NationStates

Divair wrote:

Tsaraine wrote:This isn't right wing. This has skydived off the right wing and is now freefalling through the atmosphere without a parachute, while screaming about chemtrails.

So it's the down wing?

Tsaraine wrote:No. I don't know where you learned your political aircraft analogy engineering, but how many wings do you think this plane has? It's not a politicopter!

Slembana wrote:

Divair wrote:True story. I'm a rainbow-coloured space-worm that eats threads.

The Rich Port wrote:

Vazdania wrote:....Ass.... cancer??? That sounds horrible!!! Poor Tush!

♪ Big Bottoms

Big Bottoms

Talk about bum cancer cakes, my girl's gottem

Big Bottoms drive me outta mah mind

How could I leave this BEHIND ♪

Libertarian California wrote:I'd be terrified of Bill Clinton's sponsors.


"I'm Ron Jeremy, and I approve this message"

TaQud wrote:

Erstaunlich wrote:
Yeah I'll cal, the a-team. Wait they're on vacation, I'll call the B-Team.

Or go to Canada and get the Eh-Team.

Condunum wrote:

Absurdity wrote:No, and a heavy polygamist tax should be imposed on polygamists who somehow manage to get married.

Your name is fitting.

Lazssia wrote:I watch porn because there is always secret terrorist messages hidden subtly within. I spend many a sleepless, lonely nights protecting America.

Risottia wrote:

Lazssia wrote:I watch porn because there is always secret terrorist messages hidden subtly within. I spend many a sleepless, lonely nights protecting America.

Condunum wrote:

Neo Art wrote:I'm far more inclined to believe that the vast majority of people spinning that line of "hey man, ANIMALS don't WEAR clothes" actually just get off on exposing "themselves" in secret.

Yeah, and schindler's list was a porno.

Benomia wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, demisexuality, polysexuality, pansexuality, etc.

You forgot omnisexuality.

Farnhamia wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:"Pansexuality."

Pan-fried sexuality? Om nom nom nomnisexuality.

Ularn wrote:Spree filling in his insurance application:

Is your house fitted with a burglar alarm?

Yes. Also, a small Soviet armoury.

Death Metal wrote:I think we have now reached a rare NSG consensus: It's more relevant to speculate the effects of nuclear war on the World Cup than it is to discuss which direction Kim Jong-Un is waving his penis in this week.

Lemonius wrote:

Ainin wrote:They would get forumbanned for harassing other players.

North Korea wrote:I DECLARE WAR. The most glorious leader sends 10000000000 nukes to bomb all your bases

USA wrote:Following an emergency meeting with South Korean forces, the President issues a code 3 alert. "Fire the IGNORE cannon"

United Nations wrote:North Korea WARNED for godmodding, and repetative flamebait

Nationstatelandsville wrote:

Nightkill the Emperor wrote:"You were supposed to die, dumbass" is a line you don't hear too often.

"Damn it, Jesus."

New Libertarian States wrote:

Republic Korea wrote:
Their drones had been bought from other country .

They also said their missile was fake but they mange to launch a missile with 3600 km in 2009 .

Give me a S
S
Give me a O
O
Give me a U
U
Give me a R
R
Give me a C
C
Give me a E
E
What does that spell? SOURCE!
Seriously, we need a source.

Bolshevikia wrote:

Chinese Regions wrote:Must not feed.

Stalin he was great. You know you've really achieved much in life when you've caused the deaths of 20 million people. We need more men like him.

Caninope wrote:The idea of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh reuniting is about as logical as the idea that Barack Obama will kill his wife, marry Ahmadinejad in a ceremony officiated by Mitt Romney during the 7th Inning Stretch of the Yankees-Red Sox game, and then the happy couple will then go challenge President Xi for the position of General Secretary of the CCP in a gladiatorial fight to the death involving roaches, slingshots, and hard candies.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Caninope wrote:The idea of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh reuniting is about as logical as the idea that Barack Obama will kill his wife, marry Ahmadinejad in a ceremony officiated by Mitt Romney during the 7th Inning Stretch of the Yankees-Red Sox game, and then the happy couple will then go challenge President Xi for the position of General Secretary of the CCP in a gladiatorial fight to the death involving roaches, slingshots, and hard candies.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Caninope wrote:The idea of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh reuniting is about as logical as the idea that Barack Obama will kill his wife, marry Ahmadinejad in a ceremony officiated by Mitt Romney during the 7th Inning Stretch of the Yankees-Red Sox game, and then the happy couple will then go challenge President Xi for the position of General Secretary of the CCP in a gladiatorial fight to the death involving roaches, slingshots, and hard candies.

70 Ophiuchi wrote:

Uieurnthlaal wrote:Genetically modified food, on the other hand, I'm less certain about, mainly because of the potential of unstudied long-term effects on humans. But what about you?

There is no reason to even suspect that it could cause long-term negative health effects on humans that non-GMOs would cause and no evidence that they do.

They are also the most studied part of our food supply.

Benuty wrote:Personally i don't trust foods tampered with by corporations, I stick to organic.

So instead you buy inferior quality food that is more likely to make you sick all because you can't understand basic science?

Sidhae wrote:Until GM foods are decisively proven to be harmless (and by decisively I mean multiple independent researches NOT sponsored by corporate giants), I'll stick with the good old-fashioned organic foods though.

GM foods are the safest part of our food supply, 'organic' food carries a higher risk of food poisoning.

As for independent researchers, biologists working at universities are pretty independent and tend to think the objection to GM foods is nonsense.

But while you're demanding they be proven harmless, be careful your food isn't contaminated with dihydrogen monoxide, it's a very dangerous chemical.

Benuty wrote:That depends on who grows it for you, I don't do regular of-the brand organic supermarkets for a very good reason. Im more co-op & communal organic stores, sounds rather hippy like XD.

Also likely to be worse for you and the environment as those people are more likely to follow the 'organic' philosophy as opposed to merely following the certification requirements to allow them to gouge the customer.

Benuty wrote:Most foods I eat tend to be better than what the eastern European states export to France, considering it has been irradiated and who knows what else.

Irradiation is something we don't do enough of to food, considering how effective it is in stopping food poisoning.

Cerillium wrote:I'm more concerned with what GMO seed providers do to farmers. It seems wildly unfair that the seeds are tampered with to give them a shortened storage life. Farmers are forbidden to harvest their own seeds. It puts more economic pressure on them.

Farmers don't have to use GMOs if they don't want to, but it would also mean they lose the benefits of the GMOs, that farmers voluntarily abide by the restrictions of the seed companies would seem to indicate that the benefits of the GMOs outweigh the costs.

Woahdude wrote:I think it's actually safer then making plants through conventional breeding (since you're only messing with one gene, not a whole bunch), but i have...problems with the idea that genetic code can be patented.

Given how much it costs to bring a GMO to market there needs to be someway to recoup the cost of that.

Sensible regulation could reduce costs enough not to need the patents and also have the benefit of getting smaller companies involved.

The Progressive Society wrote:Call me a hippy, but I strongly oppose Genetic Modification or gmos. They sound like a good idea at first, how we can "feed the world", but it does more harm than good.

The harm it does exists only in your imagination, in the real world GMOs have a perfect safety and environmental record.

The Progressive Society wrote:It causes obesity, and the chemicals in it are downright bad for you.

GMOs are nutritionally indistinguishable from other food unless the specific aim of the modification is to change that (e.g. Golden Rice, which adds extra Vitamin A for areas that are deficient).

The Progressive Society wrote:Even worse, many of the corporations force gmos on other countries, and force the government's of different nations to use their crop.

They are the safest part of our food supply and better for the environment than anything else, a government would have be pretty bad to not want them used.

The Progressive Society wrote:http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html

Natural News is well known for posting complete and utter crap.

Oh would this be about that fraudulent study? (put the link in again in case you missed it) Yes it is.

Benuty wrote:When you selectively infuse one gene every generation, its fine but every gene every generation is not exactly the best thing to do.

So you're saying that transgenic technology is fine but ordinary selective breeding (as done by e.g. 'organic' farmers) isn't?

Mythologopia wrote:First off, for everyone who is all about organic...organic doesn't mean non-GMO.

No it doesn't, it means carbon containing and all GMOs do contain carbon so under any sensible definition of the word all GMOs are organic.

Sadly idiot activists and politicians have come up with their own incorrect definition not sanctioned by the IUPAC.

Mythologopia wrote:Non-GMO means non-GMO. Heirloom plants that gardeners and farmers have exchanged and chosen based on the parent plant's ability to withstand pests and disease and to grow produce well (human assisted natural selection) are not considered GMO.

Nor is mutation breeding, which involves using radiation and mutagenic chemicals to assist the process.

Mythologopia wrote:Genetic modification is the act of modifying an organism by deleting, adding, or mutating the genetic code via modern genetic engineering techniques.

Which is far more precise in that we know exactly what we are modifying.

Mythologopia wrote:GMO is not studied well enough IMO to be used commercially.

We know more about GMOs than we do about any other type of food since we know exactly what modifications have been made, when a new crop variety is created by selective breeding or mutation breeding we don't know exactly what has been changed so as well as the designed trait we also get a lot of unknown traits hitching a ride, any of which could pose a safety issue, GMOs do not suffer this problem since we know what we need to test to make sure its safe (we test far more than we should).

Mythologopia wrote:We as a world don't know nearly enough about how genetic materials from our foods interact with our insides.

Those genetic materials exist in all food so this is not an argument against GMOs.

Mythologopia wrote:Most GMO isn't modified for "health" either. It's modified to produce large amounts of food, sometimes at the sacrifice of quality and the plant's ability to protect itself.

Actually GMOs have the same quality and tend to be able to protect themselves better than the unmodified version.

Mythologopia wrote:So, we get wonderfully subpar foods grown in petrochemicals and sprayed with more chemicals.

Making GMOs tolerate the benign pesticides (e.g. Roundup) means we don't have to use the more harmful ones.

The ability to do no-till farming also helps GMOs use less energy and be less damaging to the environment.

Benuty wrote:Depends on the laws of the country. France is thankfully a stickler about modifying crops to a certain extent.

France managed to get energy policy so right, pity they couldn't get agricultural policy right as well.

The Progressive Society wrote:Some countries have banned gmos all together, Peru just banned gmo corn, and I think Venezuela outlawed gmos altogether, looks like Chavez did at least one thing right.

You just provided an example of something Chavez did wrong.

Hallistar wrote:At this stage though I'm not fully convinced of a sizeable efficiency as compared to regular crops -- I guess RoundUp Ready Soybean seeds seem most effective if you want to spray pesticides, but there are also plants with genetically engineered built in pesticides anyways, so it's debatable.

Good thing about Roundup is that it's relatively benign and doesn't last in the environment, the alternative to Roundup ready crops would be using pesticides that are quite a bit worse.

Hallistar wrote:With the global population consistently rising though, we would most likely need more GM crops in the future. Granted we have a huge percentage of our crops in the US that are genetically modified, but still. About 1/3rd to 2/3rds of the global population live in poverty, and therefore consume nowhere near as much as first-world citizens, yet we're already running into overconsumption issues.

We have the technology to support more than the ten billion our population is expected to top out at with less impact on the environment than what we're doing now, we just need to use it.

Hallistar wrote:The way I see it, if the world really wanted to not have to worry about industrializing/making their necessary products more efficient, there'd have to be less people, not more.

Have you thought about the implications of what you just said, namely that you said we need to murder billions of people?

Because that is what it would take to seriously reduce our population.

Selenovi wrote:As far as I know current GMOs are all about being insecticide proof,

No, some are focused on growing in environments they otherwise couldn't grow, others on producing their own insecticide, others on adding more nutrients.

Selenovi wrote:which in my opinion is kind of bad since it encourages overuse of toxic chemicals.

Roundup is pretty non-toxic (to humans anyway) by pesticide standards so whilst you see more use of chemicals there is actually less use of the dangerous ones with Roundup ready crops.

Selenovi wrote:That said I know how economics works, we need the initial investment in GMOs to allow the industry to develop. Once it gets to the point where we are adding nutritional value to our food or increasing yields directly then I am all for it.

Look up Golden Rice.

Selenovi wrote:As for improving human beings: hell yes. If we aren't developing technology to make humanity better then what the hell is the point in the last 10,000 years of civilization?

Well said.

Selenovi wrote:Genetic Modification promises to make future generations stronger, more resistant to disease, and more intelligent. Of course I can see the potential for problems, most notably in the whole superiority complex, but I am one of those "nurture > nature" kinda guys so I work under the assumption that genetically superior descendants won't be any more of a problem for society than our current naturally produced spawn.

If (almost) everyone is enhanced then the superiority complex won't be such a problem.

The Merchant Republics wrote:I'm not suggesting eugenics,

Eugenics isn't really all that bad, provided it isn't coercive.

The Merchant Republics wrote:but if you know your child could be disabled and you can fix that (I know technology today can't do that, but bear with me) why wouldn't you?

Ask some people from the deaf community what they think about cochlear implants?

The Merchant Republics wrote:But making a "disposable human being" for battle is frankly deeply disturbing to me. Call me a peacenik, but no nation should ever have such power, it's beyond even the nuclear bomb, a bomb destroys cities and bodies but what you propose... Could destroy our very souls.

With a sufficiently bad enemy you may well decide you don't care about that.

But either way, we'd be more likely to build a droid army than a clone one.

Katganistan wrote:You're dead. Stop getting out of character.

Conciousness wrote:If Chango/Xango was proved real = sacrife a red rooster
If Istar was proved real = easier divorce laws
If Allah was proved real = we're all fucked ( a contradictory and vengeful god)
If Yahweh was proved real = we're all fucked ( a contradictory and vengeful god)
If Ukko is proved real = party on and kick swedish ass
If Odin was proved real = try to induce ragnarök
If Feathered Snake was proved real = grow beard, travel to Yucatan.
If Zeus was proved real = sacrifice a bull in Greece, strongly suggest that EU forgive debts.
If Mercury was proved real = get into commerce, if it doesn't work out: start stealing and magic
If Baron Samedi was proved real = get into voudoun, offer self as ride to Géde
If Buddha was proved real = do nothing
If Susano-no-Mikoto was proved real = Get heavily into japanese self defence
If Inari was proved real = Get into commerce
If Flying Spaghetti Monster was proved real = open a pasta restaurant
If Eris was proved real = so totally called it, gloat to others, get fucked by capricious goddess

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Caninope wrote:The idea of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh reuniting is about as logical as the idea that Barack Obama will kill his wife, marry Ahmadinejad in a ceremony officiated by Mitt Romney during the 7th Inning Stretch of the Yankees-Red Sox game, and then the happy couple will then go challenge President Xi for the position of General Secretary of the CCP in a gladiatorial fight to the death involving roaches, slingshots, and hard candies.

The Corparation wrote:

Belschaft wrote:It's quiet. Too quiet.

Everyone man the bulwarks. The Max and the Mods may strike at any moment.