Apple Backs Federal Non-Discrimination LGBT Equality Act of 2015

[laurim]

I'm not against an Iran deal that actually made sense. A 24 day warning before inspections is basically saying-Hey, Iran, go hide everything you were doing, we'll be there in almost a month.Does the Ayatollah have to sign on to the deal? What about the Revolutionary Guard? No, well they are the ones who actually have control over Iran. Check the comments made by both after the deal was finished and tell me you feel confident about it.

Net immigration has not been less than zero, that's ludicrous. He slowed down deportations as soon as the latino lobby started whining about it. Mr. Slinky Backbone immediately caved to the point that he isn't even allowing ICE to deport criminals.

GMOs are not needed for anything and were never developed to increase crop yields. Their sole purpose was to allow farmers to douse crops with as much toxic roundup as they wanted without destroying the crops. Win-win for Monsanto, lose-lose for us since not only the GMOs are toxic but roundup as well.
You don't care if you eat poison, well I do care. Why deprive me of the knowledge of what I'm buying-do you also object to nutrtion information on foods?

ACA punishes business from giving their workers a good health insurance plan It actually taxes businesses to the point that companies such as mine had to drop our plans for a far worse plan that I now have to pay for for the first time. Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, not the middle class.
The Democrats had control of Congress at the time and could have come up with a better plan but were so eager to force it through while they had control that they pushed through a garbage bill, with no cost controls at all.

If you think Iran can cover up nuclear activity that easily you have zero knowledge about nuclear activity. We have been able to detect nuclear activity on sites that are way more than a month from being active and cleared out. Nuclear activity leaves a long-lasting trace.

Immigration:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...s-than-enter/2012/04/23/gIQApyiDdT_story.html

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...mmigrant-population-stable-for-half-a-decade/

GMOs: when you claim "GMOs are toxic" it's obvious you are completely clueless about GMOs so it would be futile for me to cite all the evidence to counteract all the bogus information you have undoubtedly been feeding on by the likes of Dr. Mercola and the Food Babe, lol. Two of the many internet hucksters people like you listen to. If you are actually interested:

https://gmoanswers.com

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

Gee whiz- if only there was a mechanism for the anti-GMO people to fund a legitimate study to prove GMOs are bad for people. I guess only the GMO companies and universities have the ability to test things People can get the money together to fund the production of a beer cooler with a radio but a scientifically-valid, peer-reviewed and repeatable study proving GMOs are bad is just impossible, lol.

ACA
Thanks to the filibuster and the bogus Hastert rule, the Democrats have found it nearly impossible to get anything done in Congress, even when they had the majority. The Dems WANTED single-payer but the GOP blocked it at every turn to protect the health insurance lobby. The ACA was a compromise with the GOP and many Democrats are annoyed that we had to agree to it and are the only party that is even capable of compromising for the good of the country. There ARE cost controls in the ACA so your statement is also false there. Small businesses qualify for a health insurance tax credit and Obama deferred some business requirements temporarily to help them adjust (which resulted in the GOP calling him an emperor, remember?). What exactly is the burden on your employer? Sounds to me like an excuse to cut costs. Perfect timing to be able to tell you its the ACA's fault.

BTW- The ACA already has many preventative healthcare provisions like an annual checkup included in the premium (no copay required) and other preventative tests like colonoscopies and mammograms for no copay. Many insurers, like my own, also offer a discount on a gym membership provided the person goes a minimum number of times per month.

 

[laurim]

Wow you quoted a conspiracy site, all of those you just posted comes from naturalnews.com, which isn't know for their scientific accuracy.

Ha! Went to naturalnews.com My favorite articles are:

Bill Gates to roll out remote control microchip-based sterilization of women.
There actually is development of this but it's to give women more control over when they have children, not government control over their bodies.

Pentagon now using Jade Helm exercises to teach Skynet how to kill humans

I can't relate to people who believe all this crap. Ironically, they will die early from all the stress from worrying about bogus things like this, lol.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Serious question
Many liberals are dissatisfied with Obamacare. Many conservatives are dissatisfied with Obamacare. Would you be open to replacing both the old system and the current system with a whole new system, perhaps modeled on an established system that has proven successful?

There needs to be a solution but Obamacare is not it, IMO

That seems to be the general theme with you anti-Obamacare people, "Obamacare isn't good but damned if we can't come up with a better idea".

I'm happy about Obamacare. Some of my relatives who were uninsurable now have reasonable coverage.

A serious proposal: A two-track system, like Australia, where 6-9% of GDP is publicly-provided public health service care (employees are some type of public employee civil servants) for anybody and everybody, including the super-rich if they don't mind waiting in line like the rest of us, and, privately-funded extra healthcare for people who want private care or want something that isn't provided by the purely public system.

 

[ElectronGuru]

I actually would prefer single payer. Tax 1-2% more and give everyone at least a Major Medical Plan so people don't have to worry everytime they switch jobs or become unemployed.

A serious proposal: A two-track system, like Australia, where 6-9% of GDP is publicly-provided public health service care (employees are some type of public employee civil servants) for anybody and everybody, including the super-rich if they don't mind waiting in line like the rest of us, and, privately-funded extra healthcare for people who want private care or want something that isn't provided by the purely public system.

Now we're getting somewhere.

steve333, if a coalition of D + R reps proposed something like you describe or something like jnpy!$4g3cwk describes, would you want to contact your own rep to encourage or kill such a proposal?

 

[steve333]

If your goal is to backup a definition, then yes sources matter. Specially when you source a known conspiracy site. What would you find more credible in regard to actual medical/scientific related information, a site that pushes conspiracies or a actual medical/scientific site with peer-reviewed support?

I didn't look at the site, I saw multiple definitions of sociopath on google and saw similaer definitions and just picked on a site. I have seen sociopath referred to by the definitions I listed.

If you think Iran can cover up nuclear activity that easily you have zero knowledge about nuclear activity. We have been able to detect nuclear activity on sites that are way more than a month from being active and cleared out. Nuclear activity leaves a long-lasting trace.

Immigration:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...s-than-enter/2012/04/23/gIQApyiDdT_story.html

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...mmigrant-population-stable-for-half-a-decade/

GMOs: when you claim "GMOs are toxic" it's obvious you are completely clueless about GMOs so it would be futile for me to cite all the evidence to counteract all the bogus information you have undoubtedly been feeding on by the likes of Dr. Mercola and the Food Babe, lol. Two of the many internet hucksters people like you listen to. If you are actually interested:

https://gmoanswers.com

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

Gee whiz- if only there was a mechanism for the anti-GMO people to fund a legitimate study to prove GMOs are bad for people. I guess only the GMO companies and universities have the ability to test things People can get the money together to fund the production of a beer cooler with a radio but a scientifically-valid, peer-reviewed and repeatable study proving GMOs are bad is just impossible, lol.

ACA
Thanks to the filibuster and the bogus Hastert rule, the Democrats have found it nearly impossible to get anything done in Congress, even when they had the majority. The Dems WANTED single-payer but the GOP blocked it at every turn to protect the health insurance lobby. The ACA was a compromise with the GOP and many Democrats are annoyed that we had to agree to it and are the only party that is even capable of compromising for the good of the country. There ARE cost controls in the ACA so your statement is also false there. Small businesses qualify for a health insurance tax credit and Obama deferred some business requirements temporarily to help them adjust (which resulted in the GOP calling him an emperor, remember?). What exactly is the burden on your employer? Sounds to me like an excuse to cut costs. Perfect timing to be able to tell you its the ACA's fault.

BTW- The ACA already has many preventative healthcare provisions like an annual checkup included in the premium (no copay required) and other preventative tests like colonoscopies and mammograms for no copay. Many insurers, like my own, also offer a discount on a gym membership provided the person goes a minimum number of times per month.

Legal immigration has remained about 1 million per year for over a decade.
Illegal immigration continues unabated and deportations have dropped like a rock.

I can cute hundreds of studies showing the harm from GMOs. I guess you can't be convinced since you think monsanto is an upstanding company and the government doesn't take bribes. The WHO came out and said glyphosphate (roundup) is a possible carcinogen-is this a reliable source? I sure as heck know our FDA and USDA are bought-I certainly hope you're not foolish enough to think they don't do company's bidding.
You think GMOs are safe, I think they're unsafe. Again-why don't I have a right to know to make the choice for myself?

My company had to actually drop our policy because it didn't jibe with the ACA. Now I have an HMO with a $1500 deductible-something that didn't exist before the ACA.
I know many people who are going through the same thing I'm going through

I'm happy about Obamacare. Some of my relatives who were uninsurable now have reasonable coverage.

A serious proposal: A two-track system, like Australia, where 6-9% of GDP is publicly-provided public health service care (employees are some type of public employee civil servants) for anybody and everybody, including the super-rich if they don't mind waiting in line like the rest of us, and, privately-funded extra healthcare for people who want private care or want something that isn't provided by the purely public system.

I could go along with that

Now we're getting somewhere.

steve333, if a coalition of D + R reps proposed something like you describe or something like jnpy!$4g3cwk describes, would you want to contact your own rep to encourage or kill such a proposal?

I would encourage it, depending on the details of course.

 

[mudslag]

I didn't look at the site, I saw multiple definitions of sociopath on google and saw similaer definitions and just picked on a site. I have seen sociopath referred to by the definitions I listed.

Sure you saw it on a site that focuses on conspiracies by a writer who doesn't even have a degree in sociology. You copied it word for word from said site. Unless you can provide actual backing from a legit sociology source, stating you have seen it referenced doesn't actually give credibility to said reference. Nor does it support your claim in the manner you used it in. Not that it actually helped your position to begin with. You pointed out policy moves that you just happen to disagree with then turn around and claim he is a lying sociopath and yet nothing you initially pointed out had anything to do with lying. It was basically a butthurt type comment made out of bitterness towards Obama then actually having any true substance.

 

[steve333]

Sure you saw it on a site that focuses on conspiracies by a writer who doesn't even have a degree in sociology. You copied it word for word from said site. Unless you can provide actual backing from a legit sociology source, stating you have seen it referenced doesn't actually give credibility to said reference. Nor does it support your claim in the manner you used it in. Not that it actually helped your position to begin with. You pointed out policy moves that you just happen to disagree with then turn around and claim he is a lying sociopath and yet nothing you initially pointed out had anything to do with lying. It was basically a butthurt type comment made out of bitterness towards Obama then actually having any true substance.

He promised to label GMOs when first running then turned around and put monsanto in charge of his USDA and FDA.
LIE
He first said Iran wouldn't be able to produce a nuclear weapon with the deal, then turned around and said they could do it after 10 years.
LIE
He said ISIS was merely a rookie organization.
LIE
He said Yemen was stable shortly before the Houthi's took it over.
LIE
He said we would be able to keep our doctors under ACA.
LIE
He said he would prosecute big banks and wall street after the financial collapse.
LIE
The man is a serial liar, just because you're too dense to see it doesn't make it not so

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
He may not have all the traits but he has over 50% of them

 

[Renzatic]

He promised to label GMOs when first running then turned around and put monsanto in charge of his USDA and FDA.

LIE

Monsanto is a monster of an organization, and is practically the poster child of the negative influences of corporate money in politics.

Though this is the first I've heard of them being put in charge of the USDA and FDA. Also, I have yet to understand the big deal about GMOs, other than the fact that they're GMOs.

He first said Iran wouldn't be able to produce a nuclear weapon with the deal, then turned around and said they could do it after 10 years.
LIE

This is the first I've heard of this, too. Isn't the whole point of the cycle of inspections to make sure Iran doesn't militarize their nuclear program?

He said ISIS was merely a rookie organization.
LIE

It's only a lie if he were psychic. At the time, no one knew exactly how big of a threat ISIS would become.

He said Yemen was stable shortly before the Houthi's took it over.
LIE

Same as above.

He said we would be able to keep our doctors under ACA.
LIE

Was this a mistake, or a lie? I know a lot of people like to construe this as the latter, but I'm not so sure.

He said he would prosecute big banks and wall street after the financial collapse.
LIE

I'll give you this one, though it isn't Obama's fault solely. Obama and congress made the first steps towards doing just that, but then...nothing. A few CEOs pleaded the fifth, and most everyone walked.

The man is a serial liar, just because you're too dense to see it doesn't make it not so

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
He may not have all the traits but he has over 50% of them

He's not a psychopath, no matter how much you try and twist the definition. What he is, is a politician.

 

[mudslag]

1. He promised to label GMOs when first running then turned around and put monsanto in charge of his USDA and FDA.
LIE
2. He first said Iran wouldn't be able to produce a nuclear weapon with the deal, then turned around and said they could do it after 10 years.
LIE
3. He said ISIS was merely a rookie organization.
LIE
4. He said Yemen was stable shortly before the Houthi's took it over.
LIE
5. He said we would be able to keep our doctors under ACA.
LIE
6. He said he would prosecute big banks and wall street after the financial collapse.
LIE
The man is a serial liar, just because you're too dense to see it doesn't make it not so

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
He may not have all the traits but he has over 50% of them

1. There are a number of campaign promises that haven't been fulfilled, that's politics. That goes for every politician that runs, cause they all make them, I doubt there is a single politician who's ever completed all of them. That doesn't equate lying, just means they didn't get done or a compromise was needed. It's far different then "I promise to not cheat on my test" or "I wont cheat on my wife" type promise. It doesn't take an Einstein to understand the difference. In all fairness he still has time to complete it as well. Hiring someone from Monsanto doesn't equate that it wont happen either.

2. Can you provide where in the deal Iran is allowed to have nukes in 10 yrs or where Obama turned around and said they could?

3. Link to him calling them a rookie organization? When did he make it, within the last few months or before they became the force they are today? Timing plays a role in the validity of said statement.

4. Again need context. Same question as #3

5. That's true he did say that and had the initial program passed, it would have been true. You can actually thank Congress for screwing that one up.

6. That is another true one, he did say he would go after them and didn't.

As I stated in #1, some of what you complain about fall under campaign promises and anyone who understands even basics of politics understands it's not possible to fulfill all. If that's your measuring stick for lying, I hope you're willing to call out every politician who's ever played the game, past and future. That includes any politicians you personally support as well. And unless you can provide a list of every promise and lie a politician you support has made and done and vs that with Obama, then it's impossible for you to lay claim that Obama is somehow more so then any other politician.

As for the mcafee link, can you provide the profile research you've done Obama showing exactly how he fits the so called 50% of them as you claim. Which 50% ones by the way, just saying he's a lier doesn't actually cut it.

Also what about when he tells the truth, that kind of goes against being a serial liar. Good thing politifact keeps track of many of these. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

 

[thekev]

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
He may not have all the traits but he has over 50% of them

I'll just leave this here.

Edit: I thought I should be more explicit. If you're going to use something for reference in support of some statement, you should check whether it does in fact support you statement and whether it would be considered at least somewhat credible. The one you chose doesn't work on either point. You just picked the first thing on google that sounded like it might agree with you, which is really just childish behavior.

I, the creator of this site, am not a psychologist and have no special expertise in the subject. I created the site as a public service, because no similar site existed in 2003. I occasionally get sad calls and emails. I urge you to consult either a clinical psychologist or the police depending on the problem you face, and wish you good luck.

 

[bandrews]

GMOs are not needed for anything and were never developed to increase crop yields. Their sole purpose was to allow farmers to douse crops with as much toxic roundup as they wanted without destroying the crops. Win-win for Monsanto, lose-lose for us since not only the GMOs are toxic but roundup as well.
You don't care if you eat poison, well I do care. Why deprive me of the knowledge of what I'm buying-do you also object to nutrtion information on foods?

It is quite obvious you know nothing about farming and I'm afraid that does no favours to the rest of your arguments.

 

[steve333]

Here's the deal-some people like a person, they can't believe he is anything but a swell guy. The same thing happened with Reagan, Clinton and of course all politicians.

I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when he was elected even though I didn't vote for him (I voted for Alan Keyes because i didn't like either candidate). I was frankly tired of Bush (didn't vote for him either time) and even though I didn't trust Obama or think he was deserving to become President I was ready for a change.

One of the reasons I wanted him to succeed was because he promised to label GMOs when he was running and even though I lean right on some issues (capital punishment, illegal immigration, against quotas, against Fed involvement in housing issues) I also lean left on some issues (Pro choice, consumer safety, food safety, health insurance, breaking up big banks, against corporate ownership of our government) that is one of my biggest issues and was happy we would have someone in charge who actually gave a crap about the people.

Well, he enters office, Michelle plants an organic garden at the White House, all good, and then he not only ignores his promise to label GMOs, he appoints known monsanto lackey Tom Vilsack to head his USDA. Vilsack has rubber stamped every single GMO up for approval, more GMOs approved under Obama than all other Presidents combined.
I know politicians lie but I have never seen someone pull a 180 as big as this.


That started my hate affair with Obama. His cowtowing to the illegal alien lobby added to it. His attitude towards our allies, his bending over to enemies like the muslim brotherhood and Iran, his health care plan (which even though I wanted the previous system to be fixed just added new problems and didn't really fix anything for the middle class), his numerous foreign policy miscues (yes, he said Yemen was fine months ago), his administration didn't notice ISIS which was building up a force in the thousands with tanks and weaponry, his public irritation with Bibi (yes Bibi is a jerk but Papa Bush had to deal with Yitzak Shamir and we never heard a peep out of him), his cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, his screw up with Russia. Long run on sentence but these are just some issues I have with him.

Some folks will never see this, some will refuse to see this, and some will still think of him as the second coming just because he can give an eloquent teleprompter speech.
I have seen enough of Obama to come to he conclusion that he's a POS. I think history will come to that conclusion as well.

 

[laurim]

I can cute hundreds of studies showing the harm from GMOs. I guess you can't be convinced since you think monsanto is an upstanding company and the government doesn't take bribes. The WHO came out and said glyphosphate (roundup) is a possible carcinogen-is this a reliable source? I sure as heck know our FDA and USDA are bought-I certainly hope you're not foolish enough to think they don't do company's bidding.
You think GMOs are safe, I think they're unsafe. Again-why don't I have a right to know to make the choice for myself?

Please do cite the negative studies. There are over 2,000 studies that say the opposite. If you have the gall to cite that bogus Seralini study I'll know how hopeless this is.

I was just banned from posting on the NaturalNews website for posting a few informative articles about GMOs. Badge of honor in my book. Too bad the anti-GMO websites won't let their readers decide for themselves what to think by reading info on both sides.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...st_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...afe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/2/

http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php

https://cosmosmagazine.com/life-sciences/gm-food-safe-according-independent-studies?utm_source=This Week in Cosmos&utm_campaign=457fff8877-This_week_in_Cosmos_12_Sept09_13_2014_US&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1df827744a-457fff8877-117898069&mc_cid=457fff8877&mc_eid=027dd90008

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595?journalCode=bty&

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/12/04/anti-gmo-activism-and-its-impact-on-food-security/

The WHO came out and said glyphosphate (roundup) is a possible carcinogen-is this a reliable source?

POSSIBLE carcinogen. And in the same category (2A) as they put high temp frying pans and occupational exposure experienced as a barber.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer/

EXCERPT:

What evidence is there for a link between glyphosate and cancer?
The IARC review notes that there is limited evidence for a link to cancer in humans. Although several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found no link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.

Now I have an HMO with a $1500 deductible-something that didn't exist before the ACA.

As a freelancer for over 15 years, I have had to pay for my own health insurance and have always had a high deductible plan. A $1,500 deductible would be peanuts for me compared to the $5,000+ plan I've always had BEFORE and after the ACA. Unless you are sickly, a high deductible plan won't affect you. I've never come close to meeting my deductible and I enjoy the benefits of the lower premium. A yearly checkup doesn't get charged to the deductible thanks to the ACA. If you have a condition that needs a lot of ongoing care, you should pay a higher premium to get a lower deductible. Not rocket science. And if your previous plan didn't meet the basic ACA provisions, it was a crap plan. My old plan met the ACA just fine. I changed plans just lower my premiums a little more.



BTW- Why is the right wing so obsessed with teleprompters? Guess what. I'm in the live events business and MANNNNNNNY people use teleprompters. They do it to make sure they get their facts perfectly correct. Do you really want the president to say facts and figures off the top of his head all the time? Such a dumb thing to complain about. There's a reason the clear teleprompter screens they use are called "presidentials". Presidents have been using them since they were invented.

 

[blacktape242]

Oh god now we are talking about GMO's

BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

what a joke...

 

[steve333]

First off, I'm not right wing as I stated in my previous post. people bring it up with Obama because he gives a great speech but without the prompter he turns into a bumbling idiot. Basically-don't vote for someone just because he gives a good speech. I guess we should elect Tony Robbins next.

My health Insurance was not great before but it was considered a Cadillac Plan (basically too good to avoid my company getting taxed because of it.
I had the same deductible as I do now but it was a PPO-could go to whatever doctor I wanted to. With the new HMO deductible plan I can't even stay with my desired doctor or hospital. Yes-I blame ACA for this because ACA forced the switch.

As for GMOs, I have studied them for years and I can also give links to studies proving harm. There is no way to say they are safe long term because no long term studies have been done on humans. However, I have seen studies done on pigs that showed intestinal damage from GMO feed, studies that show harm to animals long term.
Monsanto has never claimed that they are safe, they just say the FDA approved them.
Monsanto has claimed that glyphosphate is safe and their claim for safety was that it was destroyed in the GI tract and didn't gt into the blood stream. This has been proven false as studies on new borns have shown traces of glyphosphate, meaning it actually went from the bloodstream into the fetus.
GMOs mean more glyphosphate since farmers can spray heavily without it destroying the plant. Of course farmers like that, however the heavy use is creating superweeds that even roundup can't kill.

Now, if you consider eating 'food' that has never existed before in human history to be completely safe, then chow down. I find it to be dangerous and something to be avoided.
The rates of degenerative diseases such as chron's and other GI tract issues, food allergies, new diseases such as fibromyalgia have skyrocketed since GMOs were approved. Cancer as well, I've never seen so many young people getting cancer.
I don't want to eat this and I have a right to know what foods contain them:
Making a Genetically Engineered Crop
In general there are five different steps required for using biotechnology to creates a new crop variety. These same steps are used no matter what the crop is. We will use the example of BT corn for describing each of these five steps. The soil bacterium,Bacillius thiurengensis, produces an insecticidal protein. That protein is coded for by a certain gene, one example is cry 1Ab.

1. All of the DNA from Bacillius thiurengensis, is isolated in a laboratory.
2. In the laboratory the specific DNA sequence which makes up the cry 1Ab gene is found and copied.
3. The cry 1Ab soil bacterium version of the gene is modified slightly so that it will work better once in a corn plant.
4. In a laboratory a corn plant is transformed with this new modified cry 1Ab gene which will provide the corn plant with insecticidal protection.
5. The corn plant which is able to be transformed does not contain all of the optimal genes which a producer needs in the field. Therefore the last step in biotechnology, occurs in the field where plant breeders cross this corn plant (which contains the cry 1Ab gene) with their top performing lines to create a high yielding BT corn variety.

 

[laurim]

First off, I'm not right wing as I stated in my previous post. people bring it up with Obama because he gives a great speech but without the prompter he turns into a bumbling idiot. Basically-don't vote for someone just because he gives a good speech. I guess we should elect Tony Robbins next.

My health Insurance was not great before but it was considered a Cadillac Plan (basically too good to avoid my company getting taxed because of it.
I had the same deductible as I do now but it was a PPO-could go to whatever doctor I wanted to. With the new HMO deductible plan I can't even stay with my desired doctor or hospital. Yes-I blame ACA for this because ACA forced the switch.

As for GMOs, I have studied them for years and I can also give links to studies proving harm. There is no way to say they are safe long term because no long term studies have been done on humans. However, I have seen studies done on pigs that showed intestinal damage from GMO feed, studies that show harm to animals long term.
Monsanto has never claimed that they are safe, they just say the FDA approved them.
Monsanto has claimed that glyphosphate is safe and their claim for safety was that it was destroyed in the GI tract and didn't gt into the blood stream. This has been proven false as studies on new borns have shown traces of glyphosphate, meaning it actually went from the bloodstream into the fetus.
GMOs mean more glyphosphate since farmers can spray heavily without it destroying the plant. Of course farmers like that, however the heavy use is creating superweeds that even roundup can't kill.

Now, if you consider eating 'food' that has never existed before in human history to be completely safe, then chow down. I find it to be dangerous and something to be avoided.
The rates of degenerative diseases such as chron's and other GI tract issues, food allergies, new diseases such as fibromyalgia have skyrocketed since GMOs were approved. Cancer as well, I've never seen so many young people getting cancer.
I don't want to eat this and I have a right to know what foods contain them:
Making a Genetically Engineered Crop
In general there are five different steps required for using biotechnology to creates a new crop variety. These same steps are used no matter what the crop is. We will use the example of BT corn for describing each of these five steps. The soil bacterium,Bacillius thiurengensis, produces an insecticidal protein. That protein is coded for by a certain gene, one example is cry 1Ab.

1. All of the DNA from Bacillius thiurengensis, is isolated in a laboratory.
2. In the laboratory the specific DNA sequence which makes up the cry 1Ab gene is found and copied.
3. The cry 1Ab soil bacterium version of the gene is modified slightly so that it will work better once in a corn plant.
4. In a laboratory a corn plant is transformed with this new modified cry 1Ab gene which will provide the corn plant with insecticidal protection.
5. The corn plant which is able to be transformed does not contain all of the optimal genes which a producer needs in the field. Therefore the last step in biotechnology, occurs in the field where plant breeders cross this corn plant (which contains the cry 1Ab gene) with their top performing lines to create a high yielding BT corn variety.

Well, you have dutifully memorized all the anti-GMO rhetoric that isn't actually based in science. You've "studied" them for years. Are you a food biologist? A food engineer? Any kind of scientist? I have a chemical engineering degree.

Question: If farm animals are harmed by GMOs and MOST farm animals are fed with GMOs, why aren't farm animals dying left and right and if they make animals sick, why would farmers risk all that money by killing their animals?

Yes, more glyphosphate is being used and that's a good thing because it's less toxic than the pesticides that would be used instead. Net, net: fewer toxic pesticides being used

Many plants and animals we use today didn't exist for all time. Seedless watermelon, sweet potatoes, ruby grapefruit, cows, mules and many more. The fact that we can replicate the old modification methods to get the desired results faster and in a more controlled manner doesn't make it bad.

Nature has been putting bacteria genes in plants long before we came along:
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...t-potato-genetically-modified-8-000-years-ago

http://www.biofortified.org/2015/07/crop-modification-techniques-infographic/

Bacillius thiurengensis is the most common pesticide used in organic farming. It's great because the alkaline stomach of the insect turns it into a poison that kills the insect but the acidic stomachs of animals and humans just pass it through our systems harmlessly.

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=57798

And all those diseases you list aren't correlated with GMOs. Sorry, just not true. Vaccines don't cause autism, either.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked

And for dessert, if you really like the Natural News website, here are some articles about the guy who runs it:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/05/19/mike-adams-engages-in-legal-thuggery-against-critic/

http://healthwyze.org/index.php/com...the-legend-of-mike-adams-and-the-reality.html

I object you disrespecting our president by calling him a "bumbling idiot" when he speaks extemporaneously. He has made many wonderful speeches without a teleprompter and even when he speaks carefully, what he says is measured and intelligent, unlike the hateful rhetoric coming from the right wing.

 

[steve333]

Well, you have dutifully memorized all the anti-GMO rhetoric that isn't actually based in science.

Question: If farm animals are harmed by GMOs and MOST farm animals are fed with GMOs, why aren't farm animals dying left and right and if they make animals sick, why would farmers risk all that money by killing their animals?

Yes, more glyphosphate is being used and that's a good thing because it's less toxic than the pesticides that would be used instead. Net, net: fewer toxic pesticides being used

Many plants and animals we use today didn't exist for all time. Seedless watermelon, sweet potatoes, ruby grapefruit, cows, mules and many more. The fact that we can replicate the old modification methods to get the desired results faster and in a more controlled manner doesn't make it bad.

Nature has been putting bacteria genes in plants long before we came along:
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...t-potato-genetically-modified-8-000-years-ago

http://www.biofortified.org/2015/07/crop-modification-techniques-infographic/

Bacillius thiurengensis is the most common pesticide used in organic farming. It's great because the alkaline stomach of the insect turns it into a poison that kills the insect but the acidic stomachs of animals and humans just pass it through our systems harmlessly.

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=57798

And all those diseases you list aren't correlated with GMOs. Sorry, just not true. Vaccines don't cause autism, either.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked

And for dessert, if you really like the Natural News website, here are some articles about the guy who runs it:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/05/19/mike-adams-engages-in-legal-thuggery-against-critic/

http://healthwyze.org/index.php/com...the-legend-of-mike-adams-and-the-reality.html

Not based on science according to the fools who trust paid off scientists?
This science canard is a joke. There are just as many scientists who don't think GMOs should have been approved in the first place, so that argument is moot.
Many farmers have switched to non GMO feed, which for pigs is pretty easy since they will eat anything.
Yeah, those diseases are correlated with GMOs and glyphosphate and countries are starting to ban both. The only reason the U.S. won't is because Monsanto has bought our government.
Those fruits and vegetables you listed are just plants with similar traits mixed together, not harmful. Inserting a pesticide inside a plant=harmful.
Monsanto wants to control all seeds and the food supply, interesting how that doesn't bother you, but not surprising since you seem to trust the government and monsanto-2 beacons of righteousness and honesty.
Stop harping on that Natural News site-I just picked some quotes from a google search, I don't frequent it.
Glyphosphate will be banned eventually and it has been already shown to be at least as, if not more dangerous than many pesticides.
Labeling GMOs will come eventually and that will be the end for your God Monsanto and it can't happen soon enough.

 

[Dionte]

This is a belief not fact. There is no science to back this up. There has been no "Gay Gene' discovered.

Then why are our brain patterns different. Akin to both sexes.

http://time.com/116843/gay-dads-brains-develop-just-like-those-of-straight-parents-study-finds/

 

[iBlazed]

Then why are our brain patterns different. Akin to both sexes.

http://time.com/116843/gay-dads-brains-develop-just-like-those-of-straight-parents-study-finds/

Fascinating article!

 

[laurim]

Not based on science according to the fools who trust paid off scientists?
This science canard is a joke. There are just as many scientists who don't think GMOs should have been approved in the first place, so that argument is moot.
Many farmers have switched to non GMO feed, which for pigs is pretty easy since they will eat anything.
Yeah, those diseases are correlated with GMOs and glyphosphate and countries are starting to ban both. The only reason the U.S. won't is because Monsanto has bought our government.
Those fruits and vegetables you listed are just plants with similar traits mixed together, not harmful. Inserting a pesticide inside a plant=harmful.
Monsanto wants to control all seeds and the food supply, interesting how that doesn't bother you, but not surprising since you seem to trust the government and monsanto-2 beacons of righteousness and honesty.
Stop harping on that Natural News site-I just picked some quotes from a google search, I don't frequent it.
Glyphosphate will be banned eventually and it has been already shown to be at least as, if not more dangerous than many pesticides.
Labeling GMOs will come eventually and that will be the end for your God Monsanto and it can't happen soon enough.

Keep waiting for you to link to anything to support your claims so we can evaluate it. Are any of them debunked in this article?:

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...ving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/

Obviously, you didn't read any of my links. I specifically linked to how sweet potatoes were created by natural gene splicing bacteria dna with potato dna. If you had any science background, you would know that saying something like "inserting a pesticide inside a plant = harmful" is a ridiculous statement because a pesticide is ANYTHING that would kill a pest, including something simple like vinegar. This simplistic view of science is on par with the Food Babe who thinks any chemical that is used in manufacturing one product (e.g. yoga mats) must be dangerous if used in a food product (bread). It makes ZERO sense chemically but if enough food nazis rally with the BS they can get a company to change their products to make them shut the hell up. It's sad, really. It makes me so mad that people who have no business meddling in technology are injecting their caveman "fire bad, fire is the devil" mentality on public policy, all the while making money off of people who want to believe the lies. That's why I waste this much time trying to educate people but you would rather wallow in paranoia and conspiracy theories than educate yourself.

I trust the judgement of these scientists:

Organizations that support the scientific consensus on GMOs:

This is a partial list of well-respected organizations that have commented on genetically modified crops including a link to where they made the statement:

• American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://tinyurl.com/kkf277d)
• 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://bit.ly/166OUdM)
• The United States National Academy of Sciences: “Environmental effects at the farm level have occurred as a result of the adoption of GE crops and the agricultural practices that accompany their cultivation. The introduction of GE crops has reduced pesticide use or the toxicity of pesticides used on fields where soybean, corn, and cotton are grown.” (http://tinyurl.com/l75nmc2)
• World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)
• The United States National Academy of Sciences: “To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” (http://tinyurl.com/m8muumm)
• 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://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)
• 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 genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” (http://bit.ly/1ApHGEW)
• American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.” (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)
• 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)
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration: “FDA is confident that the bioengineered foods on the United States market today are as safe as their conventional counterparts.” (http://tinyurl.com/qzkpacd)
• Health Canada: “Health Canada is not aware of any published scientific evidence demonstrating that novel foods are any less safe than traditional foods.” (http://tinyurl.com/pou7ma6)
• Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)
• 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://tinyurl.com/o72hu84)
• Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.” (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)
• American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE) Update: The American Dietetic Association (ADA) has become The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND). While the above statement reflected the ADA’s position the president of AND has stated that AND is currently neutral and has no position on GMOs.
• 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)
• 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) Google translate (http://tinyurl.com/noawpkm)
• “Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” – Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences: “Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)
• French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO) Google translate (http://tinyurl.com/nwoztm8)
• 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)
• Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF)
• International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” (http://tinyurl.com/na7ojbu)

 

[steve333]

Interesting how interested you are in promoting monsanto, what exactly do you do for a living?
How much does monsanto pay those 'scientists'?

 

[mudslag]

Interesting how interested you are in promoting monsanto, what exactly do you do for a living?
How much does monsanto pay those 'scientists'?

Ad hominem, when you cant debate the post made, accuse (err) her of being shill for monsanto. Now that's what I call interesting.

edit:

 

[laurim]

Ad hominem, when you cant debate the post made, accuse him of being shill for monsanto. Now that's what I call interesting.

It's the equivalent of shutting down religious arguments by saying "it's God's will" or claiming someone is an Apple "fanboy" (or fangirl in my case). If you disagree with them, you are a paid shill for X. Desperate. And it's when you know you've won the argument.

 

[laurim]

Interesting how interested you are in promoting monsanto, what exactly do you do for a living?
How much does monsanto pay those 'scientists'?

I couldn't care less about Monsanto or the hundreds of other GMO-developing companies. I care about the truth, scientific truth. I care about the starving people in countries ravaged by climate change who can't grow food on their lands without seeds that can better withstand drought conditions. They can't wait for a natural selection method of creating new strains of crops. I care about the proliferation of junk "science" having a negative effect on society and keeping us from moving forward in a smart way.

What do I do for a living? I used to be a chemical engineer. First, I worked for a chemical company called Ethyl Corp developing a way to manufacture a chemical catalyst for making polypropylene plastic. I hated living in Louisiana because it was so racist so I looked for another job. Then, I worked at P&G on Bounty paper towels and in the cosmetics division before I got laid off in the '90s and decided to switch to a profession that used the other side of my brain and one I could do freelance. I was exposed to some marketing while I worked at P&G so I landed on graphic design and eventually I specialized in motion graphics for live events. My engineering background is still useful for understanding A/V equipment and generally being able to distinguish good scientific studies from crap studies. Most of my clients are in the professional hair care products industry. See? Nothing to do with Monsanto, although once I did happen to get hired to operate the Powerpoints for a two-day meeting at Syngenta, a local MN seed company that develops GMOs, and I heard them talk about how their drought and pest-resistant seeds would help people in other countries affected by climate change. Btw- totally normal, friendly people and we ALL had corn at lunch, lol. At another time, I worked an event for Stanford alumni where the subject of GMOs came up in relation to food banks and world food insecurity where both a Food Ethics professor from Stanford and the CEO of Second Harvest food bank were both proponents of GMOs. Nobody was standing in the corner wringing their hands, counting money and cackling an evil laugh.

If anti-GMO people are so worried about scientists being paid shills (apparently everyone is a paid shill for something, wish I knew how to get some of that money from Monsanto or Apple or whatever else I've been accused of being paid to promote), why don't they crowdfund enough money to do a legitimate study on their own? Why can't they accomplish that? Take some of Mercola's Vortex water money (magical water from an expensive blender) and do a decent study no one can dispute!

 

[steve333]

Well, guys, looks like I'm not going to convince you and you sure won't convince me.
Chow down, enjoy your genetically modified frankenfoods and I will avoid them as best I can.

In the first of its kind systems biology approach, scientists at the International Center for Integrative Systems analyzed more than 6,837 lab experiments to discover an alarming accumulation of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and a dramatic depletion of glutathione, a key antioxidant necessary for proper detoxification of cells and maintain a healthy immune systems in plants, animals and humans.

These findings shatter the myth that GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to traditionally bred non-GMO crops and show for the first time that significant damage is done at the cellular level to foods that have been genetically engineered through the process of transgenic insertion of foreign genes