| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QQUSt.jpg) Huh. Florida was won by fewer votes than Gary Johnson got in the state. Anyone know the reason why "Electoral Votes" has a "0" under it? + Show Spoiler [On Rosanne Barr?] + Also, what in the world is Rosanne Barr doing with nearly 50k votes? Is it just the Ross Perot effect? Trolling voters, maybe? A legit campaign? I mean... wat. | ||
|
grush57
Korea (South)2582 Posts
| ||
|
ControlMonkey
Australia3109 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
Just all around a terrible law. | ||
|
maxroach
United States3 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:20 BlueLanterna wrote: I'm curious about what you found very impressive about Mitt Romney during this election in terms of his intellect. His life story. He raised capital and bought companies raising their debts and making himself insanely rich. When he couldn't raise capital in the USA, he included death squads from South America. Don't tell me he isn't capable. I actually think that the saving grace of Romeny being President would be his own ego - that he really would want the USA to do well. Is he intelligent in the ways that make a good candidate for the year 2012? I think we can all agree that, no. But remember that many of our previous elected presidents also would fail in this type of election. | ||
|
Alay
United States660 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:39 Assault_1 wrote: wow mad spoilers in the thread title You came to teamliquid the day after the match and didn't expect spoilers?!? I really hope the republican party shapes up. I share a lot of views with Obama, but I also hold some economically conservative views that I'd like to see addressed with a moderate individual leaning conservative. However, the republican party has become caught up in religious extremities and social regressions. I sincerely feel for the conservatives who have been alienated by the fundies and crazies of their party. Hope they shape up for next election. | ||
|
uiCk
Canada1925 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:26 Antyee wrote: You can choke and die by consuming any food. There's a limit of being paranoid. Guess this risk isn't worth the possible impact on agriculture. Risks are naturally part of our lives, we don't really need any reminder of that. What impact? and who's being paranoid? And who said the label will tell people of the risk? it's there to let people know what the product is, period. Just like a given product is made out of 50% sugar won't "kill you" but i rather be informed then let corporations who's purpose is profit maximization decide for me what i should be "informed" about. just for discussion purpose, i doubt OGM's are much of a health risks, and it's 'benefits' are probably much greater then it's risks, but at same time the time frame of the existence OGM's is to small to draw a conclusion on. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:37 Souma wrote: If people condemn those scientists then they're idiots. However, people have the freedom to construct their own opinions. And really it's not about screwing over Monsanto. It's about giving the people the opportunity to educate themselves on what goes into their bodies. Obviously some people won't care, but what's important is that people know. that knowledge has to be relevant to health issues. nutritional information is pretty clearly important. expiration date is pretty important. genetic modification is not very important, and misleading if portrayed as a health issue. a public interest is required to exercise political power here. it's not a simple matter of wanting a label, it's a matter of forcing people to label it. regardless of the arguments offered, i see the situation as a bunch of guys trying to establish an official position against GM foods that is not warranted. they may be well intended but food labeling has to follow scientific standards, and promoting further confusion isn't that good. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
| ||
|
leveller
Sweden1840 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:40 jdseemoreglass wrote: The reason the food labeling proposition was a bad idea is because the ONLY people it would possibly benefit would be the lawyers who would have a field day suing every company who made a food product and didn't label it according to some incredibly vague and poorly understood criteria. You'd have an item that contains .1% corn forced to put some stupid label which would only scare ignorant consumers into thinking "the government wouldn't force them to label it unless it was bad." Just all around a terrible law. This perspective is just mind boggling to me. Its interesting. What do you think of consumer rights? I think consumers might benefit from more information, not only lawyers. That might make them less ignorant | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:40 jdseemoreglass wrote: The reason the food labeling proposition was a bad idea is because the ONLY people it would possibly benefit would be the lawyers who would have a field day suing every company who made a food product and didn't label it according to some incredibly vague and poorly understood criteria. You'd have an item that contains .1% corn forced to put some stupid label which would only scare ignorant consumers into thinking "the government wouldn't force them to label it unless it was bad." Just all around a terrible law. No, the public would benefit. I don't see how you do not see this. Maybe you don't care, but there are people out there who are incredibly passionate about the subject. If someone is scared off by a simple label then it is not the fault of the label, it is the fault of the company for not knowing how to properly educate the public, or it's the fault of how the company runs their business. But then again, we've been through all of this with cigarettes already. Big tobacco knew well before everyone else just how dangerous cigarettes were yet we closed our eyes until people started dropping like flies and opened themselves up to even bigger lawsuits. I would prefer people know beforehand so they can make informed decisions. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:33 Souma wrote: A label is not misleading anyone. It merely says, "This product is a GMO." If public opinion is shaped it's due to another factor. Regardless, it's beside the point. People deserve to know what they put in their bodies. Just because it may affect some company negatively that does not justify keeping people in the dark. Some companies who make capes for kids have a label saying "warning: wearing this will not give you the ability to fly". It's one thing to let manufacturers put warning labels on their own voluntarily. It's another thing to mandate it, especially if there are no valid scientific concerns for it. Like it or not, people have to take misinformed public hysteria into account when creating laws. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:21 oneofthem wrote: problem is, it relies on an irrational consumer fear to achieve those effects. you could for instance subject GM consequences to more regulatory examination. that seems like a huge concern with invasive species and such, not merely crops. or abolish the IP scheme that allows monopolistic control of the basic technology so farmers can have the seeds for cheaper eventually without so many 'features' disabled. I've heard this talk about irrational fear against GMOs a lot in debates with Americans, is there some campaign going on or something? That being said I'm all for educating everybody about the practices of say Monsanto so that there might be at least some form of political discussion on these problems. But in the end this is a pretty complex issue and labeling food is not the worst way to raise awareness about there even being a problem in my opinion. Though I understand your point and agree, fear mongering is generally bad. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:43 StarStrider wrote: Sometimes I feel SNL and Daily Show caricatures better represent party politicians' views than they actually (mis)represent themselves through their talking points, half-truths, hyperbole, sloughing off tough questions, and pandering. If I may respond with an image of Jon Stewart and attached quote? | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:46 andrewlt wrote: Some companies who make capes for kids have a label saying "warning: wearing this will not give you the ability to fly". It's one thing to let manufacturers put warning labels on their own voluntarily. It's another thing to mandate it, especially if there are no valid scientific concerns for it. Like it or not, people have to take misinformed public hysteria into account when creating laws. There are dumb labels and there are perfectly reasonable ones. This is a perfectly reasonable label. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:45 Souma wrote: No, the public would benefit. I don't see how you do not see this. Maybe you don't care, but there are people out there who are incredibly passionate about the subject. If someone is scared off by a simple label then it is not the fault of the label, it is the fault of the company for not knowing how to properly educate the public, or it's the fault of how the company runs their business. But then again, we've been through all of this with cigarettes already. Big tobacco knew well before everyone else just how dangerous cigarettes were yet we closed our eyes until people started dropping like flies and opened themselves up to even bigger lawsuits. I would prefer people know beforehand so they can make informed decisions. stuff like this will distract from actually important issues. also, those who are scared by GM foods present a market fact that can resolve itself. there are organic foods available. if they are sizable enough of a group the labels will appear by themselves. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:14 Cybren wrote: if there's no health risk to "GMO", but putting "GMO" on a label hurts profits for those companies.... isn't it a little unethical to do it? GMO has some problematic carryover of abilities. It is estimated that it takes less than 20 years from a GMO-crop is first planted on a field untill the specific gene from the crop has spread to every other plant in the area. The basic problem of this transfer of ability is that the specific effect of the gene can vary based on the rest of the genetic sequence in the organism and to be sure, you would therefore need to test the immunised weed to see how animals react to them too and so on and so forth (let alone the ecologicaleffects of the specific gene - if it is immunity to a specific herbicide, the longterm effect is rather serious for the manufacturer of the herbicide.). Reality is that the specifics of tranferring genes between species is still poorly understood and the effects of the transfer of a previously unreleased gene and its effect on nature is virtually untested. The Monsanto overreaches are just an example of a clever businessman gaming the patent system. Nothing more, nothing less and it has very little to do with GMOs. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:49 Probe1 wrote: If I may respond with an image of Jon Stewart and attached quote? In the immortal words of Carl from the Aqua Teen Hunger Force: Classic! TOTAL CLASSIC! | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:50 oneofthem wrote: stuff like this will distract from actually important issues. also, those who are scared by GM foods present a market fact that can resolve itself. there are organic foods available. if they are sizable enough of a group the labels will appear by themselves. The problem with that is they will start calling for the labels to be regulated so no one can lie or stretch the truth, and we are back at square one. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:51 radiatoren wrote: GMO has some problematic carryover of abilities. It is estimated that it takes less than 20 years from a GMO-crop is first planted on a field untill the specific gene from the crop has spread to every other plant in the area. The basic problem of this transfer of ability is that the specific effect of the gene can vary based on the rest of the genetic sequence in the organism and to be sure, you would therefore need to test the immunised weed to see how animals react to them too and so on and so forth (let alone the ecologicaleffects of the specific gene - if it is immunity to a specific herbicide, the longterm effect is rather serious for the manufacturer of the herbicide.). Reality is that the specifics of tranferring genes between species is still poorly understood and the effects of the transfer of a previously unreleased gene and its effect on nature is virtually untested. The Monsanto overreaches are just an example of a clever businessman gaming the patent system. Nothing more, nothing less and it has very little to do with GMOs. that first paragraph is an argument for oversight on planting of gm crop. that is all well and excellent. the food itself has no issues that anyone is aware of. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Serral vs Clem
Solar vs Cure
Serral vs Clem
Reynor vs GuMiho
herO vs Cure
PiGStarcraft173
BSL 21
ProLeague - RO32 Group C
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
ZZZero.O288
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
Cure vs herO
Reynor vs TBD
WardiTV Korean Royale
BSL 21
JDConan vs Semih
Dragon vs Dienmax
Tech vs NewOcean
TerrOr vs Artosis
IPSL
Dewalt vs WolFix
eOnzErG vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
) are not critical thinkers - this doesn't change the fact that I work hard and hope to successful enough be able to give back monetarily and more - which will necessarily mean that I will hopefully donate/get taxed money that will go to hard working people who won't make enough to cover what I consider services that they deserve - *AS WELL* as a smaller group of people who are just leeching the system. For example some who strove for and achieved lifetime disability when they are not fully disabled.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bnuH2.png)
