ago · Edited · Like

Heidi Vogel I'd get behind Nuke power if they didn't pull the rods out prematurely…
17 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski I can't even imagine what your concern is here, but if you are against oil, against coal, against natural gas, and against nuclear…then you are pro-black out.
16 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes In the near term that would be right,but long range oil and natural gas will need to be replaced as primary energy sources for even more direct reasons than climate change and carbon pollution…supply will not be able to meet demand and prices will become unaffordable as well. There is plenty of coal in the world but it's definitely not anyone's first choice for reasons to do with climate change, mining, and air pollution. However in Japan there are power plants that trap the carbon emmissions in pools of water and it feeds the growth of kelp that is used in various products consummed by the Japanese. Solar power is the most underrated of all energy sources. When most people think of solar power generation they think of 1970s technology, but people who follow technology news know better. Germany and China will wipe the floor with us economically if we don't step it up.
16 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Sequestering can't work. It is technically possible to do, but it is incredibly expensive and there is just too much CO2. The volume of global CO2 emissions is about 29.1 billion tons. If you were to take 10% of that at 3 billion tons of CO2 and compressed it to 1,000 pounds per square inch the volume it would occupy would be equal to the total volume of annual oil production. That is in its highly pressurized and compressed state. Where the hell are you going to put it and what happens if it leaks and all that CO2 is released all at once?
16 hours ago · Unlike · 1

Timothy Kachinski Solar. Solar solar solar. The power density is way too low and it is not reliable. Like wind it requires massive fossil fuel plants to supplement it during peak demand and cover for it when the sun isn't shining. It also takes up an enormous amount of land. Compare the energy density of nuclear, another non-CO2 emitter for comparison. The South Texas Project nuclear facility produces 56 watts of energy per square meter. Solar produces 6.7 watts per square meter. Wind, 1.2 watts per square meter. Wind power requires 45 times as much land as nuclear, though that still pales in comparison to the corn ethanol scam that needs 1,150 times the land that nuclear requires.

Not to mention that solar panels don't function as well when they are covered in bird shit. They need more maintenance than you would think. Solar is not the way of the future.
16 hours ago · Edited · Like

ABel AShes This is interesting….http://science.dodlive.mil/…/energy-independence…/

Energy Independence: Creating Fuel from Seawater
science.dodlive.mil
Designer fuel: Scientists at the Naval Research Lab effectively flew a small air…See More
16 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview

ABel AShes It would produce, or at least redistribute or recycle carbon emissions though.
16 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski http://www.forbes.com/…/dont-get-too-excited-but-the…/

Don't Get Too Excited But The US Navy Can Now Make Gasoline From Seawater
http://www.forbes.com
VideoThis might sound like something from the far end of the sci-fi fantasy spec…See More
16 hours ago · Unlike · 1

ABel AShes I can't find the article I read about the plant in Japan that was actually doing this and don't know enough about it to understand all of the pros and cons but it is interesting :http://www.theatlantic.com/…/the-coming-green…/248750/

The Coming Green Wave: Ocean Farming to Fight Climate Change
http://www.theatlantic.com
Seaweed farms have the capacity to grow huge amounts of nutrient-rich food, and oysters can act as an efficient carbon and nitrogen sink
16 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview

Timothy Kachinski Come now, aren't you starting to get a little bit skeptical of these alternative energy schemes?
16 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Of course…these are new concepts…some will work..some will not..it's called innovation. Nuclear power and the internal combustion engine seemed far fetched at one point…I consider clinging to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear fission as though they are the only possible economically viable sources of plentiful energy to be a form of neo-Ludditism.
15 hours ago · Like · 1

Timothy Kachinski Well, you say some will work and some will not, but I haven't seen any that will work. Also, nuclear power and the internal combustion engine were not far fetched, nor did they have to be debated. They were and are efficient so people put their own money into them and when the revenue exceeds the costs that pays for it. The problem with "alternative energy" is that it doesn't do that. Now you got some nuts calling me a luddite, but aren't you the one saying that we should smash the coal and oil industry? Aren't you the one saying that we should return to the pre-industrial sources of energy like wood (biomass)? The questions here are ones of physics and economics and time after time coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear come out as winners while the "alternatives" require heavy subsidies and, ironically, have heavy environmental costs themselves. The number of birds killed by the oil industry doesn't hold a candle to the number killed by wind turbines. The number of fish ground up in hydroelectic plants (which we can't build anymore of) makes the BP oil spill look like child's play. Solar plants are being sued to block construction because they take up so much space that they threaten habitats of endangered species and can act like mirrors superheating certain parts of the air killing birds. Ethanol takes up farm land, takes the burning of CO2 to produce, and destroys engines. This stuff just doesn't work.
15 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Pollution is a result of putting chemstry and biology out of order and if it can be put out of order it can be put back into order. All outgoing waste could theoretically be put to use as an incoming resource. Hydrocarbon energy sources themselves are a result of naturally occurring ecological catastrophe.
15 hours ago · Edited · Like

ABel AShes Nuclear power and the internal combustion engine were certainly considered to be far-fetched before they were proven to work. All new technology seems far fetched until it is commercially or militarily deployed for all to see.
15 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Pollution comes from many things. In this case it comes from inefficiency. When John D. Rockefeller started out he was appalled at the waste. People would refine some kerosine and then dump the rest where ever. When he increased the efficiency and started making other products like gasoline there was less waste and thus less pollution. It also had a side effect of saving the whale population because whale oil could not longer compete economically with Standard Oil. I'm guessing that you don't suggest that kind of bio-energy.

Increased economic efficiency means less pollution because more of the product is being used.
15 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes I never said we should use wood or biomass. I said we should use solar.
15 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski The point is that nuclear and fossil fuels pay for themselves. That's how we know they are economically efficient. The only one of those that require subsidies today is nuclear and that is largely due to increased costs associated with regulations which the subsidies offset.
15 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Okay, then make a case. The energy density is too low for solar. The power is unreliable. It creates energy sprawl. It requires fossil fuel plants to sit on standby to help it meet peak demand and cover for it when the sun doesn't shine. They require a lot of maintenance. In what way can they displace the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear sources we have today? Because they produce power intermittently they are inherently an add on and adding them on causes the fossil fuel plants they work in tandem with to function less efficiently and produce more CO2 as a result. How are they the future?
15 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Even archaic 1970s photovoltaic panels installed on individual homes pay for themselves many times over and usually produce excess energy that can be sold back into the grid.
15 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski No they don't! The payback time of modern solar panels is approximately 30 years.
15 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes ..nope not anymore..more like 2 to 15 depending on various factors like financing, subsidies, local energy pricing et cetera….and the cost is going to continue to decrease as technology (and the commercial deployment of said technology) advances…photovoltaic panels are just the beggining.
15 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Well no shit you can have a payback time of 2 years if you don't have to pay it back! If the government pays for it then you obviously don't have to. But approaching it in an intellectually honest way you have to include the money spent by government in the total that must be paid back. If solar can do better, great, but subsidies don't make it more efficient, it just hides the cost.
15 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes http://news.nd.edu/…/28047-notre-dame-researchers…/

Notre Dame researchers develop paint-on solar cells // News // Notre Dame News // University of…
news.nd.edu
Notre Dame News gathers and disseminates information that enhances understanding…See More
15 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview

ABel AShes http://www.echo.net.au/…/australias-cheap-new-solar…/

Australia's cheap new solar + storage technology | Echonetdaily
http://www.echo.net.au
Australian technology developer Vast Solar has begun construction of a 6MWth (1….See More
15 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview

ABel AShes The problem is technological and temporary.
15 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski If it can work, great. If these people can overcome the major problems with them now, wonderful. They can do it on their own dime because "temporary" has no magical influence over me. There are "temporary" government programs that are older than my father. People feel they can get away with anything so long as they call it temporary. Islamic fanatics get away with killing people because they call death temporary! Ban that word.
15 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes There was a time would have would have thought that "horseless carriages" and human flight were impossible…technology is not going to cease advancing unless human civilization collapses completely. The countries that see renewable energy technology as something worthy of investment will have much stronger economies than the ones that don't, which will be left in the past with their archaic power grid.
15 hours ago · Edited · Like

ABel AShes http://www.solarimpulse.com/

SOLAR IMPULSE – Exploration to Change the World
http://www.solarimpulse.com
Our challenge is to attempt the First Round-The-World Solar Flight in 2015. A wa…See More
15 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview

Timothy Kachinski Yes, technology. This is not a new concept to me. It is also not a magic word anymore than temporary. The math must be done and a case must be made. Flight and driving were done on their own dime. Solar can too.
15 hours ago · Edited · Like

ABel AShes The first computers took up an entire room and could only do a fraction of the computation that a smartphone that fits in the palm of your hand can do today.
15 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski This argument can be used to justify throwing limitless amounts of money away for all of time with no end. It encompasses everything and thus nothing.
15 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Any program whether governmental, non-profit, or for-profit can be descerning and wise with its investment.
15 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes There is absolutely no reason that money needs to be thrown around randomly at bad ideas.
15 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski HAHAHAHA! For profit and non-profit operate off of voluntary contributions. Government raises its money through taxes. Bridge to nowhere.
15 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Again with the economic superstition and dogma. It is all fine to say that government can and often is inefficient, but the moment that you claim that it has to be by nature you have entered the Twilight Zone.
15 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski By its nature it is inefficient more often than not. With for and not for profit organizations the only people that can be sunk by a bad idea are those putting money towards it. Because government raises its money through taxes it can take an entire society down on a bad idea. More over when a business loses money the owner loses first because employees still must be paid and the owner who is paid with profits gets the cut first. Government officials never see their pay cut from the collapse of a bad idea. Even in the most extreme case imaginable of North Korea where the famines and ruin from the bad idea of communism is so absolute that North Koreans are on average 6 inches shorter than South Koreans, Kim Jung Il (when he was still alive) was renowned for extreme luxury. An entire society can be completely ruined and those who did the ruining can pay no price for being wrong.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes I agree with you about Communism being a bad idea but I don't think the DPRK actually qualifies as communism in a literal sense. It is more of a racist, far-rightwing, hereditary monarchy dominated by the bizarre state religion Juche. More than anything else it is essentially a monarchy. I think the communist part of it died with Kim Il Sung.
14 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski Yes. North Korea is right wing.
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski So was the Soviet Union.
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski And Cambodia.
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski And Cuba.
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski And Vietnam.
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski China too.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes I don't support any of those governments, first of all. Secondly, I would say that Cuba is leftwing as is Vietnam, Cambodia today but not under Pol Pot (he was something entirely off the political spectrum) is leftwing, the USSR was more imperialist than leftwing from Satlin's time onward and China is a bizarre mixture of crony capitalism and one party dictatorship.
14 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski
Timothy Kachinski's photo.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes But North Korea may be leftwing in its dishonest internatioanl propaganda but in its actaul domestic policies is extreme far rightwing.
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Yes, and it was the Jews who killed 6 million Christian Germans.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes I am analyzing the actual driving ideologies not the oversimplified categories employed in the sloppy work of lazy journalists and ignorant pundits.
14 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski No. You're not. You are a communism denier. It never existed and thus there is no evidence against it. When somebody says that North Korea is right wing it is the same as saying that Jews massacred millions of Nazis. It's repugnant.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes It never existed and thus there is no evidence against it?
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Yep. Communism never REALLY existed anywhere, so there aren't 100,000,000 dead bodies it produced, countless millions of slaves, or entire societies ruined that place it rightfully in the ash bin of history. North Korea is run by Republicans. Cambodia, Stalin, those were just defects with those particular people. There was never any REAL communism, so it is still a debatable idea.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Lenin was a Communist as was Stalin. Lenin committed many human rights abuses out of ideological fanaticism. Stalin was more self-centered and more nationalistic. he committed human rights abuses not only in the name of Communism, but also out of pure …See More
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes "Yep. Communism never REALLY existed anywhere, so there aren't 100,000,000 dead bodies it produced, countless millions of slaves, or entire societies ruined that place it rightfully in the ash bin of history. North Korea is run by Republicans. Cambodia…See More
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski We were transitioning from talking about energy and the environment to discussing the wisdom of subsidies when you made the outlandish claim that North Korea is right wing and that Pol Pot and Stalin were not left wing, they were imperialist and "something else". Such claims are beyond outlandish and completely disconnected with what we were talking about.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes First of all Communism is only one ideology on the Leftist spectrum and it is a very specific ideology. I can claim to support democracy and do the opposite or free market capitalism or secular humanism. The DPRK is not "democratic" as its name more than implies.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Cuba is Communist as was the USSR as is Vietnam and as was China under Mao. I oppose all of those governements.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes North Korea is extreme rightwing. It is a monarchy.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes I'm talking about how it actually functions today.
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski You're going to have to give me a definition of right wing then, because…
Timothy Kachinski's photo.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Pol Pot was opposed to higher education and intellectualism.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes I posted a definition of rightwing early because I questioned whether you understood what that term implies: right wing
noun
1.
members of a conservative or reactionary political party, or those opposing extensive political reform.
2.
such a political party or a group of such parties.
3.
that part of a political or social organization advocating a conservative or reactionary position: The union's right wing favored a moderate course of action.
14 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski So right wing Jews were opposing Hitler's extensive political reform?
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski So the communists in China opposing Deng Xiaoping's free market reforms were right wingers?
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Hitler was opposed to the changes in german culture being brought about be cultural influences that did not originate in Germanic and Christain thought.
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Like all those right-wing Democrats opposing extensive welfare reform it the 1990's?
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Your definition is ridiculous. You just use the term to describe anything you think is bad.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes You are blaming me for using definitions that existed before I was born. I am merely trying to use the English language correctly.
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski If the term is imprecise, don't use it.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes That is not my definiton. I have never been employed in the writing of dictionaries in my entire life.
14 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski It's not about the dictionary definition, it's about how you use the word.
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes The terms left, right, liberal, conservative are all imprecise. Liberal and conservative are only precise when applied to specifc situations.
14 hours ago · Edited · Like

ABel AShes I use it correctly…literally…did you read the definition?
14 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Do you accept the usages I gave you of right wing communists in China, right wing Democrats opposing welfare reform, and right wing Jews opposing Hitler?
14 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes Well perhaps to a degree one could go either way with the terminology in the China example because Communism had become the old order so these definitions of right and left become a bit more abstract especially sense it was different wings of the Communist party. In the case of welfare reform Democrats I would agree with the term rightwing to some degree in that case, but not all welfare "reforms" must be "rightwing and the terms are a bit abstract to begin with. In the case of Hitler, he was motivated primarily by nationalism and racism and religious extremism which is very far-rightwing.
14 hours ago · Edited · Like

ABel AShes In North Korea it is illegal to marry outside of your class which is exactly the opposite of the classless dictatorship supposedly leading to utopia of Communist ideology.
13 hours ago · Edited · Like

Timothy Kachinski I'm not bickering over definitions anymore. It's getting late and I think I'm going to turn on Audible and play of Civ 5. I doubt this conversation is going to return to the wisdom of subsidies or the realism of "alternative" energy, and frankly if you think North Korea is right wing then I'm not sure how efficient a use of my time it is to spend trying to convince you of much of anything when something as obvious as their communism eludes you. I get it, you don't like Republicans so calling bad things right wing gives you self satisfaction. Well, enjoy the intellectual masturbation.
13 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes I do think Maoism was the major ideological influence on Kim IlSung and that North Korea used to be Communist but it is now entirely dominated by Juche ideology.
13 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cleanest_Race

The Cleanest Race – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why it Matters is a non-…See More
13 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview

Timothy Kachinski I am familiar with all of these facts and the book. I read Hitchens too. Your argument though goes like this. No no, they aren't red. North Korea is flame red, China was deep cherry red, the Soviets were desire, Cambodia was more carmine…

Yes, those are shades of red. They are still red.
13 hours ago · Edited · Like

ABel AShes The primary purpose of Communism is the elmination of class. It is illegal to marry outside of one's own government defined class in the DPRK. That kind of ideology has more in common with the caste system in India than anything Marx or even Mao advocated. You are so clinging to rhetoric that you fail to look at facts.
13 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes DPRK is a racist monarchy. The country is not controlled by a one party tyrannical dictatorship dedicated to the creation of a classless society. the country is ruled by a one man nepotistic racist monarch in all but name.
13 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes I suppose the DPRK is also "democratic" as its name implies?
13 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes …and you know very well that that is not my argument as you have just read my argument. You are simply an ideologue first and an intellectual second and you can't help yourself.
13 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Communism is the state ownership and operation of the means of production.
13 hours ago · Unlike · 1

ABel AShes Yes that is a simple definition, but again like the long debate we had about therms "rightwing" and "leftwing" it is a bit abstract and communist ideology is actually more specific than that and in some ways resembles a religion in the absurd belief that a benevolent dictatorship can exist and that it will eventually be unnecessary and the state will dissolve and be replaced by a utopia in which everyone will just be fair with each other will no coersion involved.
13 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes World English Dictionary
communism (ˈkɒmjʊˌnɪzəm)

— n
1. advocacy of a classless society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community
2. any social, economic, or political movement or doctrine aimed at achieving such a society
3. ( usually capital ) Marxism Marxism-Leninism See also socialism a political movement based upon the writings of Marx that considers history in terms of class conflict and revolutionary struggle, resulting eventually in the victory of the proletariat and the establishment of a socialist order based on public ownership of the means of production
4. ( usually capital ) a social order or system of government established by a ruling Communist Party, esp in the former Soviet Union
5. chiefly ( US ) ( often capital ) any leftist political activity or thought, esp when considered to be subversive
6. communal living; communalism
13 hours ago · Like

Timothy Kachinski Classless society is the intended result and therefore cannot be a part of the definition of anything except the ideology. Definitions of government must be confined to what they actually do and how they actually function. Capitalism can be defined as a system pursuing a classless society where merit determines wealth. Whether it achieves that or not is an empirical question, not a part of its definition.
13 hours ago · Like · 1

ABel AShes The question of whether an objective is acheived is a very different one from the question of whether an objective is even a part of the program in any sense to begin with.
13 hours ago · Like

ABel AShes By this simple defintion of communism as being simply state and/or community controlled means of production both the DPRK and many monarchies pre-dating communism and even socialism and capitalism were essentially "communist". Also by this definition Cuba would not be communist in that there is quite a bit of non-state owned small business occurring there with much less "red tape" than in starting a small business in the USA.
12 hours ago · Edited · Like

Graham Huf why did you denote liberalism with an upper-case L?
9 hrs · Like
ABel AShes

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s