Very odd election under the surface

[Larry]

Americans seem perpetually angry and scared these days.   We can all argue about why that is, of course.

I would assert that ISIL and Ebola certainly played a role. Russia invading people.

[PeterMP]

I think the gop promised current status without the government. Clean air without the EPA. Everybody is insured without the ACA.

It is attractive.

Let's see how well they deliver.

With respect to gmos 1 study showed tumors in rats. Others have shown none

Though I support taking our time. It isn't like people in the US are starving because we do not produce enough food.

And support labelling to allow us to carry out long term studies based on consumption.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

So, what we're saying is that if you can vote out all the religious crap, the Republican Party is actually preferred by most of the country?

 

Raising the minimum wage and closing down mines is a Republican idea?

[nonniey]

Still, I find it hard to believe that people don't want a label on what's in their food, unless their is a huge economic cost in doing so.  If there is, I can understand it.  Even if people don't care or not concerned about it, I don't get why people would vote no for that.

Added cost to the product. Technically every product would have to be labeled as GMO because every food source has been genetically modified and this is not new. Breed selection and seed selecting has been going on since before the rise of the first civilization and that my friend is genectic modification.

[War Paint]

Added cost to the product. Technically every product would have to be labeled as GMO because every food source has been genetically modified and this is not new. Breed selection and seed selecting has been going on since before the rise of the first civilization and that my friend is genectic modification.

Well, there are several things involved now that didn't exist at the beginning of civilization which conflict with all that you just said, but I'll leave it at that.  It'll just highjack the thread. 

[Larry]

Well, there are several things involved now that didn't exist at the beginning of civilization . . .

True.

(In fact, that was his point.)

which conflict with all that you just said. . .

Which does not in the slightest disagree with what he said.

Which just might be, because what he said, is true.

1,000 years ago, when Farmer McWhatsis decides to breed some of his cattle, he looked over his herd (and maybe his neighbor's herds), with an eye towards which bull and which cow will give him the bast calf, and he bred them. His neighbor, the bean farmer, picked out the best beans, to hold for next year's seed.

This is because, 1,000 years ago, people knew about evolution. This is probably because political parties hadn't been invented yet.

This is called "Genetic Modification".

[autoidiodyssey]

I don't think it is that simple. There is a difference between voting on a specific issue and supporting a candidate or a party. Perhaps the people in the states who voted for higher minimum wage and R Senators didn't like the D candidates positions on more issues. There might be a bunch of pro life people out there that would like to raise the minimum wage. They would never vote for a D candidate as abortion is more important to them. But give them the choice on that single issue and they vote for it.

 

Realistically most of the country is in the middle and does not agree with everything either party wants to do. Give them a choice and they will vote against perceived party lines on specific issues.

[War Paint]

True.

(In fact, that was his point.)

Which does not in the slightest disagree with what he said.

Which just might be, because what he said, is true.

1,000 years ago, when Farmer McWhatsis decides to breed some of his cattle, he looked over his herd (and maybe his neighbor's herds), with an eye towards which bull and which cow will give him the bast calf, and he bred them. His neighbor, the bean farmer, picked out the best beans, to hold for next year's seed.

 

This is because, 1,000 years ago, people knew about evolution. This is probably because political parties hadn't been invented yet.

This is called "Genetic Modification".

 

Larry, you are missing the point.  His point was pretty much that today's GMOs are no different from what was going on since the beginning of civilization, implying that there shouldn't be any concern because it's been like this for thousands of years.  I was simply referring to modern GMO, which became available for commercial sale in 1994, which does conflict with the notion that this has been going on since the beginning of time.

 

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

 

Commercial sale of genetically modified crops began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its Flavr Savr delayed ripening tomato

 

 

http://gmoinside.org/gmo-timeline-a-history-genetically-modified-foods/

 

1980 – First GMO Patent Issued

A 1980 court case between a genetics engineer at General Electric and the U.S. Patent Office is settled by a 5-to-4 Supreme Court ruling, allowing for the first patent on a living organism. The GMO in question is a bacterium with an appetite for crude oil, ready to gobble up spills.

1982 – FDA Approves First GMO

Humulin, insulin produced by genetically engineered E. coli bacteria, appears on the market.

1994 – GMO Hits Grocery Stores

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves the Flavr Savr tomato for sale on grocery store shelves. The delayed-ripening tomato has a longer shelf life than conventional tomatoes.

 

 

 

1994 isn't the beginning of civilization.

[JamesMadisonSkins]

So, what we're saying is that if you can vote out all the religious crap, the Republican Party is actually preferred by most of the country?

Beens saying this for years. I'm a moderate republican if you polled me on economic issues ... ala moderate fiscally ... agree with SS, medicaide, medicare ... the essentials ... as well as LOCAL and STATE support for unemployment and the welfare type programs. I also understand that overall, welfare does not eat up but a small slice of spending. But I do agree we have a poverty cycle and welfare only helps a few get out.

 

But when it comes to religion, I can NEVER vote republican because of my fear of social issues. It's just not something I could ever bring myself to do.

 

I didn't vote this week. If I did have to vote, I would have voted for Tom Reed, the congressman (Republican) ... I agree with him on 90% of the issues but I know a vote for him is eventually a vote for a conservative Supreme Court justice. 

 

If a 3rd party emerged with moderate fiscal policies and liberal social stances, I'd be 100% behind them.

 

I try to be an issue voter, but usually the religious aspect prevents me from casting a vote that I truly care for. 

[Larry]

Larry, you are missing the point.  His point was pretty much that today's GMOs are no different from what was going on since the beginning of civilization, implying that there shouldn't be any concern because it's been like this for thousands of years.

Could you be so kind as to quote the part of his post where he said that?

[Larry]

If a 3rd party emerged with moderate fiscal policies and liberal social stances, I'd be 100% behind them.

There is a party that stands for that.

It's called the Democrats.

Just look at what was actually done, under Clinton and Obama.

The Democrats wrote the "Pay as you Go" rules, for the House and Senate. The Tea Party Republicans took over the House, and their first official act was to say that increasing the deficit didn't have to be paid for, if the deficit was increased due to tax cuts, or repealing Obamacare.

Medicare D was paid for completely through deficit spending.

Obamacare was paid for. (At least on paper. For the first 10 years.)

Now, maybe this isn't their true nature, we're seeing. Maybe they're only acting like they care about things like the deficit, because they're so scared of the label that the GOP has successfully put on them.

But the Republicans aren't even pretending to care about the deficit. To them, the deficit is a good thing. Because it allows them to yell real loudly about it, while pushing for the things that they actually want to do.

[PeterMP]

True.

(In fact, that was his point.)

Which does not in the slightest disagree with what he said.

Which just might be, because what he said, is true.

1,000 years ago, when Farmer McWhatsis decides to breed some of his cattle, he looked over his herd (and maybe his neighbor's herds), with an eye towards which bull and which cow will give him the bast calf, and he bred them. His neighbor, the bean farmer, picked out the best beans, to hold for next year's seed.

 

This is because, 1,000 years ago, people knew about evolution. This is probably because political parties hadn't been invented yet.

This is called "Genetic Modification".

 

 

Breed selection isn't really the same.  You are talking about something that happens over generations and therefore allows for human evolution with the selected traits vs. something thing on an evolutionary time scale occurs instantaneously.

 

The two things aren't really comparable if we are going to be honest.

[Larry]

Breed selection isn't really the same.  You are talking about something that happens over generations and therefore allows for human evolution with the selected traits vs. something thing on an evolutionary time scale occurs instantaneously.

 

The two things aren't really comparable if we are going to be honest.

Oh, I'm certainly aware that there are differences. (And that some of them are huge.)

When Farmer McWhatsis bred his cows, he bred one or two of them. Maybe his stock would become different, after 30 years. (But probably not.)

When Farmer Monsanto comes out with a new kind of bean, it becomes 80% of the bean market, within 5 years. (And I'm well aware that that has huge implications and risks.)

----------

I will also observe that nonniey's claim, that the law would require labeling if every agricultural product which has even been altered by Man, also occurred to me. (Before he posted it.) But when I thought of it, I thought of it with a "Maybe" in front of it, and chose not to post that theory, because I actually have no clue if the proposed law would have been nearly that broad, and didn't want to begin arguing about things which I had no idea if they were true.

[Burgold]

Interesting silver lining theory.  LIberals lost, but liberal ideas won.

 

I can live with that. 

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

Maybe he works for UC Davis or the EU? Or the hundreds of independent sources who have found no health and safety risks in GMOs?

EDIT: I hope this doesn't turn into the GMO thread so this will be my last post about it.

The meatlab on campus has a flyer showing that there is no difference between grass fed and grain fed meat. Fyi I go to UC Davis.

[twa]

Interesting silver lining theory.  LIberals lost, but liberal ideas won.

 

I can live with that. 

 

you will have to, or find other delusions 

[JamesMadisonSkins]

Grain fed or corn fed? Most mass produced meat is corn fed. Corn is NOT good for us in large quantities. Most subsidized product in the US. Corn syrup. Corn starch. Corn. It's in everything. Including the feed for our meat. Grass fed all day. Not risking it.

[twa]

The meatlab on campus has a flyer showing that there is no difference between grass fed and grain fed meat. Fyi I go to UC Davis.

 

different taste and appearance imo.....and I eat a lot of both (I don't discriminate)

 

safety and risk there is probably no real difference aside from fat content

[LEED3D]

The meatlab on campus has a flyer showing that there is no difference between grass fed and grain fed meat. Fyi I go to UC Davis.

LOL. No difference between grain fed and grass fed meat? Well... for starters... I'm pretty sure one eats grain while the other eats grass. Grass fed meat is higher in vitamin E, beta-carotene, vitamin C, omega 3 fatty acids and conjugated linoeic acid also known as CLA. Cows that eat grass are also free to roam pastures and eat as intended rather than be stuffed with corn and soy in unsanitary feedlots. It's an easy decision for me.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

So, this became a GMO thread then.

 

Good times.

[twa]

So, this became a GMO thread then.

 

Good times.

 

it follows the theme of people seeing things 

 

http://www.abstractartistgallery.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Abstract-Art-Painting-Tadeusz-Machowski-1.jpg

[skinsmarydu]

LOL. No difference between grain fed and grass fed meat? Well... for starters... I'm pretty sure one eats grain while the other eats grass. Grass fed meat is higher in vitamin E, beta-carotene, vitamin C, omega 3 fatty acids and conjugated linoeic acid also known as CLA. Cows that eat grass are also free to roam pastures and eat as intended rather than be stuffed with corn and soy in unsanitary feedlots. It's an easy decision for me.

I may eat some version of BS, but I make sure my pets don't. No, seriously. There have been many, many years that they ate better than I did. Ingredients are important to all creatures.

[daveakl]

Good quote from a guy here in Raleigh. Wake county now has 21 of 24 local leaders as Dems but Republicans on a national level.

"I’ve always felt that the best place for Liberalism is in local government, where government application can best be managed and tailored for its citizens’ needs. Conversely the best place for Conservatism is in Washington, where one-size-fits-all governing rarely works."

[Slateman]

Raising the minimum wage and closing down mines is a Republican idea?

Minimum wage was in San Fran, so that should be obvious. Don't know anything about mines closing down. More likely they were just moved.

 

People don't trust the President's abilities as Chief Executive. So they  took it out on the legislature. People rarely do anything logically.

[PeterMP]

LOL. No difference between grain fed and grass fed meat? Well... for starters... I'm pretty sure one eats grain while the other eats grass. Grass fed meat is higher in vitamin E, beta-carotene, vitamin C, omega 3 fatty acids and conjugated linoeic acid also known as CLA. Cows that eat grass are also free to roam pastures and eat as intended rather than be stuffed with corn and soy in unsanitary feedlots. It's an easy decision for me.

 

The difference is essentially insignificant at the levels we are talking about (e.g. beef is low in omega 3s to start with so the fact that they have more omega 3 fatty acids amounts to a very small increase in omega 3s).

 

It be cheaper and almost certainly better for you to buy the corn fed beef, a good multivitamin and a little flax seed.

Oh, I'm certainly aware that there are differences. (And that some of them are huge.)

When Farmer McWhatsis bred his cows, he bred one or two of them. Maybe his stock would become different, after 30 years. (But probably not.)

When Farmer Monsanto comes out with a new kind of bean, it becomes 80% of the bean market, within 5 years. (And I'm well aware that that has huge implications and risks.)

----------

I will also observe that nonniey's claim, that the law would require labeling if every agricultural product which has even been altered by Man, also occurred to me. (Before he posted it.) But when I thought of it, I thought of it with a "Maybe" in front of it, and chose not to post that theory, because I actually have no clue if the proposed law would have been nearly that broad, and didn't want to begin arguing about things which I had no idea if they were true.

 

I think we can write a law that makes a distinction between breeding programs where we aren't intentionally introducing foreign genetic material into an organism and one that does.

 

(Last post in this thread on this topic.  Sorry for any derail.)