Green Party Successes in 2006

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Anyway, can you tell me why you are believe GM foods are so dangerous?

I don't believe they are dangerous, I eat GM foods everyday, that's why I said it's a waste of time trying to warn the public about the big bad scary GM foods!

Nice attempt to twist my words in the previous post though, I'll give you credit for that.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

I don't believe they are dangerous, I eat GM foods everyday, that's why I said it's a waste of time trying to warn the public about the big bad scary GM foods!

Nice attempt to twist my words in the previous post though, I'll give you credit for that.

Oh sorry. Since you are so adamant that people should not be told that they are eating GM foods I thought there must be a reason you don't want them to know.

So, if they are perfectly harmless, what is wrong with saying they are in the food? Sounds to me like the government is getting into the dining rooms and hampers of the citizen's if they are refusing to inform them of a perfectly harmless ingredient in the food.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Oh sorry. Since you are so adamant that people should not be told that they are eating GM foods I thought there must be a reason you don't want them to know.

So, if they are perfectly harmless, what is wrong with saying they are in the food? Sounds to me like the government is getting into the dining rooms and hampers of the citizen's if they are refusing to inform them of a perfectly harmless ingredient in the food.

I didn't say people should not be told that they are eating GM foods, I said the government shouldn't waste time & resources to make legislations forcing such information to be published on our food packagings. They are two very distinct ideas. If anything I'd like people to learn for themselves (ie not having the government telling them) that a lot of things we eat are GM foods and there is nothing scary about it. The Greens make it seem like it is a crime to eat GM foods and fast food, so much that they want a junk food tax. That's what I have a beef with. It's none of the government's damn business if Joe Citizen wants to eat a $3.99 Big Mac combo for lunch on Tuesdays, they shouldn't have to pay an extra dollar on said Big Mac to the government just because the Greens think it's unhealthy.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

I didn't say people should not be told that they are eating GM foods, I said the government shouldn't waste time & resources to make legislations forcing such information to be published on our food packagings. They are two very distinct ideas. If anything I'd like people to learn for themselves (ie not having the government telling them) that a lot of things we eat are GM foods and there is nothing scary about it. The Greens make it seem like it is a crime to eat GM foods and fast food, so much that they want a junk food tax. That's what I have a beef with. It's none of the government's damn business if Joe Citizen wants to eat a $3.99 Big Mac combo for lunch on Tuesdays, they shouldn't have to pay an extra dollar on said Big Mac to the government just because the Greens think it's unhealthy.

The government making laws and legislation about our food supply hardly seems like a waste of time or resources. Seriously, what is more important?

The Green Party don't seem to make it like a crime to eat GM foods at all. At least according to the platform you posted, they are just asking for labels pointing out that GM ingredients are in the package.

Water is listed in the ingredients of a can of mushroom soup. I'm sure we can all agree that clean water is harmless and even beneficial but they still list it. Now if the mushrooms that are in that can of soup happen to have been genetically modified, and the GM mushrooms are harmless and even beneficial, why not list the ingredient as "genetically modified mushrooms"? I mean if it's harmless, why not just tell the truth?

You think people should learn for themselves what is in the food they are eating. I agree. I can't for the life of me figure out how I would do it myself though if they didn't (by law) list the ingredients on the packaging. I don't have the time to get a degree in chemistry or the money to build a laboratory in the basement so the labels are all I've got.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You think people should learn for themselves what is in the food they are eating. I agree. I can't for the life of me figure out how I would do it myself though if they didn't (by law) list the ingredients on the packaging. I don't have the time to get a degree in chemistry or the money to build a laboratory in the basement so the labels are all I've got.

I don't have a chem degree either although I don't think it would be that difficult to figure out the mushrooms in a can of mushroom soup is GM'd, it seems pretty obvious to me anything that can be prepackaged like a can of soup would already be genetically modified, why waste the time to add that line on it? Ingredients on the other hand is necessary because of allegies to nuts and what not, that's why manufacturers put "May contain traces of peanuts or other nuts" onto every package of crackers even though it may have nothing to do with peanuts, they're just covering their behinds voluntarily. Unlike the government telling them to identify their products as "genetically modified" (such negative connotations IMHO), possibly giving them an excuse of increased production cost due to this trivial work of bureaucracy.

[Flame On]

I love the blaring assumptions.
A stably funded art base translates to every artist making jizz sculpture. Did you know one of the first things communists did was to take out the artists? I guess your daddy didn’t tell you that.
Here’s one from your own vaunted party:
Canada is a nation of great artists and athletes. Arts, culture, and sport all make essential
contributions to our national identity.
The plan
A Conservative government will:
• Ensure that the CBC and Radio-Canada continue to perform their vital role as national public service broadcasters.
• Preserve the role of the National Film Board, the Canada Council, and other federal arts and culture agencies.
Sound like beatniks to me!
Giving a more reasonable test to immigrants who want to become doctors in Canada after they’ve been courted by our country for their skills and then not recognizing any of them, forcing them to become janitors, turns into an unverified one question survey. Are you a brain surgeon? Yes. Great you're in.
But wait, what’s this, the angelic Cons themselves have a plan for this:
• Create a Canadian Agency for Assessment and Recognition of Credentials, to provide pre-assessment of
international credentials and experience. We will work with the provinces and professional associations to
ensure foreign-trained professionals meet Canadian standards while getting properly trained professionals.
That sounds like they’re going to spend more of; as you put it, your tax dollars, setting up an agency, shock!
I could go on and on but I think I prove my point, that you’re just ranting at the Greens cause you liken them to lefties cause mommy and daddy said so. Little knowing that some of the policies you mention have equivalents within the conservatives, and then you have the audacity to say the greens don’t read the conservative manifesto and are fear mongering. When you haven’t even yourself obviously.
As for the sensible tax on fast food; which I love as much as the next person. How you can complain about them telling you what to eat from the party that wants to tell you who to marry is unbelievable.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I love the blaring assumptions.

Ensuring the CBC performs its vital role as our national public service broadcaster means no more Liberal Party of Canada biased propaganda paid for by taxpayers. I'm all for it, what's your point?

Looks like you need a refresher on your reading comprehension skills, 'working to remove unnecessary barriers recognizing the professional credentials of immigrants.' is far from setting up the proper procedures to ensure that these credentials actually meet Canadian standards before they are allowed to practice whatever it is that they were doing in their home countries. The Conservatives proposes to make the immigrant credentials transfer a more through process in order to ensure they actually meet our standards while the Greens just want to stamp everyone through by removing "unnecessary barriers". So how are the Conservatives and the Greens the same again?

The Conservative government most certainly will not tell you who you can sleep with. Nor will they tell you who you can marry, they might however put in a free vote and let the people that YOU elected to speak for you to decide whether to keep the original definition of the word "marriage" or go with the new & hip politically correct definition invented by Mr. Martin and a couple Liberal judges. You know what? Stephen Harper don't give a rat's behind if you want to marry a granola bar. He'll still give any civil unions the same benefits as a married couple in the traditional sense, he had said as much in the past. I don't care about the SSM bill as much either, even though I have my own beliefs on the word's definition as I have reiterated in the past.

[Sainters7]

All I know is, since seeing pictures of Green Party members on Election Day, I will NEVER, EEEEEVER vote Green. I'm sorry but I don't want the leader of our nation to be some dude with dreadlocks. I couldnt stop laughing when I saw some of their pics come across the board. Then when I saw that they actually won a seat, I got a little scared.

[Flame On]

Gimme a couple of examples of the propaganda the Liberals espouse through the CBC. Just a couple.
And since when does working towards removing unnecessary, mean removing all? And how come it's alright in your world for the the Cons spend your tax dollars setting up a credential checking agency, but not for the Greens to buy Kyoto credits back later? Which by the way was wholey made up assumption that they'd do that on your part.

[Incinerator]

It's not an assumption, it's reality. Show me a way for this country to meet its ridiculous turn-back-the-clock Kyoto targets and I'll show you why I think the Greens will end up buying the credits anyways. It's pretty self-explanatory is it not? If you don't agree that's fine, I'm not going to impose.

The simple fact that the Greens called our Canadian standards for professionals are unnecessary barriers to immigrant professionals have already illustrated their hidden agenda to import brain surgeons from other countries clearly. I do not feel that this subject would need further elaboration.

Examples of CBCs being the Liberal propaganda machine? Have you ever watched a CBC program other than HNiC? Of course you don't notice at all because all the left-leaning undertones completely flies over your head as you resonate with them on election night when Mansbridge looked like he's just been shot after the polls results finalized. At the beginning of the night he kept telling the country in glee how the Liberals are leading, then when the Conservatives took the lead he changes his tune to "it is still very early and things can change", talk about clinging to a thread...I can't help but laugh when I heard that.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

[quote=Incinerator]

The simple fact that the Greens called our Canadian standards for professionals are unnecessary barriers to immigrant professionals have already illustrated their hidden agenda to import brain surgeons from other countries clearly. I do not feel that this subject would need further elaboration.

[quote]

Their stance on credentialing is completely consistent with all the major parties and completely necessary for Canada.

If we don't get more bodies or more babies our economy is sunk.

The rest of their platform makes the NDP seem just right of attila the hun, but that one I like

[Flame On]

They are saying there are unnecessary barriers not that all of them are unnecessary. Can you see the distinction?
For Sainters7, I can freely admit a lot of the candidates look pretty silly.
Although it's not like Harper can exactly win style awards for his leggo hair.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Their stance on credentialing is completely consistent with all the major parties and completely necessary for Canada.

If we don't get more bodies or more babies our economy is sunk.

The rest of their platform makes the NDP seem just right of attila the hun, but that one I like

I couldn't think of a better way to put it haha...

Hey I agree, we need more immigrants, qualified ones who come into the country through the proper channels. Not the Algerian doctors or something who want to skip the 7 years of Canadian med school though. I wouldn't want to take any prescriptions from those guys.

As for the babies you'll definitely have to count on the immigration since our own citizens are all going with the hip SSM now

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by Flame On

They are saying there are unnecessary barriers not that all of them are unnecessary. Can you see the distinction?
For Sainters7, I can freely admit a lot of the candidates look pretty silly.
Although it's not like Harper can exactly win style awards for his leggo hair.

They didn't specify, so I'll agree to disagree with you there. You can look at it your way, I will look at it my way, and Canadian voters can look at it their way.

Harper's hair? I call it the helmet-head, the guy tries and tries but he just doesn't have the charisma to be a politician, much improved from last year this election though. I'm willing to bet that if he doesn't look so scary the Liberal attack-ads would be way less effective.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

I don't have a chem degree either although I don't think it would be that difficult to figure out the mushrooms in a can of mushroom soup is GM'd, it seems pretty obvious to me anything that can be prepackaged like a can of soup would already be genetically modified, why waste the time to add that line on it?

Genetic modification is a different thing than putting food in a can.

Putting food in a can does not mean it has been genetically modified.

I could grow some cabbage in my yard and put it in a can and that would not qualify it as genetically modified food.

My grandma put food in a can and pre-packaged it for us and she didn't even own a microscope and I doubt she knew what a gene was. The people who do genetically modify food have real nice microscopes and they use them, along with lots of other tools, to genetically modify food.

It would be difficult for me to figure out that the mushrooms in a can of soup are genetically modified and it is not obvious to me that a can of mushroom soup is genetically modified.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Genetic modification is a different thing than putting food in a can.

Putting food in a can does not mean it has been genetically modified.

I could grow some cabbage in my yard and put it in a can and that would not qualify it as genetically modified food.

My grandma put food in a can and pre-packaged it for us and she didn't even own a microscope and I doubt she knew what a gene was. The people who do genetically modify food have real nice microscopes and they use them, along with lots of other tools, to genetically modify food.

It would be difficult for me to figure out that the mushrooms in a can of soup are genetically modified and it is not obvious to me that a can of mushroom soup is genetically modified.

I know what you're getting at, I'm just trying to say that GM'd foods is nothing new and people have been eating them for years with no traceable negative health effects. Again I'm just wondering why all the paranoia about the need to distinguish them? You can hardly tell what is GM'd and what is not when you eat it anyways, it's not like how peanuts can kill someone. Are we that hung up on a meaningless label? All those corns and tomatos and mushrooms is very likely to have been GM'd in the first place, (canned or not) to preserve taste or keep away insects without pesticide or something to that effect, I really don't see why we need to have legislation telling (scaring) people about this.

Anyways I'll just leave it at that as I can see that this discussion has gotten way off track from politics to something in the biochemistry realm.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

I know what you're getting at, I'm just trying to say that GM'd foods is nothing new and people have been eating them for years with no traceable negative health effects. Again I'm just wondering why all the paranoia about the need to distinguish them? You can hardly tell what is GM'd and what is not when you eat it anyways, it's not like how peanuts can kill someone. Are we that hung up on a meaningless label? All those corns and tomatos and mushrooms is very likely to have been GM'd in the first place, (canned or not) to preserve taste or keep away insects without pesticide or something to that effect, I really don't see why we need to have legislation telling (scaring) people about this.

Anyways I'll just leave it at that as I can see that this discussion has gotten way off track from politics to something in the biochemistry realm.

It's not all about health effects, although there is an absence of studies; while at the same, there are increasing health problems of unknown origin in our culture. It would be prudent to monitor everything that goes into our bodies.

A big problem with GMs are the social costs. When corporations can patent modified organisms and make 3rd world countries dependent on them, it is not what I'd call responsible.

Corporations genetically modify plants so that they do not produce their own seeds, thus forcing farmers in poor countires to have to re-buy seeds every time they grow a crop. Such crops often rely on the company's own brand of herbicides or fertilizer, but after using those chemicals, the soil becomes polluted and nothing but patented genetically modified crops will grow there. I'd almost say it's downright evil. Why shouldn't consumers have the right to be informed so they can decide not to go along with it?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

I know what you're getting at, I'm just trying to say that GM'd foods is nothing new and people have been eating them for years with no traceable negative health effects. Again I'm just wondering why all the paranoia about the need to distinguish them? You can hardly tell what is GM'd and what is not when you eat it anyways, it's not like how peanuts can kill someone. Are we that hung up on a meaningless label? All those corns and tomatos and mushrooms is very likely to have been GM'd in the first place, (canned or not) to preserve taste or keep away insects without pesticide or something to that effect, I really don't see why we need to have legislation telling (scaring) people about this.

Anyways I'll just leave it at that as I can see that this discussion has gotten way off track from politics to something in the biochemistry realm.

It hasn't gotten off track at all. You brought up a specific part of the platform of a political party in a political thread and we've discussed it. If the moderators think it's gone too far off track then I'm sure they'll let us know.

GM foods are new and we don't know what health effects they will have. They weren't altering the genes of the tomatoes, corn and mushrooms we were eating 25 years ago.

Let's assume GM foods are harmless to humans. Maybe they are, I don't know, but let's just say they are. Adding an extra line on the packaging that says basically "there is a harmless ingredient in here" isn't going to hurt, is it?

Your earlier argument was "it'll cost too much to put it on the labels" and you've mentioned the labelling about peanuts. It might suprise you to read that I have paid for a lot of granola bars in my day and when I first noticed the line "this product may contain traces of peanuts.." on the packaging there was no discernible increase in the price. Adding 10 words to the packaging of the food would not cost a lot of money and would not lead to higher prices, so that argument doesn't work.

If there is nothing scary about GM foods, then what is wrong with putting a label that says "this food contains GM products"?

Do you think most people are too stupid to figure out that GM foods are harmless?

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Do you think most people are too stupid to figure out that GM foods are harmless?

No, my argument is that the Greens think most people are too stupid to figure it out. And no, GM foods are not new, they've been around since the the last time the Greasers won anything significant. That's ancient history.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

All I know is, since seeing pictures of Green Party members on Election Day, I will NEVER, EEEEEVER vote Green. I'm sorry but I don't want the leader of our nation to be some dude with dreadlocks. I couldnt stop laughing when I saw some of their pics come across the board. Then when I saw that they actually won a seat, I got a little scared.

The Greens didn't win any seats. There was one independant from Quebec City, as an independant, he has no party affliation.