Create new account | My Profile | My Account | My Bookmarks | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Google search

Advanced search

HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Breaking News: Monsanto t...

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:54 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

 

Breaking News: Monsanto to Be Put to Trial in Hague for Crimes Against Humanity

...
The Monsanto Company enjoys what can only be described as a cozy relationship with the American mainstream press, in large part because it’s an America-based company that is heavily involved in lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill.

But overseas, the company and its contemporaries in the agrochemical business world are largely shunned and/or banned due to transgressions against both health and the environment.

Monsanto also has a penchant for suing farmers, another item that often goes unreported. But now the multinational company many describe as a legal bully will be placed on trial – this time in international court for Crimes Against Humanity, according to a new report from the website Sustainable Pulse.
...
The Monsanto Tribunal, which will be held in The Hague from October 12 to 16, 2016, aims to assess these allegations made against Monsanto, and to evaluate the damages caused by this transnational company. The Tribunal will rely on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” adopted at the UN in 2011. It will also assess potential criminal liability on the basis of the Rome Statue that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether a reform of international criminal law is warranted to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense.


...
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/breaking-news-monsanto-to-put-to-trial-in-the-hague-for-crimes-against-humanity/

367 replies, 36834 views

Thread infoBookmark this threadTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 367 replies Author Time Post
Reply Breaking News: Monsanto to Be Put to Trial in Hague for Crimes Against Humanity (Original post)
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 OP
LineReply Heck, this "tribunal" may even be in the Hague!
 Archae Dec 2015 #1
LineLineReply What is your opinion on Monsanto and the GMO?
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #4
LineLineLineReply What difference does it make?
 Archae Dec 2015 #5
LineLineLineLineReply Gotcha. n/t
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #6
LineLineLineLineReply GMO's use more pesticides and are making crops more resistant requiring more pesticides.
 tecelote Dec 2015 #17
LineLineLineLineLineReply GMOs reduce pesticide use, and super weeds are not a bigger issue with GMOs.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #25
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply Don't be fooled. This is poisoning our land and our people.
 tecelote Dec 2015 #27
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply All of your links are about the same basic stuff, from Benbrook.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #31
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply So it makes sense to you that we can keep pouring pesticides on our land with no adverse effects?
 tecelote Dec 2015 #37
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply ,..That^
 840high Dec 2015 #38
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Lots and lots of plants you eat produce natural pesticides and always have
 skepticscott Dec 2015 #40
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Because they have always been safe. Centuries of testing.
 tecelote Dec 2015 #42
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply So then when you said "poison is poison"
 skepticscott Dec 2015 #50
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Please list these "lots and lots" of plants
 Art_from_Ark Dec 2015 #259
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply not a list but an explanation
 Kali Dec 2015 #284
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Oh, I understand that plants often produce natural insecticides
 Art_from_Ark Dec 2015 #289
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply ah, wasn't sure if you knew the process
 Kali Dec 2015 #297
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply So, you just ignore the fact that you made claims that don't stand up?
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #45
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Weed Control Freaks?
 tecelote Dec 2015 #46
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply WCF is run by agricultural professors.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #97
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply "Please post articles from a reputable source." Says the person who posted a Global Research link.
 EX500rider Dec 2015 #102
LineLineLineLineLineReply There are zero scientific papers in your insane list. Zero.
 NNadir Dec 2015 #33
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply OK.
 bvar22 Dec 2015 #41
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply For whom? For you? To prove a negative?
 NNadir Dec 2015 #179
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Gish-Gallop.
 bvar22 Dec 2015 #183
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You didn't ask a question. You lazily made an assertion that is, in fact, an attempt to...
 NNadir Dec 2015 #184
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply I don't care. I don't want to eat pesticides
 RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #132
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Organic doesn't mean no pesticides
 Major Nikon Dec 2015 #140
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Not in New York State
 RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #163
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply That's not even close to true.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #165
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Not the ones that I buy. n/t
 RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #168
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Ah, you can think that.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #169
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Uh, I buy LOCAL organic food.
 RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #171
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I've heard that claim so many times, it's not funny.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #173
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply The people around here are my friends.
 RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #181
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply So first it was "New York State" and now it's "local"
 Major Nikon Dec 2015 #177
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply New York State IS local to me.
 RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #180
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Oh no! Not the dreaded ignore!
 Major Nikon Dec 2015 #182
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply What you are describing is called the National Organic Program (NOP)
 Major Nikon Dec 2015 #176
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply In 2006, my wife & I moved to the Woods, far away from any Agri-Businesss or Industry,
 bvar22 Dec 2015 #142
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You began to eat better, but that had nothing to do with it being marketed as organic.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #143
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Not true
 RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #164
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Well, then it's placebo effect.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #166
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Ok doctor
 RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #167
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply It's got nothing to do with me.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #170
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Yes doctor
 RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #172
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Well, you don't seem to understand much about chemistry, biology, or agriculture.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #174
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Unfortunately for several billion people on the planet, those lacking decent nutrition levels...
 NNadir Dec 2015 #175
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Strawman.
 bvar22 Dec 2015 #186
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Since you don't know any scientists, or for that matter any science...
 NNadir Dec 2015 #316
LineLineLineLineLineReply A commercial for an organic grocery chain as "proof"?
 Nailzberg Dec 2015 #47
LineLineLineLineReply How long does you 1/2 gallon of 2% milk good for? maybe 2weeks
 LiberalArkie Dec 2015 #22
LineLineLineLineLineReply Ultra-heat pasteurization and aseptic packaging.
 Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #101
LineLineLineLineReply What difference does it make?
 carla Dec 2015 #28
LineLineLineLineReply Milk?
 SoLeftIAmRight Dec 2015 #30
LineLineLineLineReply I truly hope your health holds up archae, it sucks being sick!
 Dont call me Shirley Dec 2015 #189
LineLineLineReply What is your opinion on misleading news releases?
 jberryhill Dec 2015 #106
LineLineLineLineReply Read the article, no one is mislead anything.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #117
LineLineLineLineLineReply The article is very misleading, and that has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #156
LineLineLineReply I doubt Monsanto is the worst company out there.
 ZombieHorde Dec 2015 #354
LineLineLineLineReply Like we couldn't have "bananas and hamburgers" without GMO and pesticides!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #355
LineLineLineLineLineReply All cows are GMOs.
 ZombieHorde Dec 2015 #356
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply GMO stand for genetically modified oats.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #357
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply GMO stands for genetically modified organisms.
 ZombieHorde Dec 2015 #358
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply My banannas are not GMOs.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #359
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Here's a little picture of a wild, non gmo banana.
 ZombieHorde Dec 2015 #361
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply That is exactly what they look like!!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #362
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply I'll look for them the next time I go to the health food store.
 ZombieHorde Dec 2015 #367
LineLineReply The article tells a great big honking fib in the headline, to start.
 MADem Dec 2015 #351
LineReply Uh.....no. At least, not a real trial.
 jeff47 Dec 2015 #2
LineLineReply Here are those who are going after MON:
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #9
LineLineLineReply That's not a list of organizations with good track records for accuracy and honest science.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #19
LineLineLineLineReply So only those
 carla Dec 2015 #29
LineLineLineLineLineReply The organization at the OP link promotes all kinds of pseudoscience.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #32
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply OMG - The Science
 SoLeftIAmRight Dec 2015 #34
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply That's a fine response to someone noting the ludicrous things promoted by MAM.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #35
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply OMG - The Science
 SoLeftIAmRight Dec 2015 #36
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply OMG
 Marty McGraw Dec 2015 #103
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Indeed.
 CanSocDem Dec 2015 #152
LineLineLineLineReply Monsanto and Dupont have poor records on protecting the environment. nt
 pnwmom Dec 2015 #196
LineLineLineLineLineReply That doesn't justify the use of deceitful organizations.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #198
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply Monsanto and Dupont have been deceitful, just in different situations.
 pnwmom Dec 2015 #204
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I'm not defending them.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #207
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Have they been proven in court to be dishonest, like Monsanto and Dupont? nt
 pnwmom Dec 2015 #211
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply So now you're defending dishonest organizations?
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #213
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I'm asking if their dishonesty has ever been proved in court.
 pnwmom Dec 2015 #216
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply That's irrelevant.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #217
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply There are levels of dishonesty. Apparently theirs doesn't rise to the levels of the GMO producers,
 pnwmom Dec 2015 #225
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You keep telling yourself that.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #228
LineLineLineReply And they're still not a court of law. (nt)
 jeff47 Dec 2015 #71
LineLineLineLineReply The article speaks for itself.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #73
LineLineLineLineLineReply Yes, it does. And it does not back up the claims you are making.
 jeff47 Dec 2015 #75
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply The headline is from the article.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #78
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Yes, their PR effort is also not telling the truth.
 jeff47 Dec 2015 #81
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply When the criminal or civil charges will be brought, yes they will be forced to testify
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #83
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You posted an OP with a title that is clearly misleading, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #98
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply That group is not the one going after Monsanto.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #129
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply It appears that you can't answer the questions I pose.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #133
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Your concern is noted
 LiberalLovinLug Dec 2015 #147
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You actually compared civil rights to anti-GMO propaganda?
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #154
LineReply I've been saying for a long time they need to be in prison.
 bkkyosemite Dec 2015 #3
LineLineReply +1
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #7
LineLineLineReply +2
 CharlotteVale Dec 2015 #20
LineReply This sounds like the kangaroo court "Citizen's Grand Juries" that all found Obama guilty of treason.
 MohRokTah Dec 2015 #8
LineReply I'm sure it will be fair.
 cpwm17 Dec 2015 #10
LineReply some how I have a feeling that
 yuiyoshida Dec 2015 #11
LineLineReply Except this isn't the Hague, the International Court in that city.
 Archae Dec 2015 #14
LineReply Just maybe they could prosecute Dick 'n' Don?
 chapdrum Dec 2015 #12
LineLineReply This isn't the ICC. This is activists setting up their own court in the same city. (nt)
 jeff47 Dec 2015 #72
LineLineLineReply International organizations, not just "activists".
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #76
LineLineLineLineReply I did read the article. These are international organizations OF ACTIVISTS.
 jeff47 Dec 2015 #77
LineLineLineLineLineReply Yes, so?
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #79
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply So Monsanto is not being put on trial.
 jeff47 Dec 2015 #82
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Lol you keep going in circles.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #84
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I'm afraid it's you who keep returning to the same point, hoping that this time it matters.
 jeff47 Dec 2015 #85
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply The article explains what the mock court will be doing very clearly.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #87
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply And then goes on to massively overstate the results.
 jeff47 Dec 2015 #88
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Official charges will be brought against Monsanto
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #89
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply No, they won't.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #113
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You only wish. Are you gonna have a sad when Monsanto will be officially charged??
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #114
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I don't defend Monsanto.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #115
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply OMG! You have defended GMOs in every thread, ever since I've joined DU!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #120
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Monsanto is a company. GMOs are plants developed using a particular technology.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #122
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Stop acting in which manner?
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #124
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply My questions are clear.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #131
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Wish I knew your position on the GMO before I wasted my time going in circles lol
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #90
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply So you admit that your stance is purely ideological.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #138
LineReply Round-Up Ready -- for cancer
 TryLogic Dec 2015 #13
LineLineReply Did you seriously just link to mercola?...
 SidDithers Dec 2015 #15
LineLineReply Mercola. It figures.
 Archae Dec 2015 #16
LineReply Thanks for reminding me that I have to buy some more glyphosate
 Botany Dec 2015 #18
LineLineReply Thats just sad. n/t
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #21
LineLineLineReply And so is the loss of lupines, monarchs, wood thrushes, and our native ecosystems
 Botany Dec 2015 #23
LineReply I am in favor of a mock trial of Monsanto even if it is merely a mock trial
 Jack Rabbit Dec 2015 #24
LineLineReply Suing farmers - the invisible elephant in the room
 MH1 Dec 2015 #92
LineLineLineReply It's pretty sad to see support of bad science and conspiracy theory purveying groups at DU.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #136
LineReply Before there were these allegations
 swilton Dec 2015 #26
LineLineReply EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING!
 Herman4747 Dec 2015 #39
LineLineLineReply Not just what it did...
 deathrind Dec 2015 #51
LineLineLineLineReply Yes, people are still dying because of agent orange. n/t
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #74
LineLineLineLineLineReply Makers (Dow and Monsanto) of Agent Orange followed formula dictated by U.S. government
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #137
LineLineLineLineLineReply ...and still being born.
 deathrind Dec 2015 #146
LineReply Awesome! Monsanto's criminal abuses deserve swift & sure justice.
 99th_Monkey Dec 2015 #43
LineReply I'm a farmer.....lots of ignorance posted here
 Dickster Dec 2015 #44
LineLineReply Thank you for your post.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #86
LineLineReply Thank you for taking the time
 zalinda Dec 2015 #99
LineLineReply And what is your informed opinion
 skepticscott Dec 2015 #116
LineLineLineReply He failed to address exactly what method of weed control he utilizes, too.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #118
LineLineLineLineReply Not everything in life is about costs.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #126
LineLineLineLineLineReply I care about not poisoning the planet.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #135
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply And if he wants to spend more, let him admit
 skepticscott Dec 2015 #139
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Indeed. -eom-
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #141
LineLineLineLineReply He failed to mention a lot of other things as well
 Major Nikon Dec 2015 #144
LineLineReply Id rather spray my fields with Roundup than "conventional" Atrazine.
 Elmergantry Dec 2015 #309
LineReply Quite misleading headline. Not a real court.
 yellowcanine Dec 2015 #48
LineLineReply I disagree.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #49
LineLineLineReply Not correct.
 tritsofme Dec 2015 #58
LineLineLineLineReply Because they need to figure out the charges which can be brought against Monsanto
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #59
LineLineLineLineLineReply They don't get to make such a determination on charges
 tritsofme Dec 2015 #148
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply Sure..
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #149
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Keep dreaming! I guess...
 tritsofme Dec 2015 #150
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply It all has to start somewhere.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #151
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply It's not starting anywhere.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #155
LineReply DERP
 Kali Dec 2015 #52
LineLineReply Are you for or against GMO, Kali?
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #55
LineLineLineReply I have a nuanced view of the matter. Simplistic, black-and-white thinking is not my style.
 Kali Dec 2015 #56
LineLineLineLineReply Ohh ..the personal attacks again
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #57
LineLineLineLineLineReply the way you "asked" the question didn't warrant much respect
 Kali Dec 2015 #60
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply Because I already knew the answer,
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #63
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply ...
 Kali Dec 2015 #68
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply ! n/t
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #70
LineLineLineLineReply I wouldn't count on that.
 Texasgal Dec 2015 #61
LineLineLineLineLineReply Umm OK lol.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #62
LineLineLineLineLineReply like talking to a 2nd grader
 Kali Dec 2015 #69
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply I feel the same about you.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #80
LineReply K&R...
 spanone Dec 2015 #53
LineReply Good.
 deathrind Dec 2015 #54
LineReply Kick!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #64
LineReply Renaming my living room The Hague,...
 NCTraveler Dec 2015 #65
LineLineReply Yes I did.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #66
LineLineReply And BTW, Monsanto is not "a neighbours barking dog".
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #67
LineReply Kick for visibility!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #91
LineReply Ah, a "trial"
 Recursion Dec 2015 #93
LineReply Bill and Hillary Clinton to be put on...
 meaculpa2011 Dec 2015 #94
LineReply Don't get fooled by the GMO issue, this is about business practices.
 haele Dec 2015 #95
LineReply YAY! Obviously the International Court has plenty of clear EVIDENCE to put the murderous company
 Dont call me Shirley Dec 2015 #96
LineLineReply Your post was alerted on
 Ichingcarpenter Dec 2015 #104
LineLineLineReply Oh, thank you thank you thank you jurists!
 Dont call me Shirley Dec 2015 #145
LineReply Mucho intersante
 Tab Dec 2015 #100
LineReply "International court"
 Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #105
LineLineReply Lololol!!!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #111
LineLineLineReply I support force feeding of GMOs to breast-feeding mothers by pitbulls at the Olive Garden.
 Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #153
LineLineLineLineReply Not "Pitt bulls and Olive Garden", but you surely support Monsanto and GMOs in dozens if not hundred
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #157
LineLineLineLineLineReply The good doctor is quite accurate!
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #158
LineLineLineLineLineReply GMOs, yes.
 Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #159
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply See ya. I have no use in continuing a conversation with someone who calls other DUers
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #160
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Once again, you fail to be able to discuss the matters at hand.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #161
LineLineLineLineReply Plenty of science to back up anti-gmo. But the pro-gmo crowd is more like the "Climate Change is a
 Dont call me Shirley Dec 2015 #190
LineLineLineLineLineReply You have it exactly backwards.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #192
LineLineLineLineLineReply Actually, there's not.
 Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #194
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply "If you want to link to some actual peer-reviewed papers that aren't in pay-to-play publications
 Dont call me Shirley Dec 2015 #200
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply That's not what pay-to-play means.
 Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #202
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Oh, my bad, Pay to Read/Access then. Think...Aaron Schwartz...
 Dont call me Shirley Dec 2015 #209
LineReply Good post. Thanks.
 immoderate Dec 2015 #107
LineReply Breaking News: Monsanto to Be Put on Trial NEAR the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity
 SidDithers Dec 2015 #108
LineReply YES!
 Faux pas Dec 2015 #109
LineReply About damn time...
 StandingInLeftField Dec 2015 #110
LineLineReply It's a mock trial, by anti FMO international organizations
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #112
LineReply What penalty do these charges carry? (nt)
 TacoD Dec 2015 #119
LineLineReply They will determine the official charges at the mock trial.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #121
LineLineReply There are no actual charges. It's just a PR stunt.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #123
LineLineLineReply It is not a PR stunt.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #125
LineLineLineLineReply That's complete nonsense
 MohRokTah Dec 2015 #127
LineLineLineLineLineReply Throw insults all you want.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #128
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply It's funnier what lengths anti-science people go to promote their anti-science. eom
 MohRokTah Dec 2015 #130
LineLineLineLineReply Nonsense. This group is a non-entity in legal circles.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #134
LineLineLineLineLineReply Bye!!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #178
LineLineLineLineReply Okay, great, you'll update is when a case is filed in an actual court?
 jberryhill Dec 2015 #205
LineReply K & R !!!
 WillyT Dec 2015 #162
LineReply Good to hear .
 TheFarS1de Dec 2015 #185
LineReply K&R
 aspirant Dec 2015 #187
LineLineReply Exactly, Aspirant!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #188
LineReply Breaking: Natural News put on trial for crimes against science, educide in The Hague
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #191
LineLineReply Perfect! nt
 Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #195
LineLineReply Satire.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #197
LineLineLineReply Yes, it's satire, which is more accurate than your OP.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #199
LineLineLineLineReply In your own pro-GMO, pro-Monsanto mind maybe..
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #201
LineLineLineLineLineReply No, Monsanto Is Not Going On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #203
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply Lolololol!!!!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #206
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply No, Monsanto Is Not Going On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #208
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Now you're spammimg
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #212
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You already had me on ignore. What happened?
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #215
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Mail ignore, since I've heard how you send cursing messages to posters
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #218
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You claimed to put me on ignore long before that.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #221
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You sent PMs before pnwmom
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #226
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Wow!
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #230
LineReply Recommend. nt
 Zorra Dec 2015 #193
LineReply No, Monsanto Is Not Going On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #210
LineLineReply !!!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #219
LineLineLineReply I was being honest.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #220
LineLineLineLineReply You send PMs telling ppl" F..You" and youre saying you have been honest???
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #224
LineLineLineLineLineReply That's over them treating me like crap for years.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #229
LineLineLineLineLineReply pretty funny
 Kali Dec 2015 #234
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply Over personal attacks, not GMO discussions!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #235
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Looks like there's even more hypocrisy involved than is already seen by this OP,
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #236
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply she claims she is a nurse
 Kali Dec 2015 #270
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Umm.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #275
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Are you saying I am not a nurse now??
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #286
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply If you are, that's scary.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #291
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply This message was self-deleted by its author
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #292
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply BS, BSN, MS, NP.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #293
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I don't know in what world do you live, but ALL MY colegues on my floor are against GMOs!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #295
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I doubt that.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #296
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply No, YOUR status is scary.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #299
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply She wasn't just disagreeing with me. You don't know the first thing about it.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #303
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I'am asking you again for probr your attacks,
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #306
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I am making a fool out of myself, by bothering to address your foolish posts.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #307
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply might want to get a cup of coffee or sleep this off a while
 Kali Dec 2015 #329
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply alerted 5-2 to keep
 Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #312
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I guess they're working hard again, tonight.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #314
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply wasted my time
 Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #315
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I just wish the jury system was more consistent.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #338
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I don't "claim" I am a nurse, I AM a nurse.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #285
LineLineLineReply No, Monsanto Is Not Going On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #222
LineReply This will result in a lot of irrelevant criticisms from Monsanto's colleagues and associates.
 LanternWaste Dec 2015 #214
LineReply Kick and rec!
 zappaman Dec 2015 #223
LineLineReply This message was self-deleted by its author
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #227
LineLineReply A "trainwreck", like your opinion about the homeless??
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #231
LineLineLineReply So logical fallacies are your thing.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #237
LineLineLineLineReply Are you agreeing with what that poster said about homeless people?
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #243
LineLineLineLineLineReply No, I'm not.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #244
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply What content?
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #247
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Why are you asking me questions when you refused to answer mine?
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #249
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I answered all your questions. And you accused me of saying the trial is official
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #251
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply No, you didn't. Not even close.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #255
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Answer where did i say if was an official trial??
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #300
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply How many times have you said the "headline is accurate?"
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #305
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply The headline is accurate because there will be a trail!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #308
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Not in the actual Hague, and not in an actual trial.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #310
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You hate the Anti GMO movement so much,
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #317
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I don't lie, and I don't hate.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #340
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply After you attacked my job, you and I have nothing to discuss anymore.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #342
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply That might matter, if you had actually answered my questions the other day.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #343
LineLineLineReply Golly, you'd think if someone went to all that trouble they wouldn't selectively edit.
 zappaman Dec 2015 #248
LineLineLineLineReply So you admit you said what that poster copied and posted??
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #252
LineLineLineLineLineReply Yup and will match your donation.
 zappaman Dec 2015 #254
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply You call homeless people unspeakable names...
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #260
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply No I didn't.
 zappaman Dec 2015 #262
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I googled most of them and it was from a poster with your name.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #266
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Sure you did.
 zappaman Dec 2015 #269
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Not all, but most.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #272
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Like what?
 zappaman Dec 2015 #277
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You have a "choice of words "...
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #280
LineReply pfffffffffffffffffft
 PeaceNikki Dec 2015 #232
LineLineReply THIS really is the correct reply to the OP
 Kali Dec 2015 #279
LineLineLineReply YES! From the pro GMO folks!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #281
LineReply Well, maybe Monsanto will re-hire Shannon Watts to do PR...
 Eleanors38 Dec 2015 #233
LineLineReply Hehehe! That would be rich!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #238
LineReply From SustainablePulse:
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #239
LineLineReply That's just the same stuff found via the OP.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #240
LineLineLineReply I was told that you keep replying to me, even though I told you you were blocked
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #241
LineLineLineLineReply I am not going to let conspiracy theory "content" go without a response.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #242
LineLineLineLineLineReply Answer the question, why are you against labeling???
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #245
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply You left several unanswered questions above.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #246
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I never once once said this was a real trial.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #250
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply The headline clearly implies that.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #253
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply The headline is correct, because there is a Monsanto Tribunal,
darkangel218 Dec 2015 #256
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Oh, brother.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #257
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Stop deflecting, no one here said it was an official charge, and you know it
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #261
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I'm not the one deflecting in any way, shape or form.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #264
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Sure you're not!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #265
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I've already done that.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #267
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply No you have not. Copy and paste where I said the trial was official??
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #268
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You seem to think you can go with that headline and pretend.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #271
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply The headline is accurate , because they are going on trial!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #274
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Yawn.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #276
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply What about your stance against labeling??
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #282
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply And now you try to deflect in another direction.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #283
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I asked you for proofbi ever said such things, you didn't answer
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #287
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Yes, I did.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #290
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply No, you have not answered why you are against labeling .
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #353
LineReply Just when I think there can't be any stupider posted on DU than what I've read today
 tammywammy Dec 2015 #258
LineLineReply Are you pro or against GMO, tammywammy?
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #263
LineLineLineReply You keep insisting that they can bring charges. They can't.
 tammywammy Dec 2015 #273
LineLineLineLineReply They are assesing what official charges can be brought on INTERNATIONAL level against Monsanto
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #278
LineLineLineLineLineReply "including RT!"
 tammywammy Dec 2015 #313
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply Yah, RT. Russia has banned GMOs.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #318
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I have no idea what you mean by true colors.
 tammywammy Dec 2015 #321
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply How many other European countries are banning GMOs? Do you care about that??
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #322
LineReply bookmarking for future LOLs
 Kali Dec 2015 #288
LineLineReply Good idea!
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #294
LineLineLineReply Yup.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #302
LineLineLineLineReply If there's a reason for it to go down, great.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #304
LineLineLineLineLineReply So all your other pro GMO threads, including Anti Labeling,
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #324
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply Labeling makes no sense.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #336
LineLineReply Self admitted Pro-GMOs will always laugh at this type of thread.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #298
LineLineLineReply nah, I just laugh at you
 Kali Dec 2015 #301
LineLineLineLineReply And i laugh at you,
darkangel218 Dec 2015 #311
LineLineLineLineLineReply Post removed
 Post removed Dec 2015 #325
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply You should be ashamed of yourself for the unwarranted personal attacks.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #326
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I should be ashamed? how many time-outs have you been on?
 Kali Dec 2015 #327
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You have attacked my job, saying I "was not a nurse" you have attacked my fiance!!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #328
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply post links or everyone will suspect your accusations are just
 Kali Dec 2015 #331
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Anyone can search for your attacks!!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #332
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply You seem to do a lot of research on the posts of others.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #344
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply FYI - jury results -
 RiverLover Dec 2015 #334
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply TY River and jurrors.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #335
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Someone is making a lot of baseless alerts. Not cool.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #339
LineReply Trial? No government is trying Monsanto.
 MineralMan Dec 2015 #319
LineLineReply It is a mock trial. Did you not read the article???
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #320
LineLineLineReply How can official charges follow?
 hack89 Dec 2015 #330
LineLineLineLineReply The ICC. n/t
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #333
LineLineLineLineLineNew Reply You really have not got a clue about this, have you?
 muriel_volestrangler Dec 2015 #363
LineLineLineLineLineNew Reply They have no connection whatsoever with the ICC
 hack89 Dec 2015 #364
LineLineLineLineReply It's not plausible. It's just PR.
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #345
LineLineLineLineLineReply Wishing thoughts.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #348
LineLineLineNew Reply Well, it is a mockery of real trials.
 MineralMan Dec 2015 #365
LineLineReply Hello?
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #323
LineLineLineNew Reply You'll wait a long time for me, sometimes.
 MineralMan Dec 2015 #366
LineReply Oct 7 - "Monsanto Tanking: Posts $495 Million Quarterly Loss and Plans to Eliminate 2,600 Jobs"
 RiverLover Dec 2015 #337
LineLineReply You might want to find a more honest source of information...
 HuckleB Dec 2015 #341
LineLineLineReply You might want to give up your pro Monsanto propaganda.
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #347
LineLineLineReply HuckleB?
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #352
LineLineReply TY!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #346
LineReply May they be tried!
 burrowowl Dec 2015 #349
LineLineReply Amen!!!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #350
LineNew Reply Kick!!!!
 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #360

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:05 PM

Archae (44,258 posts)

1. Heck, this "tribunal" may even be in the Hague!

In that city, of course.

Now will it be held in the international court in that city?
More than likely, NOT.

This "March Against Monsanto" group is a bunch of quacks, conspiracy theorists, organic industry advocates and lobbyists.

Let all of us know about this "trial" or "tribunal" when they actually are reported on by a CREDIBLE source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Archae (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:37 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

4. What is your opinion on Monsanto and the GMO?

 

Just curious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:45 PM

Archae (44,258 posts)

5. What difference does it make?

The point is, I don't post articles by salesmen, quacks or politicians, when it comes to science.

GMO's are not "frankenfoods" or "poison," Roundup is not "deadly" if it's handled properly, like my Mom and I do with it.

Organic is a scam.

I saw just this week a half-gallon of "premium organic milk" in the local grocery, for $6.00.

How is it different from the gallon jugs of store brand milk?

Only one way. The price.

The gallon of store brand is about $2.50 a gallon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Archae (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:46 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

6. Gotcha. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Archae (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:10 PM

tecelote (5,008 posts)

17. GMO's use more pesticides and are making crops more resistant requiring more pesticides.

Pesticides kill more than pests.

Pesticides Linked To Increased Childhood Cancer Risk
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pesticides-linked-to-increased-childhood-cancer-risk_55f6deb5e4b077ca094f9274

Monsanto asks California to pull plan to list herbicide as cancer cause
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-monsanto-glyphosate-idUSL1N12K2P820151020

Chemical Exposure Linked to Billions in Health Care Costs
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150305-chemicals-endocrine-disruptors-diabetes-toxic-environment-ngfood/

Monsanto Knew of Glyphosate (Roundup)-Cancer Link 35 Years Ago
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-knew-of-glyphosate-roundup-cancer-link-35-years-ago/5449462

Glyphosate residues in Roundup Ready crops are ignored in safety studies
http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16423-glyphosate-residues-in-roundup-ready-crops-are-ignored-in-safety-studies

Ban on GMO crops in Northern Ireland welcomed
http://www.greenpartyni.org/ban-on-gmo-crops-in-northern-ireland-welcomed/

The Case of Glyphosate: Product Promoters Masquerading as Regulators?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/24/the-case-of-glyphosate-product-promoters-masquerading-as-regulators/

Want to know what happens in your body when you switch from eating conventional food to organic?


We're killing our planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tecelote (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:47 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

25. GMOs reduce pesticide use, and super weeds are not a bigger issue with GMOs.

A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Where are the super weeds?
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/

Also, glyphosate is not a GMO, and while it may be concerning, it is less toxic than many older herbicides. In fact, Chipotle's non-GMO tactic meant going back to the use of harsher herbicides, and increasing super weeds.
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/

Also, note that organic crops use carcinogenic pesticides.
http://ascienceenthusiast.com/organic-crops-use-carcinogenic-pesticides/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:59 PM

tecelote (5,008 posts)

27. Don't be fooled. This is poisoning our land and our people.

FORBES: GMO Crops Mean More Herbicide, Not Less
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

REUTERS: Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002#JTvKzLdoZHMLgbvr.99

HUFFINGTON POST: Herbicide and Insecticide Use on GMO Crops Skyrocketing While Pro-GMO Media Run Interference
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bronner/herbicide-insecticide-use_b_5791304.html

HARVARD: GMOs and Pesticides: Helpful or Harmful?
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/

MOTHER JONES: How GMOs Unleashed a Pesticide Gusher
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/how-gmos-ramped-us-pesticide-use

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tecelote (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:06 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

31. All of your links are about the same basic stuff, from Benbrook.

His stuff was debunked in one of the pieces I already posted. (And note that his single debunked study does not mean the meta analysis in my post goes away.)

Also, I don't think you read the fourth link. It's quite balanced.

When Bad News Stories Help Bad Science Go Viral
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/10/03/when-bad-news-stories-help-bad-science-go-viral/

A Very Short Debunking: “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years” Benbrook, 2009
http://www.foodsecurist.com/debunked-impacts-of-genetically-engineered-crops-on-pesticide-use-the-first-thirteen-years-benbrook-2009/

Anti-GMO study is appropriately dismissed as biased, poorly-performed
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/09/24/anti-gmo-study-is-appropriately-dismissed-as-biased-poorly-performed/

And guess who funds Benbrook's bad science?

Washington State Professor Allies With Organics Industry
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-benbrook.html?_r=0

This is a classic story that shows the ugly side of corporations. This time, the corporations are ones that have tried to pretend their the good guys, when they're not, but it's no different. It's interesting that this is an OP supposedly focused on bad corporate behavior, but it's supported by NGOs who are supported by corporations who are acting rather badly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:20 PM

tecelote (5,008 posts)

37. So it makes sense to you that we can keep pouring pesticides on our land with no adverse effects?

How about some common sense?

Kill the insects and we kill ourselves.

What's poisonous when it is sprayed is inert when we eat it?

I agree, many "scientific" studies are bought and the results are what's paid for.

But, I'll rely on my gut feelings. Poison is poison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tecelote (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:28 PM

840high (17,196 posts)

38. ,..That^

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tecelote (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:34 PM

skepticscott (13,029 posts)

40. Lots and lots of plants you eat produce natural pesticides and always have

 

Why do you eat that poison willingly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to skepticscott (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:49 PM

tecelote (5,008 posts)

42. Because they have always been safe. Centuries of testing.

Their natural pesticides repel insects, few kill them. None that are food plants.

What plant sprays gallons of poison on the earth?

What plant's poison you refer to last decades in the soil?

What food plant requires protective clothing?

Common sense. It's free!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tecelote (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:55 PM

skepticscott (13,029 posts)

50. So then when you said "poison is poison"

 

that wasn't true.

And if your claim that none of them are food plants is true, then your claim that centuries of testing has proved them safe is false.

Can't quite get your stories straight, can you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to skepticscott (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:07 PM

Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)

259. Please list these "lots and lots" of plants

and the natural pesticides they contain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Kali (Reply #284)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:53 PM

Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)

289. Oh, I understand that plants often produce natural insecticides

However, I would like a list of the "lots and lots" of plants that we eat that still contain natural insecticides when we eat them.

According to your article, these insecticides can be produced in parts of plants which are never eaten (such as coconut or walnut husks), or disappear when a fruit ripens (as in the case of persimmons), or can be denatured when cooked. In other cases, such as tomatoes, the plant that contains the poisons is not eaten.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #289)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:06 PM

Star Member Kali (53,109 posts)

297. ah, wasn't sure if you knew the process

many are not aware

I suspect most modern crops are pretty weak in this area since they are "protected" by our various growing practices. I am not an expert on plant crops by any means but assume anything that is sour or bitter may be part of that list - citrus, various herbs and spices, things that contain natural tannins etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tecelote (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:14 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

45. So, you just ignore the fact that you made claims that don't stand up?

And go to some general statements that really take the conversation off the rails, rather than addressing the real world? What's the point in that?

Organic uses poison, too. Why are you focusing on GMOs, when they may lead to the use of less?

This is a good read for perspective: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:52 PM

tecelote (5,008 posts)

46. Weed Control Freaks?

Do you get paid to post this?

Please post articles from a reputable source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tecelote (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 11:48 AM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

97. WCF is run by agricultural professors.

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:47 PM - Edit history (4)

it's pieces are all supported by the actual scientific consensus.

You posted nothing but long debunked anti-GMO propaganda links, many of them simply reporting on the same thing, making it appear that you're posting more content than you are, but you don't think a link that is produced by actual scientists is legitimate? WTF?

The OP links to a group that promotes chemtrail conspiracy theories, and every other kind of conspiracy and pseudoscience you can imagine, but you said nothing about that source at all. Hmm.

And use of the shill gambit just further shows that you don't know the first thing about this topic. You just bought into bad propaganda, and when you run into someone who does understand the issue, you can't discuss it. You even posted a link that you clearly had not read. It's time to step back, and question your preconceived notions. They are not based on good evidence.

The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tecelote (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:40 PM

EX500rider (7,944 posts)

102. "Please post articles from a reputable source." Says the person who posted a Global Research link.

....lol

While many of Globalresearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping throughout its pages. Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist. It's no surprise then that the site has long become a magnet for radicals, fringe figures and whacko elements from the left in general.
Globalresearch may be best described as the moonbat equivalent to WorldNetDaily. Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites Globalresearch, they are almost certainly wrong.

Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, Global Research mostly consists of polemicists. The prevalent strand is that a New World Order is being implemented by global elites (primarily governments and corporations). Many of the articles accept conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and propaganda in order to further this narrative.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tecelote (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:09 PM

Star Member NNadir (29,257 posts)

33. There are zero scientific papers in your insane list. Zero.

In general, when one launches an attack on science, whether it comes from the left or the right, the argument being made comes from a closed circle of people who hate science and scientists because they know nothing at all about science and scientists, except that they hate both.

Right now, several million people, many of them children are blind because people who hate science and scientists prevented the use of golden rice, engineered to include vitamin A as a nutritional feature.

There are millions of people alive today who would have otherwise died from breast cancer, or free of pain that might have crippled them with intractable arthritis, because of drugs made by scientists who genetically engineered organisms to produce those drugs.

Frankly there is nothing more obnoxious, more deadly, more ethically disgusting than letting children go blind, and letting people die from cancer, or suffer with crippling arthritis because one is too damn lazy to open a science book.

And right now, and right now, this minute, we have seven billion people to feed on this planet, the same planet that is being destroyed because people burn coal, oil and gas to run computers to post stupid stuff on the internet - this while dreaming of a nonsensical "green" fantasy land that doesn't exist - we have seven billion people who need to eat.

Every damn major agricultural product on this planet is genetically engineered, albeit through breeding historically. As far as genetic modification goes, it's called "evolution." Gene exchange between organisms has long been a regular feature of all living things on this planet, for billions of years. Leftist creationism is not qualitatively different than right wing creationism. Both represent the unyielding destruction of our country's, and the world's future.

The ignorance here is appalling.

Have a nice weekend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NNadir (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:43 PM

bvar22 (39,909 posts)

41. OK.

Then YOU produce independent, peer reviewed, long term research published in a Scientific Journal.
That should be easy for a "science" guy like you.


I'll wait.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bvar22 (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 07:09 AM

Star Member NNadir (29,257 posts)

179. For whom? For you? To prove a negative?

Listen Bub. Google Scholar is available for anyone to use. It's free. If I enter "glyphosphate" in Google Scholar I get 144,000 hits, in three seconds.

You'll wait? For what? For me to give you an education on line because you can't be bothered to find out yourself? Do you have any idea how long a scientific education takes? For some people, many people, it never ends; it's a lifetime activity.

What's your background? Where did you get your Ph.D? In what? Molecular biology?

Somehow, I don't think you have a Ph.D in molecular biology. Your demand, hollow and insipid, suggests otherwise.

But since you ask, how about I start here, by producing, since you are too lazy to look for yourself, just one of the 144,000 papers on the subject, from an issue in a journal for agroscientists wholly devloted to the subject of glyphosphate, Monsanto's product, agroscientists being the people who keep most of the world's food on the table for the seven billion people living in it, a non-trivial task: Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide (Pest Management Science Special Issue: Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds and Crops
Volume 64, Issue 4, pages 319–325, April 2008)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NNadir (Reply #179)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 03:54 PM

bvar22 (39,909 posts)

183. Gish-Gallop.

I asked a question:

Where is the long tern, independent, peer reviewed research published in a Scientific Journal that concludes that GMOs offer no significant damage to either humans, pets, stock,wild animals, or the environment.

Despite your rude and incohesive rant, this is NOT "proving a negative".
It IS what we call "Science".....

or would you just take Monsanto's word for it, you know...the guys who made Agent Orange and claimed it as safe too.

Well,,NOW we have the research on Agebnt Orange. Unfortunately, Monsanto used human beings for "test subjects"
and an unspoiled Rain Forest for their long term "experiments".

I can get a million hits on Google by typing in "Titty". The number of hits on Google means NOTHING ( much like your whole post).


The problem with your failure to produce long term, independent, peer reviewed publiched Research is that it does NOT exist.
Monsanto used bribed politicians and "their" guys at the FDA to approve GMOs..... not scientists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bvar22 (Reply #183)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 08:34 PM

Star Member NNadir (29,257 posts)

184. You didn't ask a question. You lazily made an assertion that is, in fact, an attempt to...

ask someone to prove a negative, because you're L-A-Z-Y, and obviously have a poor education.

Any topic that produces 144,000 references on a premier scientific search engine will obviously have a range of views, but science doesn't involve proving stuff to every asshole who comes along saying that he won't believe x or y or z because 50 years ago the organization the author works for did something questionable. Science is done by consensus.

The consensus among agricultural scientists is that we need to increase agricultural yields to feed humanity, and the products of agrochemical companies, including but not limited to Monsanto, are working their asses off to make that happen.

Suppose my rationale for saying that the German "renewable energy" program sucks because 75 years ago Germans were killing Jews.

Suppose I announce that no research produced at Princeton University is valid because the one time President of that University, Woodrow Wilson, was a Ku Klux Klan excusing racist.

Would I be justified, or would I just be being stupid?

You simply are a bad thinker. Period.

Now if you were educated, you would respond with a statement about your level of education so that one could tailor, if one was interested in addressing such buffoon bluster, a search among the 144,000 references that one can easily get in 3 seconds or less.

But that's not what happened.

Let's be clear here. You're not asking for knowledge. You're assuming your bias is true and are claiming that in order to refute your bias, someone has to 1) spoon feed you an education you are not competent to absorb and 2) accept that any use by you of the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well will immediately render any attempt to educate your sorry ass invalid...

Clearly, you won't know a peer reviewed paper if it bit you in the ass. In any case, you've announced quite confidently that you know that any thing presented to you would be a lie, since you fucking know. You're simply just another creationist who knows everything because you know it, you believe it, and not one can tell you otherwise, albeit a creationist on the left.

As for your statement about "agent orange" and your less than intelligent reference to the word "titty" well, the less that's said the better. It is one thing to be intellectually deficient, and is another thing to assert that one has the right to hurt others as a result.

There are seven billion people on the planet. Agroscientists in academia, in industry, and in regulatory agencies around the world are doing the best to feed those people, and clearly their goals are not being realized, because in part, of the catcalls from clueless insulting poorly educated ideologues, and in part, because the challenges are too large. Science is hard enough. We, the world's scientists, don't need you as much as you need us, even if you're not bright enough to know it.

Have a great week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NNadir (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:34 PM

RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)

132. I don't care. I don't want to eat pesticides

 

or other crap.
I want to eat food. I try to stay as organic as I can, and as local as I can myself, and when I switched, noticed that I was feeling less tired, and also could think more clearly. But that is just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #132)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:58 PM

Star Member Major Nikon (35,776 posts)

140. Organic doesn't mean no pesticides

It doesn't mean less pesticides or less toxic pesticides. It doesn't even mean no synthetic pesticides.

It's nothing more than a marketing term that in no way guarantees a safer product.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #140)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:48 PM

RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)

163. Not in New York State

 

They have strict regulations as to what can be labeled "organic."
Here in the Northeast we have a certification organization that makes it very tough to certify your produce as organic.
I know, I used to work in a food co-op warehouse for many years.
We were selling organic goods before it was cool, so don't tell me that organic means no pesticides. I know better.

And after further inspection, there are also federal guidlines: http://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #163)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:50 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

165. That's not even close to true.

Organic products come from all over the world, and New York state isn't keeping them all out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #165)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:53 PM

RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)

168. Not the ones that I buy. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #168)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:55 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

169. Ah, you can think that.

But the actual lack of regulation when it comes to organic farming, especially in regard to pesticide and herbicide use, makes that belief rather flimsy, to be very kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #169)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:57 PM

RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)

171. Uh, I buy LOCAL organic food.

 

And I KNOW most of the farmers that I buy from. I have known many of them for more than 20 years.
You can believe what you want, but I know what I know.
Now stop trolling please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #171)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 08:20 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

173. I've heard that claim so many times, it's not funny.

And I know people in Portland, Oregon who believe that same thing.

A funny thing happens when people start showing up at local organic farms without warning.

It's not so easy to grow that much food. And the lack of regulation is rather astounding.

I'm not trolling. I'm just making a point to not let the usual anti-GMO, organic is great nonsense go unchecked. It's not helping anyone, and it's time for progressives to fight against the "halo effect" that is not earned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #173)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:51 AM

RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)

181. The people around here are my friends.

 

I used to drive a truck for the local food coop warehouse. I know them. Some have been my friends for more than thirty years.
Yes, the "halo effect" as you put it should be scrutinized. In my case, I know the farmers. There are also a growing number of CSAs here in the Northeast, who strive to either farm organically, or with very little fertilizer and such. Several apple farmers have told me that the amount of pesticides and fertilizers that is "recommended" by the manufacturer is staggering. I believe they do this to make more money, and the farmers agree. But that is another point.

I have had my own garden and manage to control pests with companion planting, and use compost tea for fertilizer. I have been doing this for a long time, and can provide some of my own diet with this method.

Monoculture farms, and big corporate farms that dub themselves as "organic" should be the first ones to be investigated afaic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #171)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:25 PM

Star Member Major Nikon (35,776 posts)

177. So first it was "New York State" and now it's "local"

Interesting how your story changes and how you call someone a troll for making the obvious bullshit call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #177)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:45 AM

RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)

180. New York State IS local to me.

 

Thank you for trolling. You shall now be ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #180)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:55 PM

Star Member Major Nikon (35,776 posts)

182. Oh no! Not the dreaded ignore!

Now I can't look forward to replies from someone who simply makes it up as they go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #163)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:19 PM

Star Member Major Nikon (35,776 posts)

176. What you are describing is called the National Organic Program (NOP)

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

I'm quite familiar with it. I'm not telling you organic means no pesticides. I'm telling you organic is no guarantee that pesticides will not be used regardless of what you believe. It's not even a guarantee that no synthetic pesticides are used.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div6&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7#se7.3.205_1601

Organic is nothing more than a marketing term which in no way guarantees a safer, more nutritious, or higher quality product.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #132)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:00 PM

bvar22 (39,909 posts)

142. In 2006, my wife & I moved to the Woods, far away from any Agri-Businesss or Industry,

Far away from any independent farmers who might use that crap, and no neighbors.
or Urban Pollution, or the toxic suburbs.
We grow most of our own food.
The amazing part was how shockingly GOOD the homegrown food was compared to Supermarket...or even "Farmer's markets".

We keep HoneyBees and Free Range too.

Of course, all GMOs, non-naturally occurring pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers are forever banned from our little hilltop in The Woods.
MY wife is a two times Cancer survivor.
She is now in complete remission.

The Hague is where Monsanto belongs,
but Monsanto has very powerful "friends" in the White House that will cover for him.

Still, having "Monsanto" and "The Hague" in the same sentence made me happy today.
.
.
.
.
.
Maybe the pendulum IS swinging back.
IF so, it has a LOOOOONG way to swing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #132)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:09 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

143. You began to eat better, but that had nothing to do with it being marketed as organic.

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/03/eating-organic-may-be-harmful-the-truth-behind-organic-produce-doug-smith/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #143)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:49 PM

RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)

164. Not true

 

My eating habits did not change, other than I am eating as local and as organic as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #164)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:52 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

166. Well, then it's placebo effect.

There is simply no basis for your belief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #166)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:53 PM

RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)

167. Ok doctor

 

You are the expert, I take it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #167)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:57 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

170. It's got nothing to do with me.

It's just how things work, and that funny thing called science has noticed them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #170)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:59 PM

RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)

172. Yes doctor

 

I know all about science. I have an MS in Geology that I got in 1975. Okay?
You could have a PhD in trolling yourself, so please stop it.
Thanks in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #172)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 08:22 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

174. Well, you don't seem to understand much about chemistry, biology, or agriculture.

And repeating silly organic marketing cliches doesn't help your reputation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #132)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 08:58 PM

Star Member NNadir (29,257 posts)

175. Unfortunately for several billion people on the planet, those lacking decent nutrition levels...

...for example, what is good for "just you" is not an issue.

You want to eat food, and you can, being comfortably bourgeois and having the privilege of living in a rich country.

There are billions of people who are not living a luxurious life of "feeling less tired" and "thinking more clearly," but if I may note, you are clearly not thinking more about those people with your new "clear thinking."

The tenor here is that Monsanto scientists wake up in the morning thinking to themselves "how can I kill more people to make money." This is a huge injustice, rather smug if I may say so.

The people engaging in the chorus of this tenor are nevertheless spectacularly uninterested in the people who many agribusiness scientists - and I personally have met quite a few of them - are actually very involved in serving, for instance, the nearly one billion people identified by the UN Millenium Goals Report still living on less than $1.25/day.

You, of course, can afford to throw away foods infested with insects, or deal with low yields and thus higher priced foods, but trust me, those living on $1.25/day are not really quite so privileged.

Now that, by your own description, you are "thinking more clearly," maybe you can set aside some of that libertarian indifference to everyone else on the planet and figure out, with this new "clear" thinking, how you will contribute, as many Monsanto (and other agroscientists) being subjected to mock trials by Kangaroo ersatz courts are doing, to addressing the needs of that particular one billion human beings who can't be like American "foodies," driving to farm stands in their SUV's to buy "locally grown" foods.

How clearly does one think, and how tired does one get in a famine? Can you provide me with some "clear thinking" on this score?

Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NNadir (Reply #175)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 09:21 PM

bvar22 (39,909 posts)

186. Strawman.

Nobody at Du has ever said,"Monsanto scientists wake up in the morning thinking to themselves "how can I kill more people to make money."

NO!!!!
What people say here is that Monsanto wakes up saying "How can I make more money for Monsanto & Me?"
...and could really give a shit if people die in their quest for Money & Power.

Thankfully, some European Countries are saying...["Hey. Wait a minute! Where is your long term, peer reviewed independent research proving these new species are safe?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bvar22 (Reply #186)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:32 PM

Star Member NNadir (29,257 posts)

316. Since you don't know any scientists, or for that matter any science...

Last edited Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:58 AM - Edit history (2)

...I'll take your remark for what it is, contempt for science and scientists.

As for what a "strawman" is, I've already discussed your inability to utilize standard logical reasoning, i.e. that which avoids, for example, overt logical fallacies, and, in my opinion, such ability as you have for utilizing such reasoning is roughly comparable to your knowledge of science and scientists, which is to say zero.

From the Primary Scientific literature, albeit a journal that is devoted to what may be called "scientific epistemology," I'll leave you with this link to a journal article devoted to discussing whether scientists have a responsibility to confront nonscientific woo-woo stuff from loud and obnoxious deniers of science:

Synthese August 2014, Volume 191, Issue 12, pp 2751-2765

Now it is very clear from your hysterical ranting that you have never in your life set foot inside an academic library of any kind, and will thus be unable to access the text, so I'll simply produce the excerpt that best applies to this rather vapid conversation:

Dissent has long been recognized to play crucial roles in the production of scientific knowledge. Dissenting views can correct false assumptions and ensure consideration of a wider range of theories, models, and explanations (Popper 1963; Feyerabend 1975; Rescher 1993; Longino 1990, 2002; Solomon 2001; Kitcher 2011). Such benefits are thought to give rise to obligations not merely to tolerate dissent, but to actively seek and engage dissenting views— both within scientific communities and from a wider range of stakeholders. Thus, many have argued that scientists have obligations to establish public venues for research to be critically evaluated by those with diverse perspectives and engage with such criticism (Longino 1990, 2002; Kitcher 2001; Solomon 2001). This might include duties to secure the participation of dissenters in peer review, conferences, scientific advisory panels, and academic departments (Longino 1990; Solomon 2006; Douglas 2009; Kitcher 2011).

But are there limits to the type of dissent scientists have an obligation to seek and engage while practicing science? In constructing climate models for instance, do researchers have duties to create opportunities for climate change skeptics to critically evaluate their work and take those criticisms seriously? Are there obligations to include them on conference programs? Should journals make an effort to include intelligent design (ID) scientists as reviewers for manuscripts related to evolutionary theory? While not many would advocate that dissenting views be censored, the question is whether scientists always have obligations to involve dissenters in evaluating research, accepting hypotheses, taking scientific problems to be solved, or in synthesizing the current state of a science for policymakers.

Some dissenters seem to assume that such obligations exist and that scientific communities are failing to meet them. For example, climate change skeptics charge they have unfairly been excluded from conference programs and advisory panels and that their work has been treated unfairly in the peer-review process (Pearce 2010; Michaels 2009). Creationists and ID theorists argue that evolutionary theorists unreasonably dismiss their arguments against evolutionary theory (Behe 2007; Wells and Dembski 2007; Witt 2005).

The idea that scientists have obligations to provide opportunities for dissenting views thus raises concerns. First, establishing public venues for all dissenters to be heard and have their criticisms considered may contribute to a false public perception that there is significant disagreement or that no scientific consensus exists. Indeed, some private companies and think-tanks have funded scientific research aimed at generating skepticism about climate change and environmental toxins, stalling the development of public policy, and creating doubt among the public and policymakers (Oreskes and Conway 2010; Michaels 2008). Although this may happen regardless of whether scientists seek and engage the participation of dissenters, there is fear that doing so risks bringing even more attention to dissenters and exacerbating the problem...


I note, with some amusement, that the authors of this paper explicitly link anti-GMO hysteria with creationism and other woo-woo stuff:

...We distinguish several different ways of understanding what constitutes “sharing standards” and argue that the most plausible interpretation fails to limit our obligations to dissenters. Specifically, we will show that they fail in those cases of dissent that they were intended to exclude: creationism, climate change skeptics, and dissenters on GMO safety.1...

... Our focus will be on dissent that arises from scientists. In many cases, these are the dissenting views that receive much attention from laypersons and the media, as can be seen in the case of climate change and GMOs...


Now, as a scientist, it appalls me that anti-scientific thinking, contempt for, even hatred of, science and scientists is becoming so prevalent in our culture. While it pains me when I think of future generations that will have to pay the price for this ignorance and stupidity, it is unlikely to affect me personally, since I am an old man and am not likely to live all that much longer.

But I don't know what is to become of the human being in a climate like this.

To quote Hesse, from the prologue to Demian that I so admire:

Wenige wissen heute, was der Mensch ist. Viele fühlen es, und sterben darum leichter, wie ich leichter sterben werde...


I often muse on my responsibility to confront ignorance in the general public, as I know science and am devoted to it as I love it for its potential to save humanity from itself as well as for its pure beauty and wonder.

Most often, these efforts degenerate into stupid screaming, usually on the part of the person who knows no science and, in fact, hates science. This is certainly the case here. One imagines from the violent tone that if stretched far enough, this could degenerate into the kind of terrorism that has so infected the world, as it is so filled with self righteousness and anger, but no matter...

The world cannot be saved from ignorance I think, and the effort to do so may well be doomed. I am certainly done with confronting fear and ignorance in the present case. Irrespective of the academic authors of the cited and quoted paper, who I will assume you will claim to be paid off by Monsanto since anything that goes against your narrow paranoid thinking must come from Monsanto, I really think that nothing I do can make you into a sentient being.

Congratulations. Ignorance has won the day. You must be very proud.

We're done.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tecelote (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:02 PM

Nailzberg (4,610 posts)

47. A commercial for an organic grocery chain as "proof"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Archae (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:22 PM

LiberalArkie (14,601 posts)

22. How long does you 1/2 gallon of 2% milk good for? maybe 2weeks

I buy Horizon Organic milk it is stamped for good until at least 1 month, maybe 2 months. And it is good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:38 PM

Dr Hobbitstein (6,568 posts)

101. Ultra-heat pasteurization and aseptic packaging.

 

Both of those greatly extend shelf life. It has nothing to do with the milk itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Archae (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:02 PM

carla (553 posts)

28. What difference does it make?

Cancer linked recombinant bovine growth hormone in your milk is one difference.. Carcinogenic corn that underproduces. Glyphosate found to linger in the soil even up to years later and at depths not thought possible ( 9 meters in one case in the USA)...I could go on but apparently quality of your food is not an issue for you, just having more pennies to spend on who knows what...silly that i should even bother with you but truth demands a pulpit when others spout patented bull hockey-pucks. And if organic is a scam it is one of the most labor-intensive scams I have ever seen. Silly like a Republican...(shakes head slowly).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Archae (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:05 PM

SoLeftIAmRight (4,883 posts)

30. Milk?

 

You drink milk?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Archae (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 02:16 PM

Dont call me Shirley (10,998 posts)

189. I truly hope your health holds up archae, it sucks being sick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:55 PM

jberryhill (62,444 posts)

106. What is your opinion on misleading news releases?

 


You believe Monsanto is being dishonest, but you are okay with posting s news release designed to create a false impression.

Odd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jberryhill (Reply #106)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:43 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

117. Read the article, no one is mislead anything.

 

Are you saying the article is lying? On a side note, we all know you are just fine with the GMOs and Monsanto. ( fron your previous posts on the topic.
Thank you for your concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #117)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:36 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

156. The article is very misleading, and that has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

How can you deny that? WOW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:31 AM

ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)

354. I doubt Monsanto is the worst company out there.

We'll see what evidence is brought forth in the trail, I hope.

I think GMOs are awesome. I love bananas and hamburgers.

eta: Oh shit, it's not even a real trial. It's just a marketing ploy by big organic. I should have seen that sooner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #354)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:37 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

355. Like we couldn't have "bananas and hamburgers" without GMO and pesticides!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #355)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:39 AM

ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)

356. All cows are GMOs.

Every. Single. One.

Bananas that are not GMO are filled with seeds. Even organic bananas are GMOs, because the other kind sucks.

So yeah, we couldn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #356)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:47 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

357. GMO stand for genetically modified oats.

 

Are you saying Cows are made of "oats"??? Or are you referring to what they eat? If that, can they not eat organic oats???

Also, Organic bananas are not GMOs, I buy them all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #357)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:57 AM

ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)

358. GMO stands for genetically modified organisms.

GMOs are an intentional mutation. Cows were created by humans using aurochs, a type of ox that is now extinct.

Unless you have to pick a ton of seeds out of your bananas, you're organic bananas are GMOs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #358)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 03:00 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

359. My banannas are not GMOs.

 

Thats what the pro GMO movement wants us to thimk, that all is GMO and full and pesticides, and we should just shut up and take it.

I do not think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #359)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 03:09 AM

ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)

361. Here's a little picture of a wild, non gmo banana.



It might taste way better than the ones we buy in the store. I wouldn't know, because I, like most Americans, have only eaten GMO bananas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #361)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 03:18 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

362. That is exactly what they look like!!

 

Tiny, puny banannas! You can find them in the stores, if you want to!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #362)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 02:24 AM

ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)

367. I'll look for them the next time I go to the health food store.

Do you dig the seeds out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Archae (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:02 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

351. The article tells a great big honking fib in the headline, to start.

Then it follows up by claiming it got the information from another site, which does not say what the first one claimed:

Relying on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” adopted by the UN in 2011, an international court of lawyers and judges will assess the potential criminal liability of Monsanto for damages inflicted on human health and the environment. The court will also rely on the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether to reform international criminal law to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense. The International Criminal Court, established in 2002 in The Hague, has determined that prosecuting ecocide as a criminal offense is the only way to guarantee the rights of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected.


http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/monsanto-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague/#.VmZw-PkrIhe

And of course, the HEADLINE of the source document is a huge giveaway:

Monsanto Put on Mock Trial for Crimes against Humanity in The Hague

Key word that did not carry forward: MOCK.


The source citation is all about changing law, not charging anyone.

It's pure nonsense, this "report." That's not to say "Monsanto" has clean hands, but this isn't the way to prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:05 PM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

2. Uh.....no. At least, not a real trial.

This group: http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/monsanto-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague/
is setting up their own court in order to put Monsanto "on trial".

Everyone else reporting on this story is going back to that group and their press release.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:50 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

9. Here are those who are going after MON:

 

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions Against Monsanto, joined by dozens of global food, farming and environmental justice groups announced today that they will put Monsanto MON (NYSE), a US-based transnational corporation, on trial for crimes against nature and humanity, and ecocide, in The Hague, Netherlands, next year on World Food Day, October 16, 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:13 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

19. That's not a list of organizations with good track records for accuracy and honest science.

Start with the first: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Organic_Consumers_Association

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:04 PM

carla (553 posts)

29. So only those

listed as approved? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to carla (Reply #29)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:07 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

32. The organization at the OP link promotes all kinds of pseudoscience.

That's rather problematic, to be kind. The fact that so few DUers note that, and call that out is, quite frankly, sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:10 PM

SoLeftIAmRight (4,883 posts)

34. OMG - The Science

 

We must protect the Science

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SoLeftIAmRight (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:12 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

35. That's a fine response to someone noting the ludicrous things promoted by MAM.



That organization even promotes chemtrail conspiracy theories. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/March_Against_Monsanto

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:16 PM

SoLeftIAmRight (4,883 posts)

36. OMG - The Science

 

I love Science

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SoLeftIAmRight (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:44 PM

Marty McGraw (1,024 posts)

103. OMG


More like the *Paid-For* Science. Science is beautiful if done for the pure knowledge, excitement of results and true advancements in society. But the distortion from the infusion of excess cash will always produce an initial stigma on any claims of research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Marty McGraw (Reply #103)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:18 PM

CanSocDem (3,286 posts)

152. Indeed.

 



I can't believe how many self-proclaimed science "experts" roam the halls of Democratic Underground attempting to silence those that even so much as mention the market influence on science.

Somebody up thread even went so far as to confuse standard marketing deceptions with 'bad science'.

Organic is a scam.
I saw just this week a half-gallon of "premium organic milk" in the local grocery, for $6.00.
How is it different from the gallon jugs of store brand milk?
Only one way. The price.
The gallon of store brand is about $2.50 a gallon.


.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:13 PM

Star Member pnwmom (106,111 posts)

196. Monsanto and Dupont have poor records on protecting the environment. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pnwmom (Reply #196)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:18 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

198. That doesn't justify the use of deceitful organizations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #198)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:35 PM

Star Member pnwmom (106,111 posts)

204. Monsanto and Dupont have been deceitful, just in different situations.

Breaking the law and polluting the environment is deceitful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pnwmom (Reply #204)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:36 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

207. I'm not defending them.

The reality remains that the organizations tied to the OP are dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #207)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:38 PM

Star Member pnwmom (106,111 posts)

211. Have they been proven in court to be dishonest, like Monsanto and Dupont? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pnwmom (Reply #211)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:38 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

213. So now you're defending dishonest organizations?

Some that promote chemtrail conspiracies, among other nonsense?

WOW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #213)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:40 PM

Star Member pnwmom (106,111 posts)

216. I'm asking if their dishonesty has ever been proved in court.

Apparently the answer is no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pnwmom (Reply #216)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:42 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

217. That's irrelevant.



Why are you defending dishonest organizations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #217)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:53 PM

Star Member pnwmom (106,111 posts)

225. There are levels of dishonesty. Apparently theirs doesn't rise to the levels of the GMO producers,

Last edited Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:41 PM - Edit history (2)

Monsanto and Dupont.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pnwmom (Reply #225)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:59 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

228. You keep telling yourself that.

Even I know you don't believe that. Nice propaganda.

(And I know what you're trying to do.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:14 AM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

71. And they're still not a court of law. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #71)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:17 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

73. The article speaks for itself.

 

They're assesing what charges can be brought against Monsanto on am INTERNATIONAL level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #73)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:19 AM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

75. Yes, it does. And it does not back up the claims you are making.

This is more commonly known as "lying".

Also, it is not at all necessary to set up a fake court to "assess what charges can be brought". That just requires some lawyers familiar with international law to spend a bit of time reviewing precedents.

This is a PR stunt, and that's it. It has zero real-world impact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #75)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:25 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

78. The headline is from the article.

 

Those are not a few people , they are International organizations, and by Oct next year, probably MANY more will join them in the fight to bring Monsanto down.

I'm sorry you have a problem with what they're doing.

I personally think its amazing Monsanto is being questioned and possible CRIMINAL charges being brought against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:33 AM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

81. Yes, their PR effort is also not telling the truth.

I personally think its amazing Monsanto is being questioned

Monsanto is not going to be questioned. These activists have no authority to compel Monsanto to testify.

and possible CRIMINAL charges being brought against them.

These activists have no authority to bring any charges, criminal or otherwise.

But keep those donations coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #81)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:38 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

83. When the criminal or civil charges will be brought, yes they will be forced to testify

 

Why do you keep repeating yourself? The article is clear on what they're doing.

And yes, I'm ecstatic, because it is a HUGE thing, to have organizations from all over the world weighing in on what charges they and others can bring against Monsanto on an INTERNATIONAL level.

And I'm glad they will make it public!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #83)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 11:54 AM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

98. You posted an OP with a title that is clearly misleading, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:04 PM - Edit history (2)

You posted an OP with a link to a page that promotes the belief in chemtrails, and many other conspiracy theories and pseudoscience scams.

Why would you do that? Don't pretend this is going to lead any actual charges. That is simply not on the table in the real world, no matter how much the organic industry people behind this propaganda pretend otherwise. And even if it would, the use of such a source and such a misleading title is simply unethical.

You have chosen to go with ideology by fighting against a technology, blindly, full speed ahead. Why would you do that?

Also, referring to people as "Monsanto fans" simply because they don't fall for bad propaganda is really not cool.

PS: If you can defend this, then defend it here.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/permalink/635024676636786/?hc_location=ufi

It's also being discussed here: https://www.facebook.com/FFdiscussionlab/

And why is it that the groups you are utilizing as support all ban people from discussion when they question the blind assertions made by those groups? They don't seem to care about actually getting the story right. They just want to promote their blind ideologies. Do you really think that's ok? Do you really think that's going to help anything?

Take a harder look at March Against Monsanto, and the other groups you support. They are promoting some very ludicrous things.

http://skepchick.org/2015/02/why-well-march-against-march-against-monsanto-part-1/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #98)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:25 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

129. That group is not the one going after Monsanto.

 

It was just a link where the article was posted. The fact of the matter is that the mock trial WILL take place on Oct 2016, it is not a lie.

You're blocked. I've heard ENOUGH of the same pro Monsanto and pro GMO propaganda from you to last me a lifetime.

Have a good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #129)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:35 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

133. It appears that you can't answer the questions I pose.

I have shown that the majority of those groups act similarly, and that they are funded by organic corporations, to boot.

You have blocked me because you can't actually discuss the issues at hand. You are only repeating bad propaganda, blindly. That is the main problem here.

Here's the reality of the anti-GMO movement. It is not justified.

The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #81)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:33 PM

LiberalLovinLug (13,178 posts)

147. Your concern is noted

I mean why try to fight against anything when the cards are stacked against you? Everyone should just go home and eat their (GMO) Cornflakes and shut up, right? Rosa Parks should also have just shut up and let the white man have her seat. If that is an extreme example tell me where does your sliding scale stop at standing up for things you believe are harmful to society and future generations?

But then again you are being transparently disingenuous. You are not concerned at all with if they will win any case. At least be honest...you support Monsanto copyrighting the seeds of the food you eat so they can alter it to make it more profitable as is their corporate right, no matter the health consequences brought up in some links in this thread, or their suing of farmers who don't play along, because you believe their paid scientists over independent research voices. Why? I have no idea. Maybe you're and old school stuck-in-your-ways meat 'n potatoes kind of guy that likes things just the way they are thank you very much. But at least stop the fake concern and/or ridicule of those actually doing something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #147)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:32 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

154. You actually compared civil rights to anti-GMO propaganda?



Guess what? The scientific consensus that GMOs are safe is vast, and it includes hundreds of independently funded studies. Also, all seed companies patent all types of seeds: GMO, non-GMO, organic. There are only a small group working to develop open source seeds, at the moment. That is not a Monsanto thing. It is a thing that is done by all seed companies.

Thus, standing up to baseless fear mongering about a technology that can help the planet is the right thing to do. It is not ok to make claims that the people who do stand up to fear mongering are somehow beholden to any company, especially in light of the fact that many of the anti-GMO groups are supported financially by organic companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:06 PM

bkkyosemite (5,792 posts)

3. I've been saying for a long time they need to be in prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:47 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

7. +1

 

Long overdue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:15 PM

CharlotteVale (2,717 posts)

20. +2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:48 PM

MohRokTah (15,429 posts)

8. This sounds like the kangaroo court "Citizen's Grand Juries" that all found Obama guilty of treason.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:51 PM

cpwm17 (3,829 posts)

10. I'm sure it will be fair.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:51 PM

Star Member yuiyoshida (37,782 posts)

11. some how I have a feeling that

Attorneys for Monsanto will point their middle fingers at the Haque and laugh at the audacity of a court to even think they have a chance of punishing the company. The corporate headquarters will scoff and might even say, "Hey come and get us if you can". Does the Hague really think they can demand that someone come to their court from the US and go though their "silly little trial" when there is big money to be made? The company will simply lift their middle fingers to the Haque and tell them to "fuck off", that they can do what ever the hell they like, and no one will stop them. What is ruled in Europe will have no jurisdiction on American soil, and even if treaties are broken, no one will come to escort them in handcuffs back to Europe. No one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to yuiyoshida (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:03 PM

Archae (44,258 posts)

14. Except this isn't the Hague, the International Court in that city.

It's a kangaroo court created by organic industry advocates and lobbyists, in that city.

They have no legal credibility, this is only a publicity stunt against Monsanto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:54 PM

chapdrum (930 posts)

12. Just maybe they could prosecute Dick 'n' Don?

 

Hadn't heard anything of ICC for so long, was wondering whether it had gone defunct.

This is good news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to chapdrum (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:15 AM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

72. This isn't the ICC. This is activists setting up their own court in the same city. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #72)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:20 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

76. International organizations, not just "activists".

 

Read the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #76)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:21 AM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

77. I did read the article. These are international organizations OF ACTIVISTS.

They're setting up a kangaroo court with zero real-world authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #77)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:27 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

79. Yes, so?

 

They're setting up the court to analyze possible international charges! It is a big difference!
They're doing it in public, and not behind doors so that many more organizations from all over the world could join.

It is really very simple!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #79)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:35 AM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

82. So Monsanto is not being put on trial.

They're setting up the court to analyze possible international charges!

This requires no court. This requires 1 lawyer with experience in international law.

To actually bring charges, prosecutors at the actual ICC would have to file them. That does not require setting up a fake court to "analyze" anything.

It is really very simple!

Yes it is. They're lying in order to get more attention and more donations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #82)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:48 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

84. Lol you keep going in circles.

 

I never said it was a real court, nor did the article. It CLEARLY explains what is the purpose of the mock trial, which is to bring ACTUAL charges on an INTERNATIONAL level. It's really that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #84)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:52 AM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

85. I'm afraid it's you who keep returning to the same point, hoping that this time it matters.

It CLEARLY explains what is the purpose of the mock trial, which is to bring ACTUAL charges on an INTERNATIONAL level.

Which is a lie. Because this mock court can not do that, and has zero influence with the actual court in the Hague.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #85)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:57 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

87. The article explains what the mock court will be doing very clearly.

 

It is not a lie, the reason for the mock court is explained in the article! They have a REASON, and that is to assess what charges the international Court will bring against them.

I think maybe you should read it again. It's all there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #87)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:11 AM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

88. And then goes on to massively overstate the results.

They have a REASON, and that is to assess what charges the international Court will bring against them.

"will bring against them" is a lie. Because this faux-court has no connection to the real court, and has no ability to actually bring charges.

The other lie is that this mock court is necessary to "assess" anything. Again, the way this is actually done is lawyers look at the relevant laws and precedent...and if they are not actual prosecutors at the actual ICC, all they can do is say to those prosecutors, "In my opinion, this is a crime".

Again, this is a PR stunt. That's it. It's designed to make you think they're actually doing something, so you'll crack open your wallet and donate to those INTERNATIONAL organizations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #88)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:39 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

89. Official charges will be brought against Monsanto

 

after the mock trial, as I explained plenty and the article clearly states.

Again, this is a PR stunt. That's it. It's designed to make you think they're actually doing something, so you'll crack open your wallet and donate to those INTERNATIONAL organizations.


Let's see who will laugh last. And I guarantee you that it won't be Monsanto and its fans. Have a good night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #89)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:31 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

113. No, they won't.

There is nothing official about any of this. Please change the OP to reflect reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #113)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:35 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

114. You only wish. Are you gonna have a sad when Monsanto will be officially charged??

 

You keep defending them all over the place. I have yet to see an anti GMO thread without you defending them, and it really baffles me as to why..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #114)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:38 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

115. I don't defend Monsanto.

I do defend the real world against unethical attacks, and sometimes those attacks come via unethical groups like March Against Monsanto, and other groups funded by organic companies, with the aim of promoting their products. They are no better than Monsanto, and yet you have no problem promoting them.

This OP is misleading, and that makes it unethical. And now you have again made a post that is misleading about me. That, too, is unethical.

Please stop acting in this manner. Thank you.

PS:

You posted an OP with a link to a page that promotes the belief in chemtrails, and many other conspiracy theories and pseudoscience scams.

Why would you do that? Don't pretend this is going to lead any actual charges. That is simply not on the table in the real world, no matter how much the organic industry people behind this propaganda pretend otherwise. And even if it would, the use of such a source and such a misleading title is simply unethical.

You have chosen to go with ideology by fighting against a technology, blindly, full speed ahead. Why would you do that?

Also, referring to people as "Monsanto fans" simply because they don't fall for bad propaganda is really not cool.

PS: If you can defend this, then defend it here.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/permalink/635024676636786/?hc_location=ufi

It's also being discussed here: https://www.facebook.com/FFdiscussionlab/

And why is it that the groups you are utilizing as support all ban people from discussion when they question the blind assertions made by those groups? They don't seem to care about actually getting the story right. They just want to promote their blind ideologies. Do you really think that's ok? Do you really think that's going to help anything?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #115)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:46 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

120. OMG! You have defended GMOs in every thread, ever since I've joined DU!

 

Should I post links?

Why are you denying the fact that you have no issuea with GMOs and Pesticides?

(And again, the OP is not misleading, you just don't like anything against the mighty GMOs)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #120)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:05 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

122. Monsanto is a company. GMOs are plants developed using a particular technology.

They are not the same thing.

Can you please stop acting in this manner? Can you please answer the questions I have posed to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #122)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:10 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

124. Stop acting in which manner?

 

You have no problem with Monsanto, and you defend them whenever an anti GMO thread pops up.

I've already answered your question and I have explained what the Oct ',16 mock trial is about. Read the article and the thread!

Your constant defending of Monsanto's products every single thread on the subject, is tiresome to say the least.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #124)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:33 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

131. My questions are clear.

Please answer them.

Your ideological attacks are not supported by the consensus of science.

PS:

The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #88)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:43 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

90. Wish I knew your position on the GMO before I wasted my time going in circles lol

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/122840756
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027242093#post1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016132470#post7

That explains tons. I guess you won't be happy when Monsanto will go down lol.

Have a good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #90)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:49 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

138. So you admit that your stance is purely ideological.

You refuse to actually explore the science of the topic. You just make blind faith alliances and enemies.

WOW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:59 PM

TryLogic (1,621 posts)

13. Round-Up Ready -- for cancer

In recent weeks, we've learned some very disturbing truths about glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is generously doused on genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready crops.

GE crops are typically far more contaminated with glyphosate than conventional crops, courtesy of the fact that they're engineered to withstand extremely high levels of Roundup without perishing along with the weed.

A new peer-reviewed report authored by Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant, and a long time contributor to the Mercola.com Vital Votes Forum, and Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), reveals how glyphosate wrecks human health.

In the interview above, Dr. Seneff summarizes the two key problems caused by glyphosate in the diet:

Nutritional deficiencies
Systemic toxicity

Their findings make the need for labelling all the more urgent, and the advice to buy certified organic all the more valid.

In 2009, a French court found Monsanto guilty of lying; falsely advertising its Roundup herbicide as "biodegradable," "environmentally friendly" and claiming it "left the soil clean."

Much More: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-herbicide.aspx

California’s Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) intends to list the herbicide glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp – as a carcinogenic chemical under the Proposition 65, which requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. The announcement came on 4 September, following a conclusion by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in March that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/09/glyphosate-roundup-labelled-carcinogen

The cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization last week announced that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, is probably carcinogenic to humans.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TryLogic (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:07 PM

Star Member SidDithers (44,228 posts)

15. Did you seriously just link to mercola?...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:13 PM

Star Member Botany (63,731 posts)

18. Thanks for reminding me that I have to buy some more glyphosate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Botany (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:16 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

21. Thats just sad. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:24 PM

Star Member Botany (63,731 posts)

23. And so is the loss of lupines, monarchs, wood thrushes, and our native ecosystems

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/habitats/forests/explore/invasives-101.xml

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:31 PM

Jack Rabbit (45,984 posts)

24. I am in favor of a mock trial of Monsanto even if it is merely a mock trial

This is about raising consciousness of an organization with questionable practices (like suing farmers) and has bought enough politicians to not worry about being prosecuted by a real court anytime soon.

Mock trial? You bet. This is what democracy looks like, where there is none otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Jack Rabbit (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:01 AM

MH1 (17,158 posts)

92. Suing farmers - the invisible elephant in the room

It's pretty sad to see support of Monsanto's hyper-aggressive patent protection behavior, on a supposedly progressive website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MH1 (Reply #92)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:41 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

136. It's pretty sad to see support of bad science and conspiracy theory purveying groups at DU.

No one is defending Monsanto, though it would be interesting to know your level of knowledge of the Monsanto lawsuit story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:48 PM

swilton (5,069 posts)

26. Before there were these allegations

 

there was Agent Orange. Monsanto is no friend to humanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to swilton (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:28 PM

Herman4747 (1,825 posts)

39. EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING!

 

All of you out there remember Agent Orange and what it did to the Vietnamese?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Herman4747 (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:05 PM

deathrind (1,786 posts)

51. Not just what it did...

But what it is still doing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to deathrind (Reply #51)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:18 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

74. Yes, people are still dying because of agent orange. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #74)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:45 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

137. Makers (Dow and Monsanto) of Agent Orange followed formula dictated by U.S. government

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24751345.html

Also, not that it justifies the company making it, but...

"Monsanto warned the government as early as 1952 that 2,4,5-T contains a toxic substance, but this information was not acted upon.[19] This would place the blame for the effects of Agent Orange primarily on the U.S. government"

From: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Monsanto

Of course, the reality is that anti-GMOers have no real way to argue against the GMOs sold by Monsanto, (which also sells non-GMO and organic seeds, btw) so the only thing they can do is scream about a product the US government created 60 years ago. It's bizarro world stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #74)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:20 PM

deathrind (1,786 posts)

146. ...and still being born.

With terrible birth defects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:49 PM

99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)

43. Awesome! Monsanto's criminal abuses deserve swift & sure justice.

 

I can only hope the Hague "delivers" it.

I also fervently hope the Bride of Frankenfoods gets called-out in the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:59 PM

Star Member Dickster (84 posts)

44. I'm a farmer.....lots of ignorance posted here

I've used Roundup since it became available. I've used it on my corn and soybeans crops for many years. I no longer use it. The weeds it used to kill have developed resistance and some have become very hard to kill. I have neighbors who use 3-4 times the rate of the product that they did previously, and still cannot kill the weeds. So they then have to use other herbicides or hire manual labor to rid the fields of the weeds, which isn't cheap. So the total amount of herbicides has increased.
I've gone back to conventional seeds that use older, traditional methods of weed control. I still use chemical herbicides that work quite well. The seed cost is considerably less. A bag of Monsanto GMO seed corn runs around $350. I can buy a bag of conventional seed corn for $150. This past year there was no difference between my corn yield and that of my neighbors who used the GMO varieties. The savings are about $80 per acre. Monsanto soybean seed runs about $60 per bag. I can buy conventional soybean seed for half that. So I'm saving $30 per acre on soybean seed that yield the same. I'd rather keep that money in my pocket than hand it over to one of the most profitable companies on the face of the planet.
Monsanto and a handful of other companies have a monopoly on seed. It is very hard to find non GMO seed. There a a few companies left that breed conventional varieties, but it is probably less that 5 percent of the market.
I have several problems with Monsanto. They have cornered the seed market so that most farmers don't have much choice about who they buy seed from. If you buy the seed, you are forced to buy their herbicides. I also cannot save any of that seed to plant the following year, due to patent rights Monsanto has on the seed.
They have made it very difficult for any independent research to be done on their products, so the public has to rely on the "honesty" of Monsanto as to the safety of their products. Any time independent research questions the safety of their products, Monsanto unleashes a massive publicity campaign impugning the integrity of the independent research.
There is a revolving door within the USDA and Monsanto researchers, bureaucrats, etc. so we get no help out of the Dept of Agriculture. They have swallowed Monsanto's creed hook, line, and sinker.
A good portion of the rest of the world has said 'no thank you' to GMO products, for many of the same reasons I have given. They haven't drunk Monsanto's KoolAid like we have here in this country. I could go on, but enough for now......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dickster (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:53 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

86. Thank you for your post.

 

+1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dickster (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:20 PM

zalinda (5,621 posts)

99. Thank you for taking the time

to tell us about what real farming is about. I hate Monsanto for what they have done to farmers. No matter what the 'science' is of GMO's, this company is evil, and should be stopped.

Z

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dickster (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:38 PM

skepticscott (13,029 posts)

116. And what is your informed opinion

 

on whether GMO foods themselves are unsafe to eat? You interestingly failed to address that topic at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to skepticscott (Reply #116)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:43 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

118. He failed to address exactly what method of weed control he utilizes, too.

It's either an older, more toxic product than glyphosate, or he's employee people to get out in the fields, and, thus, his costs just went way up, yet, he didn't give us those costs, or the information about the product.

Most of the rest of his post is just the usual anti-GMO talking points. I suspect we might have an impostor on our hands, but I may be too suspicious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #118)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:18 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

126. Not everything in life is about costs.

 

You know, some people actually care about not poisoning themselves and the planet. I know, that is a hard concept for you to understand ( considering your hundreds of pro Monsanto and GMO posts in the past).

It's sad, but its your choice. To each their own, right HuckleB?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #126)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:38 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

135. I care about not poisoning the planet.

That's why I oppose returning to the use of non-GMO seeds that lead to the use of more toxic pesticides. That's why I want more regulation on the use of pesticides and herbicides in organic agriculture.

Why do you oppose those things?

The supposed farmer either used more toxic chemicals, or spent more money, while claiming he was saving money. He can't have it both ways. If he wants to spend more, great, but admit that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #135)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:57 PM

skepticscott (13,029 posts)

139. And if he wants to spend more, let him admit

 

that when his product gets to market, it's going to be more expensive, and not affordable by everyone not driving a Volvo.

Can't quite figure out why people who say that want to protect the environment would prefer the indiscriminate external application of insecticides (some of which will go where they do no good, or even harm, requiring more to be used in any case), to the engineering of plants to produce internal insecticides, which end up nowhere but where they are needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to skepticscott (Reply #139)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:59 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

141. Indeed. -eom-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #118)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:14 PM

Star Member Major Nikon (35,776 posts)

144. He failed to mention a lot of other things as well

Like the fact that about 95% of the corn market in the US was composed of hybridized patented seeds BEFORE Monsanto's products ever came into existence. So the idea that Monsanto came along and fucked up a seed market where farmers were reusing their seed from year to year is one of those alternate reality myths that rely on the perpetuation of ignorance. The actual reality is that over 95% of the US corn market is composed of Monsanto's seed, but somehow we must believe that this is because the vast majority of farmers out there are just too fucking stupid to use seed that is better and cheaper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dickster (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:21 PM

Elmergantry (884 posts)

309. Id rather spray my fields with Roundup than "conventional" Atrazine.

 

Roundup doesn't end up in the water table, unlike Atrazine. But I don't do grain farming anymore. Roundup is great for keeping weeds down around the outbuildings, so less CO2 emissions with the push mower. So I am fighting GW in my own special way...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:03 PM

yellowcanine (35,043 posts)

48. Quite misleading headline. Not a real court.

Equivalent to a "citizen's court" in the U.S. putting Cheney on trial. It would mean squat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to yellowcanine (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:07 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

49. I disagree.

 

It's an international Court and it is only the beginning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #49)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:34 PM

tritsofme (15,217 posts)

58. Not correct.

This trial has the legal significance of a mock trial in a law school class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tritsofme (Reply #58)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:38 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

59. Because they need to figure out the charges which can be brought against Monsanto

 

Like i said, its just the beginning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:48 PM

tritsofme (15,217 posts)

148. They don't get to make such a determination on charges

Ever. When their event is over, they can issue a press release. That's about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tritsofme (Reply #148)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:51 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

149. Sure..

 

That is why they have international lawyers as part of the team!

Keep wishing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #149)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:54 PM

tritsofme (15,217 posts)

150. Keep dreaming! I guess...

This isn't a legal proceeding and there is no path to one, it is activism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tritsofme (Reply #150)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:05 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

151. It all has to start somewhere.

 

RT also published an article at the same subject, it is pretty impressive the make up of the said "tribunal".

If we as a country can't or refuse to go after Monsanto, the rest of the world will, as evidenced in the forthcoming " trial".
Like I said , it all has to start somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #151)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:34 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

155. It's not starting anywhere.

This is just another attempt to get the true believers excited over nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:06 PM

Star Member Kali (53,109 posts)

52. DERP

the words monsanto, Hague, and trial used in a press release does not equal the conclusion you jumped to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Kali (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:19 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

55. Are you for or against GMO, Kali?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #55)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:31 PM

Star Member Kali (53,109 posts)

56. I have a nuanced view of the matter. Simplistic, black-and-white thinking is not my style.

I have a better understanding of both agriculture and the science behind these processes, than you apparently do.

I do have serious concerns about large corporations having so much control over the food supply. I have less concern about the actual science and technology being used than the fact that so much of it is "owned" by profiteers.

I imagine that is hard for you to comprehend, but maybe someday you will mature enough to see the bigger pictures in life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Kali (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:34 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

57. Ohh ..the personal attacks again

 



Thanks for the laughs! Have a good one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #57)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:41 PM

Star Member Kali (53,109 posts)

60. the way you "asked" the question didn't warrant much respect

and frankly, it was more than you deserve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Kali (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:49 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

63. Because I already knew the answer,

 

I just wanted to see if you maybe changed your opinion on Monsanto and GMO lately. Apparently not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #63)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:08 AM

Star Member Kali (53,109 posts)

68. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Kali (Reply #68)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:09 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

70. ! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Kali (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:42 PM

Star Member Texasgal (16,594 posts)

61. I wouldn't count on that.

I guess with the time change happy hour seems more early than normal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Texasgal (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:47 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

62. Umm OK lol.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Texasgal (Reply #61)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:09 AM

Star Member Kali (53,109 posts)

69. like talking to a 2nd grader

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Kali (Reply #69)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:29 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

80. I feel the same about you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:07 PM

Star Member spanone (130,581 posts)

53. K&R...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:18 PM

deathrind (1,786 posts)

54. Good.

The bullying tactics Monsanto employs against farmers is despicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:50 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

64. Kick!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:51 PM

NCTraveler (30,481 posts)

65. Renaming my living room The Hague,...

 

Inviting a buddy over, and we are going to discuss my neighbors barking dog.

Did you read your link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #65)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:55 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

66. Yes I did.

 

A mock trial to discuss the charges which can be brought against Monsanto, by serious organizations, not 2 people in a "living room".

I wonder if you " read the link".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #65)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:57 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

67. And BTW, Monsanto is not "a neighbours barking dog".

 

It's a vile unspeakable organization which needs to be brought up to justice. I wish they were so harmless as a "barking dog". They are not. They are poisoning the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:50 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

91. Kick for visibility!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:12 AM

Star Member Recursion (56,386 posts)

93. Ah, a "trial"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:13 AM

meaculpa2011 (918 posts)

94. Bill and Hillary Clinton to be put on...

trial in Chappaqua for "Crimes Against Suburbia."

The tribunal, made up of wealthy homeowners, will assess whether the increase in traffic caused by the former first family added to air and water pollution in the quiet hamlet, thereby eroding the value of their estates.

Details to come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:52 AM

Star Member haele (11,020 posts)

95. Don't get fooled by the GMO issue, this is about business practices.

This includes the damage aggressive monoculture does in ecologically sensitive areas and how it affects bio-diversity and the local resources, cultures, and economies.
It's easy to observe that an aggressive monoculture push by an outside corporation that cares only about profits in a developing country where there's still a majority of population engaged in subsistence economies can be linked to a sudden outburst in crime and political instability in those areas.
The reason international petroleum companies and manufacturers are not right up next to Monsanto is the weakness that Monsanto doesn't provide a significant number of additional "jobs" in most of these countries; there's actually a decrease in employment when Monsanto moves in as small subsistence farmers, plantations and villages are pushed aside in favor of modern mega-farms where significantly fewer people are needed to work those fields and orchards. More impoverished people flooding cities that don't have employment for them, or ways for them to continue farming, unlike the resource-extraction corporations where there is a need for a large workforce to do extracting and refining prior to transport to the factories.

Haele

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 11:15 AM

Dont call me Shirley (10,998 posts)

96. YAY! Obviously the International Court has plenty of clear EVIDENCE to put the murderous company

on trial!

lots of poison supporters here today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #96)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:46 PM

Ichingcarpenter (36,988 posts)

104. Your post was alerted on

you won 0-7 ........... monsanto loss once again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #104)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:19 PM

Dont call me Shirley (10,998 posts)

145. Oh, thank you thank you thank you jurists!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:34 PM

Tab (11,093 posts)

100. Mucho intersante

Although I'm thrilled to see them taken to task, I was actually surprised with the observation that they are shunned by most other countries. I know people don't like what they do, but I figured they were just getting away with it and the hell with everyone else, but now it seems they've only been getting away with it here.

"Crimes against humanity" in theory actually sounds appropriate but I can't do a reading of the law so I don't know if it's applicable to this case, but it sure seems it should be.

I'm also waiting for Bush/Cheney but I'm not holding my breath on their appearing in the Hague anytime soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:46 PM

Dr Hobbitstein (6,568 posts)

105. "International court"

 

That's fucking rich. More like "international group of chem-trail crazies meet to discuss things they know nothing about".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #105)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:27 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

111. Lololol!!!

 

Don't worry, no one will take the GMOs away from you at least for a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #111)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:25 PM

Dr Hobbitstein (6,568 posts)

153. I support force feeding of GMOs to breast-feeding mothers by pitbulls at the Olive Garden.

 

Also, Monsanto pays me big bucks to reply to you. Between you and me, we're actually really scared of this international brotherhood of anti-science dumbfucks and their LARP court. They're paying us all overtime to post comments against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #153)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:37 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

157. Not "Pitt bulls and Olive Garden", but you surely support Monsanto and GMOs in dozens if not hundred

 

of posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=208190

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027005378#post3

And this is what you're calling the anti GMO posters "
Dr Hobbitstein (2,484 posts)
3. Yes...

Yes they have. A simple look around this board is telling enough. For every one sensible person posting on a GMO thread are 15 rabid anti-GMO, pseudo-science shilling, Dr. Oz watching troglodytes..


Buh bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #157)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:39 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

158. The good doctor is quite accurate!



Thanks for sharing the great quote!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #157)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:40 PM

Dr Hobbitstein (6,568 posts)

159. GMOs, yes.

 

Monsanto, no. The two are not synonymous. I argue with all the anti-science, mouth-breathing troglodytes on this board. Anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, alternative medicine quackery, et al.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #159)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:41 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

160. See ya. I have no use in continuing a conversation with someone who calls other DUers

 

"anti-GMO, pseudo-science shilling, Dr. Oz watching troglodytes."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #160)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 05:00 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

161. Once again, you fail to be able to discuss the matters at hand.

It's very telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #153)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 02:29 PM

Dont call me Shirley (10,998 posts)

190. Plenty of science to back up anti-gmo. But the pro-gmo crowd is more like the "Climate Change is a

Hoax" crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #190)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 03:21 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

192. You have it exactly backwards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #190)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:08 PM

Dr Hobbitstein (6,568 posts)

194. Actually, there's not.

 

All you have is the debunked Seralini study. That's it. If you want to link to some actual peer-reviewed papers that aren't in pay-to-play publications with low impact factors, go ahead.

Pro-tip: you won't find any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #194)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:19 PM

Dont call me Shirley (10,998 posts)

200. "If you want to link to some actual peer-reviewed papers that aren't in pay-to-play publications

with low impact factors,"

Precisely, all the evidence is not only behind a blackout wall it is behind a paywall as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #200)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:24 PM

Dr Hobbitstein (6,568 posts)

202. That's not what pay-to-play means.

 

That means the researchers pay to have it published. Because reputable publications won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:03 PM

immoderate (20,885 posts)

107. Good post. Thanks.

 



--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:03 PM

Star Member SidDithers (44,228 posts)

108. Breaking News: Monsanto to Be Put on Trial NEAR the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity

There, fixed your headline for you.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:09 PM

Star Member Faux pas (12,365 posts)

109. YES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:26 PM

StandingInLeftField (972 posts)

110. About damn time...

drag the CEO and Board of Directors in front of the Tribunal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to StandingInLeftField (Reply #110)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:30 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

112. It's a mock trial, by anti FMO international organizations

 

They will determine which official charges Monsanto can be charged on, under the International court.
It's not as good as the real deal, but its a huge step. We need the International court involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:46 PM

TacoD (581 posts)

119. What penalty do these charges carry? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TacoD (Reply #119)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:49 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

121. They will determine the official charges at the mock trial.

 

Monsanto hasn't been officially charged yet. What the October '16 trial do is determine with what charges Monsanto can be charged with in the International court, which is amazing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TacoD (Reply #119)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:07 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

123. There are no actual charges. It's just a PR stunt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #123)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:14 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

125. It is not a PR stunt.

 

It's the first step for the International community to decide with what CRIMINAL charges Monsanto can be charged with under the International laws.

But you already knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #125)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:18 PM

MohRokTah (15,429 posts)

127. That's complete nonsense

 

This group has no more effect on the actions of international courts than do the silly citizen's grand juries that put Obama on trial for treason did with US courts.

That you'd promote this sort of bullshit puts you in the same league as birthers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #127)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:20 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

128. Throw insults all you want.

 

It's not my first encounter with you or the other pro GMO posters. It's funny to what lenghts you go to defend them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #128)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:30 PM

MohRokTah (15,429 posts)

130. It's funnier what lengths anti-science people go to promote their anti-science. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #125)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:36 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

134. Nonsense. This group is a non-entity in legal circles.

It has no connection at all to international legal systems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #134)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:47 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

178. Bye!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #125)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:35 PM

jberryhill (62,444 posts)

205. Okay, great, you'll update is when a case is filed in an actual court?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 05:35 PM

WillyT (72,631 posts)

162. K & R !!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 08:53 PM

TheFarS1de (1,017 posts)

185. Good to hear .

Maybe they can also look at the newer chemicals which are linked to pollinators dying ( bees ) and is being sold worldwide as a home use chemical .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 10:01 PM

aspirant (3,533 posts)

187. K&R

If corrupt corporations can bypass nation's laws with Kangaroo ISDS courts the people can too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to aspirant (Reply #187)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 10:03 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

188. Exactly, Aspirant!

 

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 03:20 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

191. Breaking: Natural News put on trial for crimes against science, educide in The Hague

http://thespudd.com/breaking-natural-news-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-science-educide-in-the-hague/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #191)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:08 PM

Dr Hobbitstein (6,568 posts)

195. Perfect! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #191)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:17 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

197. Satire.

 

So science pro!!!! Oh my!!!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #197)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:18 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

199. Yes, it's satire, which is more accurate than your OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #199)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:19 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

201. In your own pro-GMO, pro-Monsanto mind maybe..

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #201)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:31 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

203. No, Monsanto Is Not Going On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2015/12/07/no-monsanto-is-not-going-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity/

I don't know why you think what you're doing is ok. It's not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #203)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:36 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

206. Lolololol!!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #208)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:38 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

212. Now you're spammimg

 

Time for you to go on full ignore. And please don't send anyone nasty PMs anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #212)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:40 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

215. You already had me on ignore. What happened?

This OP is pure spam, and the fact you failed to acknowledge that, and do the right thing once that was shown to you is really sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #215)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:45 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

218. Mail ignore, since I've heard how you send cursing messages to posters

 

Like this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7421855

Keep spamming lol!

Adios.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #218)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:48 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

221. You claimed to put me on ignore long before that.

Honesty matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #221)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:54 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

226. You sent PMs before pnwmom

 

Yah honesty is quiet important .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #226)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:01 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

230. Wow!

Last edited Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)

You really don't care about integrity at all. Amazing. I used a bad word. Wow! LOL!

And it looks like you're letting the cat out of the bag on those "private conversations." Hmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 03:46 PM

Zorra (27,670 posts)

193. Recommend. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #210)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:46 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

219. !!!

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7421855

pnwmom
83. Here is the PM this poster just sent me. I thought the world might enjoy seeing it.
Of course I am going to block his emails. Other people should be aware of the kind of email they might get from him.

P.S. I just realized how appreciative I am of the fact that none of the hundreds of thousands of DU members has ever chosen to send me an abusive email before, no matter how tempted.

So thanks to all the rest of you!

FUCK YOU!

You are an asshole. You have attacked me in the most disgusting ways possible.

YOU SUCK AS A HUMAN!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #219)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:48 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

220. I was being honest.

You have been saying far worse to many people on this page with your ugly responses. Just because you won't be direct, doesn't mean your behavior is any better. Its not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #220)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:52 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

224. You send PMs telling ppl" F..You" and youre saying you have been honest???

 

And that over simply dissagreing with them??

Buh bye. And please don't harrass people in PM. You sent the same nasty message to several people.

Pretty pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #224)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:00 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

229. That's over them treating me like crap for years.

I'm honest, which is not a claim that can be made about this OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #224)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 06:44 PM

Star Member Kali (53,109 posts)

234. pretty funny

YOU talking about sending rude PMs. try some fucking self-awareness.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Kali (Reply #234)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 06:48 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

235. Over personal attacks, not GMO discussions!

 

The poster wasn't personally attacked, he just couldn't handle opposing views and decided to mass message f u messages to random posters in the thread.
Now you try some "fucking self awareness" for once! Even though I know you won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #235)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 06:49 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

236. Looks like there's even more hypocrisy involved than is already seen by this OP,

and your responses to the reality of the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #236)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:23 PM

Star Member Kali (53,109 posts)

270. she claims she is a nurse

don't they have to take a few basic science courses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Kali (Reply #270)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:29 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

275. Umm.

Yeah, that doesn't seem likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #275)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:45 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

286. Are you saying I am not a nurse now??

 

HuckleB
275. Umm.
Yeah, that doesn't seem likely.


Just to have it on record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #286)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:54 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

291. If you are, that's scary.

Very, very scary.

What are you supposed credentials?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #291)

darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #292)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:58 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

293. BS, BSN, MS, NP.

I'm really worried about wherever you went to school, because you have some very big holes in your "understanding" of how science works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #293)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:03 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

295. I don't know in what world do you live, but ALL MY colegues on my floor are against GMOs!

 

Even PAs and MDs, they're always buying organic food, we freaking go shopping together!

I suggest you don't make any more personal attacks. It is not what a nurse would do.

As a nurse you must respect others point of view. You seem to have 0 tolerance for opposing views. I would hate to think an NP sent "f ..u.. " messages go multiple posters for simply dissagreing on a message board.

I hope I will never come anywhere near you in my personal life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #295)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:06 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

296. I doubt that.

This is yet another reason that your status is scary. You think pushing an unsupported anecdote online means something. It doesn't.

Here's why your anecdote makes no sense: "According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in association with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 88 percent of scientists believe GM foods are safe to eat, compared with only 37 percent of the public — a gap of 51 percentage points."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fred-hiatt-genetically-modified-foods-prove-hard-for-americans-to-stomach/2015/02/08/3ae7902c-ad60-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html

People who understand the science, aren't buying the baseless fear that you are trying to spread.

You seem to think that you can make all the personal attacks you want upon others, even going out to find dirt, and then you can't handle actual criticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #296)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:08 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

299. No, YOUR status is scary.

 

You say you're an NP. Thats well above my level. Yet you send private messages cursing multiple DURs , for simply dissagreing with you?!!!

That is scary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #299)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:11 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

303. She wasn't just disagreeing with me. You don't know the first thing about it.

And this is all you have as a response?

And that does not change the reality that you are advocating for an ideology that is not supported by the science, and you have clearly decided that no amount of information will ever change your mind.

If it were different, you wouldn't attack people as "Pro-Monsanto" and "Pro-GMO," when those people are simply assessing the status of the science of the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #303)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:15 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

306. I'am asking you again for probr your attacks,

 

That I claimed this was more than a mock trial. That I am not a nurse. That it is scary if I was one( when you sent musltiple messages cursing DUrs for simply dissagreing with you).

You have nothing . No answer.

Emojis and thats all.

You're making a fool of yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #306)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:18 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

307. I am making a fool out of myself, by bothering to address your foolish posts.

On the other hand, that doesn't say much for the likes of you.

In fact, you just doubled down, rather than even bothering to wonder if there's more to the story.

The lack of curiosity is astounding, and it explains why you don't understand the topic of GMOs, and I'm guessing many others.

You have failed to respond to attempts at actual discussion, which I would expect an actual RN to engage in with curiosity. Thus, my doubt is valid. My fears justified.

A little humility goes a long way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #306)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:14 PM

Star Member Kali (53,109 posts)

329. might want to get a cup of coffee or sleep this off a while

the typos are getting pretty numerous

306. I'am asking you again for probr your attacks,

That I claimed this was more than a mock trial. That I am not a nurse. That it is scary if I was one( when you sent musltiple messages cursing DUrs for simply dissagreing with you).

You have nothing . No answer.

Emojis and thats all.

You're making a fool of yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #275)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:26 PM

Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)

312. alerted 5-2 to keep

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #312)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:27 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

314. I guess they're working hard again, tonight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #314)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:30 PM

Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)

315. wasted my time

 

But I am glad to serve on all juries

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #315)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:56 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

338. I just wish the jury system was more consistent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Kali (Reply #270)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:44 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

285. I don't "claim" I am a nurse, I AM a nurse.

 

GMOs have not been peer studied on long term effects, to clearly say they are safe. Monsanto will eventually go down, to the dispair of many in this thread.

And Kali, take your personal attacks elsewhere. You're embarrassing yourself.

PS: shouldn't you give up attacking DUers personal lives now that you are on MIRT? I would say you should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #219)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:50 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

222. No, Monsanto Is Not Going On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity


http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2015/12/07/no-monsanto-is-not-going-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity/

You really don't like the reality being pointed out for everyone to see, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:39 PM

LanternWaste (37,748 posts)

214. This will result in a lot of irrelevant criticisms from Monsanto's colleagues and associates.

 

This will result in a lot of irrelevant criticisms from Monsanto's colleagues and associates (especially the tiny swarm of half-witted idiots that habitually brook no criticism against Monsanto itself).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:51 PM

zappaman (20,562 posts)

223. Kick and rec!

Cuz I love a good

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to zappaman (Reply #223)

darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.

Response to zappaman (Reply #223)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:04 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

231. A "trainwreck", like your opinion about the homeless??

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027401452#post91

That was something, I might say. Very enlighting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #231)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 06:50 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

237. So logical fallacies are your thing.

Hmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #237)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:45 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

243. Are you agreeing with what that poster said about homeless people?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #243)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:46 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

244. No, I'm not.

I am simply noting that you can't respond to the actual content of any response. You would rather simply attack the poster instead. That's very telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #244)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:51 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

247. What content?

 

Did that poster said anything of substance, except laughing at this thread? (Which you BTW you contributed to it considerably) . I am responding to content, you are the one avoiding questions.

Why are you against labeling GMO foods?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #247)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:52 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

249. Why are you asking me questions when you refused to answer mine?

That poster's content is weak, but it's at least to the quality of what's in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #249)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:56 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

251. I answered all your questions. And you accused me of saying the trial is official

 

Prove it, or delete! You accuse people of an awful lot in this thread, only to distract and confuse.

Proof of where I said any differently. I'm waiting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #251)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:00 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

255. No, you didn't. Not even close.

You and I both know what this article was trying to do. "A trial at the Hague." And you think you can actually try to pretend to be upset that you've been called out on that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #255)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:10 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

300. Answer where did i say if was an official trial??

 

It is a trial, just not official. So where did I "lie"???

Back up your accusation! ( for the 20th time"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #300)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:15 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

305. How many times have you said the "headline is accurate?"

Well, we all know that the headline is trying to con people into thinking exactly that. You know this. You were called out on that from the beginning. You never changed a thing. You kept defending this as if it is something besides what it is: A PR stunt.

Now, it's time for you to be honest. Stop the games.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #305)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:20 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

308. The headline is accurate because there will be a trail!

 

Even though an unofficial one, as explained by the article!!

You stop your games! What NP sends "f*** you" messages to DUers for disagreeing with them?? You say youre an NP, yet you don't have the most basic ethics under control!!!

Do you even practice nlw? What do you do if a patient disagrees with you ?? Curse them , like you to to the DUrs??


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #308)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:22 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

310. Not in the actual Hague, and not in an actual trial.

You realize that the more people understand that, you will lose even many of those who support your anti-GMO stance? If you don't, well, that's scary.

And your obsession with distracting from any possible discussion based on an interaction you don't know anything about is really awful.

Period.

I've asked you to stop acting in this manner, and you just keep attacking, no matter what. You don't have a justification to attack me like this, especially considering your posts on this thread. Get a mirror.

Goodbye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #310)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:35 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

317. You hate the Anti GMO movement so much,

 

That you have to resort to lies. It is sad. I am up for discussion! I asked you multiple times to explain yourself! All you do is say that the title of the article is misleading, witn no proof at all, in dozens of posts. All you do is deflect, and never answer any questions.

So I am asking you again, how do you justify sending private messages, cursing DUrs, (as a self called NP), and saying other posters are lying about being Nurses??
I have you on record so you can't back down from that.

All you do is troll and spread your pro Monsanto, pro GMO drivel, regardless if you make up shit about other posters , of regardless if you're going to troll them in the PM!

Give us a break! DU is not as stupid as you think!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #317)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:59 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

340. I don't lie, and I don't hate.

I can show any anti-GMO poster with an actual open mind that he or she is misguided, however.

You don't appear to have an open mind at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #340)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:03 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

342. After you attacked my job, you and I have nothing to discuss anymore.

 

You are free to enlighten the rest of DU why Is are so SAFE and why we should not label GMO products, even though consumers are asking for them!!!

Welcome to permanent ignore!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #342)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:10 AM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

343. That might matter, if you had actually answered my questions the other day.

Now you're just making excuses for your failure to be honest in discussion.

BTW, if I see you at a nursing conference promoting this kind of pseudoscience, you will be called out publicly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #231)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:51 PM

zappaman (20,562 posts)

248. Golly, you'd think if someone went to all that trouble they wouldn't selectively edit.

Or maybe they missed the dozen or so posts that shill for the charity I am heavily involved in.
Anywho, I stand by all my posts about the homeless issues and those posts linked about the people who come to my town to smoke meth, rob houses, defecate on resident's lawns/streets, and terrorize tourists.

By the way, here is the link I have posted plenty of times.
http://www.changelives.org

If you don't care for that charity for whatever reason, the other homeless charity I volunteer at for the last 1 1/2 years is this one.
http://www.epath.org/site/main.html

I realize it would be asking too much to see you donate to both, but perhaps you could forgo a sixer and donate to one?
You have a good heart so if you need any help figuring out how to donate, let me know.


ETA:
We will be very grateful and I will match any donation you make!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to zappaman (Reply #248)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:58 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

252. So you admit you said what that poster copied and posted??

 

Holy cow!!!

*speechless*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #252)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:00 PM

zappaman (20,562 posts)

254. Yup and will match your donation.

Just tell me how much.
I know you're a good person so I expect you to be honest.

http://www.changelives.org

http://www.epath.org/site/main.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to zappaman (Reply #254)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:09 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

260. You call homeless people unspeakable names...

 

I couldnt give a damn what you say you "donate" , when your hate against the homeless is obvious!

"Also, for homeless people living on the streets, they really don't take care of their "home." There's litter, filth, human waste, and garbage all around their "living quarters." How we can respect them when they don't even respect themselves? Get them in a shelter or get them off the streets. Life isn't fair, homeless losers. Get over it. I'm tired of walking around you."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I get my coffee every morning at the Cafe Collage and they did indeed remove the tables because it was getting out of the hand. Some days you literally had to push your way through the homeless hanging out, smoking weed, pissing round the corner and asking for handouts.

That was where I had a guy tell me he was "gonna get me some money and come back and f@ck you up". I asked him "why not f@ck me up now?" and he stumbled away muttering.

I can hold my own, but it makes me wonder how many tourists and smaller people get hit on by these losers.

It also smelt like piss every morning.

They had to get rid of the seating outside and I'm glad they did."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It's not an emergency when you choose to live in an RV or on the streets.

16 years on the street is a lifestyle decision, not an emergency.

Furthermore, "People that want to live and abide by the law, if only they could" is also wrong.

The whole point of the recent whining by the VDs and their enablers is that they are upset they are no longer getting away with breaking the law like they have been for years. They have no desire to "abide by the law" and only want to change it so they can continue leeching off the goodwill of Venetians."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Thank you for agreeing that one of the reasons the gutter punks prefer the streets is that they can be high and not have to follow rules."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"My car was broken into last July for the first time in 25 years.

Stole CDs, change, and a bottle of mouthwash from the glove compartment.

Obviously, we are talking about transient losers looking for simple items to trade for drugs.

Hope you get some of your stuff back and maybe invest in a dog, alarm system, or a nice weapon.

At some point, these losers will get emboldened and try something on someone they shouldn't.

My dog silently prays they hop my fence..."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My thoughts on the homeless....

The availability of marijuana is why these fuckers are here? Are you kidding me?

They're here because they can steal our *#!%$! and get away with it.

They're here because our VNC seems to believe that Venice is some fairy tale land where gumdrops rain from the sky, kittens run freely, and the no-good, wannabe-homeless criminals have a right to make Venice their own personal shithole because "hey, they're people too".

Until they start getting their asses tossed in jail once in a while and word gets out that Venice isn't gonna tolerate their bullshit anymore, these gutter punks will just continue lowering the living standards in our community.

Amazing how some people just don't get it."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"These people need to be removed!

Tents on the street? where are the cops?

If they want tent city go out to the mountains

Time to clear the human garbage off the streets and make these jerks earn their keep instead of giving it to them

Want to feed homeless do it at the shelter not the beach

Want a place to keep your stuff, buy it or rent it. Leaving it on the street means you don't want it anymore, it is trash to be removed!

Don't give me that NIMBY sh*t it has been in my backyard (our backyards!) only and no where else

You want to help the homeless...so do I

I would like to help them get out of this community."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And arrest them once in a while. Put these gutter punks in jail for a couple of nights and let them know their *#!%$! will no longer be tolerated in Venice. It's disgusting out there now. Signs aren't gonna do much and good luck getting Venice merchants to stop selling single beers. They make a boatload of money doing so."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All quotes from the legend and the legend's merry crew of loving and compassionate neighbors can be found here along with dozens of others showing such admirable traits in the fight for social justice. "
...

This is from AOR link, and you just admitted to it. As someone who has volunteered countless times to the homeless shelter, who has given my last dollar in my pocket to the needy, I say shame on you!

You are the last person to make ad hominem attacks!

I have nothing else to say to you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #260)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:13 PM

zappaman (20,562 posts)

262. No I didn't.

Now I see how the poster used other quotes in threads I was in to make it seem like it was me.
Google if you care.

Also, for homeless people living on the streets, they really don't take care of their "home." There's litter, filth, human waste, and garbage all around their "living quarters." How we can respect them when they don't even respect themselves? Get them in a shelter or get them off the streets. Life isn't fair, homeless losers. Get over it. I'm tired of walking around you."
Not my quote. It's the person above me.
I'm sure that was an honest error.

"These people need to be removed!
Tents on the street? where are the cops?
If they want tent city go out to the mountains
Time to clear the human garbage off the streets and make these jerks earn their keep instead of giving it to them
Want to feed homeless do it at the shelter not the beach
Want a place to keep your stuff, buy it or rent it. Leaving it on the street means you don't want it anymore, it is trash to be removed!
Don't give me that NIMBY sh*t it has been in my backyard (our backyards!) only and no where else
You want to help the homeless...so do I
I would like to help them get out of this community."
Again, not me. A completely different poster. I'm sure that was an honest error as well.

Funny how the poster did that.
I wonder why?

So sorry dear.
Still waiting for that donation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to zappaman (Reply #262)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:18 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

266. I googled most of them and it was from a poster with your name.

 

Enough said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #266)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:21 PM

zappaman (20,562 posts)

269. Sure you did.

Sure.

Venice SteelerFan said "These people need to be removed! Tents on the street? where are the cops? If they want tent city go out to the mountains Time to clear the human garbage off the streets and make these jerks earn their keep instead of giving it to them Want to feed homeless do it at the shelter not the beach Want a place to keep your stuff, buy it or rent it. Leaving it on the street means you don't want it anymore, it is trash to be removed! Don't give me that NIMBY sh*t it has been in my backyard (our backyards!) only and no where else You want to help the homeless...so do I I would like to help them get out of this community The VNC doesn't represent the community it reps the squatters, and it too needs to be removed like the nasty smelly scene on 3rd!"

http://www.yovenice.com/forum/the-trouble-maker-zone/squalor-on-3rd-street-in-venice/page-3/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to zappaman (Reply #269)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:26 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

272. Not all, but most.

 

How do you explain the rest??

So you have any explanation for calling homeless people such awful names???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #272)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:31 PM

zappaman (20,562 posts)

277. Like what?

I don't call the homeless names.
I do have some choice words for people who travel to my town to dump on my streets, party all night and smoke as much meth as they can find.
You might be okay with that lifestyle...I'm not.

Anywho, thanks again for this trainwreck of a thread!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to zappaman (Reply #277)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:36 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

280. You have a "choice of words "...

 

Very very nice, zappaman. Very nice indeed.

Maybe if you would know what hunger is, or cold is, or if you're gonna be alive the next day after sleeping on the streets, maybe then you will have some compassion.

You obviously have no clue what homelessness is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:13 PM

PeaceNikki (27,985 posts)

232. pfffffffffffffffffft

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #232)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:35 PM

Star Member Kali (53,109 posts)

279. THIS really is the correct reply to the OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Kali (Reply #279)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:37 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

281. YES! From the pro GMO folks!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:13 PM

Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)

233. Well, maybe Monsanto will re-hire Shannon Watts to do PR...

 


...since she was that company's Director for Global and Corporate Affairs, 2001 - 2004.

Lately, she head of Mothers Demand Action and Gun Sense in America, one of Bloomie's pop-up organizations. Maybe she can pry herself away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #233)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:19 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

238. Hehehe! That would be rich!

 

Probably they will its their thing to hire corrupted people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:34 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

239. From SustainablePulse:

 

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions Against Monsanto, joined by dozens of global food, farming and environmental justice groups announced today that they will put Monsanto MON (NYSE), a US-based transnational corporation, on mock trial for crimes against nature and humanity, and ecocide, in The Hague, Netherlands, next year on World Food Day, October 16, 2016.

Monsanto
Since the beginning of the twentieth century according to the groups, Monsanto has developed a steady stream of highly toxic products which have permanently damaged the environment and caused illness or death for thousands of people. These products include:

• PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl), one of the 12 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) that affect human and animal fertility;

• 2,4,5 T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid), a dioxin-containing component of the defoliant, Agent Orange, which was used by the US Army during the Vietnam War and continues to cause birth defects and cancer;

• Lasso, an herbicide that is now banned in Europe;

• and RoundUp, the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the source of the greatest health and environmental scandal in modern history. This toxic herbicide, designated a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization, is used in combination with genetically modified (GM) RoundUp Ready seeds in large-scale monocultures, primarily to produce soybeans, maize and rapeseed for animal feed and biofuels.

Relying on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” adopted by the UN in 2011, an international court of lawyers and judges will assess the potential criminal liability of Monsanto for damages inflicted on human health and the environment. The court will also rely on the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether to reform international criminal law to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense. The International Criminal Court, established in 2002 in The Hague, has determined that prosecuting ecocide as a criminal offense is the only way to guarantee the rights of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected.

The announcement was made at a press conference held in conjunction with the COP21 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, November 30 – December 11, in Paris.


From http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/monsanto-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague/#.VmYXF59OnqA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #239)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:36 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

240. That's just the same stuff found via the OP.

In other words, you appear to be spamming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #240)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:41 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

241. I was told that you keep replying to me, even though I told you you were blocked

 

So I removed you from ignore. I guess you're here to keep spamming the thread over and over again.

You kept posting that the Monsanto Trial is not a real trial. Did I ever said in this thread, that it was a real trial?? The article are making it clear that it is a mock trial, to FIND WHAT CRIMINAL CHARHES CAN BE BROUGHT AGAINST MONSANTO. It's crystal clear.

Now, please enlighten us, why are you against companies labeling GMO products, if you think they are so safe? Why do you oppose labeling?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #241)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:45 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

242. I am not going to let conspiracy theory "content" go without a response.

You are now being less than honest about the follow-up responses you make, as that link is just a part of the link in the OP.

I'm not spamming, I'm responding to your spam, as has been made clear. BTW, if you can't handle blocking someone, don't do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #242)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:48 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

245. Answer the question, why are you against labeling???

 

And who here said it was a real trial, and not a mock trial??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #245)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:50 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

246. You left several unanswered questions above.

You appear to be backing down from prior assertions that this would lead some actual charges.

Until you answer the questions I've already asked, don't ask me any questions. That's simply not how discussion works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #246)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:54 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

250. I never once once said this was a real trial.

 

The article makes it clear what it was, and that the Monsanto Tribunal is considerating what official charges they will fight to bring against Monsanto after the said trial.

Where is your proof that I said the charges are official?? And why are you opposing GMO labeling??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #250)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:58 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

253. The headline clearly implies that.

Many of the responses you received clearly believe that.

And here's what you pushed in post 73.

"The article speaks for itself.

They're assesing (sic) what charges can be brought against Monsanto on am INTERNATIONAL level."

And you went on along these lines for quite some time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #253)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:02 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

256. The headline is correct, because there is a Monsanto Tribunal,

 

Who will conduct a mock trail in Hague and see what official charges can be brought against Monsanto.
And it was the headline from the article. The article itself explains all the details. Funny how the readers can understand the article, but you cannot!!!



So in the end you falsely accused me of "misleading". You even got a post hidden on the other thread for accusing people of " lying" your word).

A lot of attacks and no real discussion, that is what I'm seeing from you. Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #256)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:03 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

257. Oh, brother.

Nice confession.

Anyone who wants to can see that I attempted to engage you in a real discussion. You refused. Please do the right thing, and stop pretending otherwise. Thank you.

You repeatedly attacked people as supporting Monsanto for simply finding fault with the ludicrous OP, and/or for supporting the scientific consensus on GMOs. That is not decent behavior in any way, shape, or form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #257)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:12 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

261. Stop deflecting, no one here said it was an official charge, and you know it

 

You keep making things up as you go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #261)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:15 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

264. I'm not the one deflecting in any way, shape or form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #264)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:16 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

265. Sure you're not!

 

Then copy and post where I said more than the article itself said???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #265)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:19 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

267. I've already done that.

You and I both know the headline is misleading, and yet you just defended it as accurate. And then I showed more by copying and pasting one of your posts.

You really think that you can just deny things and they go away?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #267)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:21 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

268. No you have not. Copy and paste where I said the trial was official??

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #268)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:24 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

271. You seem to think you can go with that headline and pretend.

And when you're called out on it, you say the headline is accurate.

Again and again.

The games you're playing are not ok. Do the right thing, acknowledge the reality, and stop pretending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #271)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:29 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

274. The headline is accurate , because they are going on trial!

 

Even though if not official. You accused me of changing my stance .. Prove your accusations! Copy and paste where I did that???? You got 3 of your posts hidden yesterday for falsely accusing and insulting DUers, with absolutely no back up of justification!

It's sad, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #274)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:30 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

276. Yawn.

You keep playing that, but you know that the more people who find out the reality the worse it is for your propaganda. And propaganda is all this is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #276)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:39 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

282. What about your stance against labeling??

 

And your ad nauseum made up accusations? If that is not pro GMO propaganda then I don't know what is.

*yawn* because you cant provide proof for your attacks. You really should go back and self delete all the false accusations, if you want to save face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #282)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:42 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

283. And now you try to deflect in another direction.

Either it's a personal attack, a denial while pretending that the denial isn't really a denial, or going off in another direction that has already been covered, over and over again.

You can claim I haven't proven my point, but that claim isn't accurate, as we both know.

If you're worried about saving save, I suggest you look in the mirror for a long time.

BTW, where are you advocacy posts for labels for MBOs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #283)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:48 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

287. I asked you for proofbi ever said such things, you didn't answer

 

I asked you why you're against labeling? Still no answer.

Crystal clear what you're doing here. It's hilarious!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #287)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:53 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

290. Yes, I did.

You are simply pretending. This is bizarrely surreal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HuckleB (Reply #290)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:18 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

353. No, you have not answered why you are against labeling .

 

I find it "bizarrely surreal" that you pretend you did, myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:04 PM

tammywammy (26,582 posts)

258. Just when I think there can't be any stupider posted on DU than what I've read today

I see this.

Congrats.

SMH. People will believe anything. It's actually frightening you supposedly have a college degree and yet don't understand this isn't a real court or actually anything but a bunch of people "putting them on trial". Your lack of a critical thought process is astounding.


Congrats again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tammywammy (Reply #258)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:14 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)