Environment & Energy

daleanime

(17,796 posts)

16. Amen....

Reply to proReality (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 23, 2014, 10:41 AM

Sep 2014

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

And Pretty Much The Whole Thing In A Nutshell . . . . [View all] hatrack Sep 2014 OP

Do not forget "hot babies" and fugitive hunts, no time for climate change shit or reporting on Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #1

Or fugitives hunting for "hot babes". Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2014 #13

Thank You ...great post....no text... Stuart G Sep 2014 #2

knr pscot Sep 2014 #3

K&RRRRR! GliderGuider Sep 2014 #4

+1 progressoid Sep 2014 #5

For fuckin real . toby jo Sep 2014 #6

If they actually reported on the science of GMO's... ag_dude Sep 2014 #7

Very few on here deny the dangers of GMOs GliderGuider Sep 2014 #10

No, it's not, I'm referring to the overwhelming scientific evidence that... ag_dude Sep 2014 #15

I guess Monsanto needs to improve its outreach programs then... nt GliderGuider Sep 2014 #19

I said GMOs, I didn't say a single thing about Monsanto ag_dude Sep 2014 #21

Most people are happily stuffing down the GMO everything. GliderGuider Sep 2014 #22

You act as if I'm the one that made the original graphic. ag_dude Sep 2014 #23

I completely agree with the OP - I'm just responding to your comment about science. GliderGuider Sep 2014 #24

Because of who funds the research? ag_dude Sep 2014 #25

So how do you turn public trust around? GliderGuider Sep 2014 #27

Report on the actual science. ag_dude Sep 2014 #29

We don't trust the reported science in this area. GliderGuider Sep 2014 #30

I realize that, there's no hope for people like you ag_dude Sep 2014 #31

When Big Corporations like Novartis and Monsanto outright truedelphi Sep 2014 #32

Ignore those studies then... ag_dude Sep 2014 #33

truedelphi just pointed you to a different result. GliderGuider Sep 2014 #34

I understand red flags ag_dude Sep 2014 #35

Insulting people always helps your case. GliderGuider Sep 2014 #36

I'm not lashing out at anything ag_dude Sep 2014 #38

IMO you are drawing a false equivalency GliderGuider Sep 2014 #39

It's stunning how far people go to protect and promote their poison. Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #40

It's human nature. The more we have to protect, the more protective we become. nt GliderGuider Sep 2014 #42

Then why do we not protect nature, instead protecting poisoners like Monsatan? Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #44

There's your problem, it's science not "corporate" ag_dude Sep 2014 #41

Any time a corporation's profits depend on a particular aspect of science GliderGuider Sep 2014 #43

Science vs science denying ideology ag_dude Sep 2014 #46

The ag chemicals are made from?...............oil. More oil creates more climate change. Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #45

You do know that Bt plants... ag_dude Sep 2014 #47

Although now there are super pests because of the chemicals leading to more pests, Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #48

I see that you don't actually know what Bt is. ag_dude Sep 2014 #49

So I wouldn't have to spend extra money buying bt and spraying it. Good. BUT, there is jtuck004 Sep 2014 #54

How many more decades of research do you need? ag_dude Sep 2014 #56

? I'm not disagreeing, but who funded those studies? If it was the people jtuck004 Sep 2014 #62

I see you don't get the dangers of GMO, to the earth, the creatures and humans. Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #60

Snarky replies that are unfortunately the norm for the anti-GMO crowd ag_dude Sep 2014 #61

A large amount of snark comes from the pro-GMO crowd as well. Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #63

I'm talking about you specifically. ag_dude Sep 2014 #64

A few facts Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #65

You didn't link to a single scientific paper, which is typical of the anti-GMO crowd ag_dude Sep 2014 #66

Nor did you Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #67

Do you really need a link to a scientific paper on what Bt crops are for? ag_dude Sep 2014 #68

I think you're partially wrong here... druidity33 Sep 2014 #58

This message was self-deleted by its author ag_dude Sep 2014 #59

For myself, the issue isn't the science but how it is being used. Maedhros Sep 2014 #50

That's a fair crticism ag_dude Sep 2014 #51

There is a flaw in the graphic proReality Sep 2014 #8

Amen.... daleanime Sep 2014 #16

Not owning a TV, and so not watching what passes for SheilaT Sep 2014 #9

That about says it all! mountain grammy Sep 2014 #11

We learn a lot about "side boobs," too. nt tblue37 Sep 2014 #12

I do not get the appeal of side boob shots at all. marble falls Sep 2014 #17

It is the same as the appeal of looking at nude pics of women who don't want tblue37 Sep 2014 #18

Its a nasty business that needs jail time associated with it. marble falls Sep 2014 #20

saw this on FB hfojvt Sep 2014 #14

Kick high! valerief Sep 2014 #26

It sounds good The2ndWheel Sep 2014 #28

The media serves to protect the interests of their owners, the 1% blkmusclmachine Sep 2014 #37

Proud to be K&R #100 n/t Oldtimeralso Sep 2014 #52

K & R Iliyah Sep 2014 #53

Any Panda news? They are so cute when they are young. n/t jtuck004 Sep 2014 #55

Kick.. thanks hatrack Cha Sep 2014 #57