Leftist protesters go home!

[Kidlicious]

Do you know if they have a real complaint?

[Sava]

personally, I'm not against genetically altered food... these protestors sound like toothless morons to me

[Kuciwalker]

The real thing is, GM food are almost universally SAFER than "organic" foods, because GM foods are required to go through a whole lot of tests and screening, etc. by the FDA. The stupid thing is most of this is to see if someone could be allergic to it or something similar, yet "herbal remedies" and new "organic" foods are MORE likely to cause allergic reactions, because GM foods are tweaked only in a few, very specific ways.

(btw, why is non-GM food called "organic"? isn't GM food grown from organisms too...?)

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Do you know if they have a real complaint?

The main complaints focus on two areas. 1) That humans are messing with nature and might accidently release some form of "Frankenfood" which will cause disease or harm to the enviroment or humanity. 2) That corporations can patient the new strains they develop and people who wish to use these strains will have to pay a higher cost or a royalty.

I heard several of them claim poor third world farmers won't be able to afford the high costs and so GM should be outlawed (a nonsensical arguement as these poor farmers could always continue using their current verieties) and that the GM genes might cross breed with wild plants those creating new mutant species. The funny thing is hybreeds have been used for over 100 years and so far no super desease has developed.

The only semi-intelligent arguement I heard out of them was how corporations determined if royalties were due. Currently, a company which has a patient on their new verity of a crop can test the DNA of a crop and force the farmer to pay a royalty if the DNA matches their patiented DNA. This sounds fair but what happens when farmer A uses the GM corn and farmer B doesn't but the two crops cross pollinate each other. The next generation will have the genes from both parents and, theoretically, the corporation could demand both farmers pay a royalty. I doubt this would happen but putting a law in place to limit this would make sense.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do they have them confined to a certain area of the city or is your commute going to be Hell during this conference?

Gee, if you had and used mass transit this wouldn't really be a problem would it?

Besides, what about letting the people exercise their right to assemble and petition the government for a redress? Those are constitutional - your "right" to a convenient commute is not guaranteed. So suck it up.

[Kuciwalker]

I have a rebuttal of the "semi-intelligent" argument. Around 98-99, some GM crop manufacturers proposed that all GM foods have genes inserted that made them sterile. Greenpeace et al raised a huge stink, saying poor farmers couldn't afford it, etc. because they would have to buy new seeds every year (stupid argument you already rebutted). However, this would solve the problem presented by royalties.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Templar
Gee, if you had and used mass transit this wouldn't really be a problem would it?

That depends. Such protests have managed to shut down a mass transit station in California before so it isn't a guarentee.

Besides, what about letting the people exercise their right to assemble and petition the government for a redress?

I'm a big believer in the Time, Place, & Manner doctrine. Shutting down a city doesn't fall within those confines.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Templar


Gee, if you had and used mass transit this wouldn't really be a problem would it?

Besides, what about letting the people exercise their right to assemble and petition the government for a redress? Those are constitutional - your "right" to a convenient commute is not guaranteed. So suck it up.

If there was mass transit, it would be clogged up too. They have a constitutional right to assemble PEACEFULLY - they do not have a right to completely disrupt the functioning of the city (or a right to be heard), especially not vital city functions such as emergency services. YOU suck it up.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by The Templar
Gee, if you had and used mass transit this wouldn't really be a problem would it?

Besides, what about letting the people exercise their right to assemble and petition the government for a redress? Those are constitutional - your "right" to a convenient commute is not guaranteed. So suck it up.

All using mass transite would do would be to concentrate people into bottle necks thus making it even easier for these a-holes to "shut the city down". Remember that was their goal. As for the right to {i]peacably[/i] (you forgot that word) assemble and petition their government... We have both rights and responsabilities. Your rights end when they begin to cause public danger. By attempting to block streets and snarl traffic they aren't just being annoying; they're also creating a public danger by blocking emergency vehicle access. If these a-holes succeed in "shuting the city down" then how will fire trucks or paramedics get to where they need to be? What happens if other people die because a fire can't be put out or hurt people can't get to the hospital?

You need to understand the difference between responsibly excersizing your rights and simply being an arrogant ***** who harms other people.

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Sava
Yeah, I'm sure Mr. T votes Republican considering their stellar record on civil rights.

Don't be ridiculous.

Lincoln? A Republican elected by people in states that had outlawed slavery. It was the Democrats who fought to keep it in place.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - written by Republicans and a greater majority of Republicans voted for the act than Democrats.

Don't forget that a current serving senator actually had filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act...and that senator is former Ku Klux Klan member Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia.

Hmm...

[Sava]

ahh yes... Republicans, the party of Lincoln... seek help NOW if you believe that

[Kuciwalker]

I agree with Sava again!

The Republicans and Democrats of the Civil War era have taken a full 180-degree shift.

[rmsharpe]

Sava: I don't see you refuting any of my points, all I see is a mocking and condescending tone. I guess that means I win.

[Kuciwalker]

No, it doesn't.

However, the Republicans of the Civil War era were liberals, and the Democrats conservatives. In fact, the reversal of roles, which happened in the North a long time ago, happened in the South only within the last decade (in some places it's still happening). Tennessee, for example, until recently consistantly elected a Democrat for governor, despite being a conservative state, because in Tennessee the Democrats were the conservatives.

EDIT: I see the "Sava" you added now

[rmsharpe]

Even if what you say is true, what do you say about the Civil Rights Act?