blueblood

And in a closed economy you never see the good times. If govts don't interfere in the cyclical nature of markets the corrections aren't as harsh.

I have no problem with natural pesticides. If they are cost effective and perform comparably, they will be used. I have no problem selling grain used for fuel. It keeps a lid on gas prices tighter along with your ideas. What is wrong with increasing the value of our exports of which north America is a world leader?

And your costs go up because of the need to buy sorting equipment, not to mention crop loss out the back of the combine from harvesting two crops instead of one. If planting a variety of things in your fields made a larger yield, why oh why isn't everyone doing it? If it doesn't pencil out, it doesn't get done. Organic cropping cannot produce the consistent yields that the current system we have now does. The opportunity cost of the one year of similar yields vs the years required to achieve that doesn't pencil out.

When it's one group asking to pay more instead of everyone then yes.

No wonder quebecers are so scared of guns, not exactly the bastion of responsible gun ownership...

Actually they should for properly developing the resource that put the old saying "when the USA sneezes, Canada catches a cold" to bed.

And that modern system is industry not govt handouts. Ask the Dakota whitecap nation.

To a religious person, it is their version of the truth. Since god is supernatural a religious person can pull evidence out of their ass. In my opinion I'm going to hedge my bets and say I don't know what "the truth" is. Religion has political clout because of this thing called a group of voters and number of votes athiest and religious gets you elected.

All right how do you propose we feed 6 billion people and keep a lid on gas prices? You take away pesticides and it's bye bye yields.

There isn't even an effect on plants when a rain happens. The chemical is applied at a certain ratio mixed with water. When it rains the ratio changes. Biaccumulation would have more of an effect with the original rate vs. A watered down rate would it not?

How is the eu doing these days? Hey have zero credibility on pretty much anything. Except that farmer went to a fair court and there is no way the wind could blow almost a whole field worth of seeds. He got caught with his pants down. Chemicals that have increased our living standards. You'll have to ask the Americans and Europeans about subsidizing like crazy. It did nothing but make everyone poorer, the ag subsidies put farmers in third world out of business. The fact that oil was inching towards 100 dollars a barell and corn was 2 dollars and change per bushel is a reason why ethanol started. Now the ag sector is booming and providing jobs. Those countries can't afford the corn lying around and have to wait for handouts from the USA and Europe, and we know what happened to their economies, however Americans can afford to light their corn on fire. My job is to make money, not be a charity.

Not quite. Your dealing with people who strongly believe in something just like the atheists strongly have their beliefs and have numbers. You have to put yourself in the shoes of a religious person to see where they're coming from (not necessarily believe what they believe of course). For those religious people, their beliefs haven't hindered them one bit and what they believe in works for them. In their eyes, if it's working, why do they need to change it?

Other companies: BASF, dupont, bayer to name a few. I'd say those are big boys as well... Monsanto doesn't own the whole genus species corn, it owns a particular line, and farmers are free to grow that line or a line through traditional means. Farmers grow the monsanto kind because they are satisfied with the product even though paying those fees sucks ass! The chemicals are diluted to nothing in a rain, nothing happens when it rains, the potency is gone. It has to go into gas tanks because if it didn't north America would be sitting on pikes of grain produced at less than cost and it would be hard on the economy. Not only that it helps keep a lid on gas prices which also helps the economy. The countries going through food shortages have incentive to start producing their own food again instead of waiting for the govt to distribute it.

And the religious people could flip that argument the other way and say that secular people are trying to change laws to be more in line with what they believe in. Why are they a powerful lobby group? They have numbers and want to be represented like everyone else. If religious people had to keep their views at home then in fairness militant athiests like kimmy should as well. Personally that's how most reasonable people religious or not operate, but unfortunately every village has their idiots.

Unfortunately those beliefs do come into the policy sphere because of tradition and numbers, it's the nature of the beast. Right now in north America we have a huge debate over which belief of how to fix the economy is the right one. Those religious people make up a fair chunk of the population and have every right to be represented even if their representative may have controversial views. The metrics I. Your eyes apply to them, but in their eyes the metrics don't because what they believe in doesn't follow what is determined as logical. You are trying to convince people "the truth" who believe in something that can arbitrarily change anything it wants as it made everything, is supernatural, etc. You can't have a debate when one side can change the parameters on a whim.

Yet you believe that rich people should.

Let me play the devils advocate. A religious person can move the goal posts as they believe in something that is super natural which by definition defies normal logic and scientific thought. A religious person can pull any argument they wish because god in their eyes created everything and therefore can bend the rules according to advances in human intellectual capacity. In short, if religious people want to believe in something, why waste time trying to change their minds using metrics that don't apply to them.

Black dog is right that food grown in a garden and sold through a farmers market tastes best. There is no substitute for the freshness of the food obtained in that matter. I would venture to say food tastes the best with the dirt washed right off it. However, I find it laughable when people trot out conspiracy theories by monsanto. There are other companies in the gmo biz and competition is intense. I don't grow roundup ready canola, not because it's from monsanto, but because the product is shit. It's yields suck, and is a bitch to harvest. I wonder what the Environmentalists have to say about nexera canola which makes arguably the healthiest cooking oil in existence, farmers get a premium for growing it, yet at the same time big business develops and markets it. Pesticides are heavily diluted by water prior to being sprayed on a field and even then they have to be timed because a rain completely dilutes them to the point they don't work. Like it or not gmo's are here to stay, there are 6 billion people and millions of fuel tanks

This thread is hilarious, we have atheists who brow beat "believers" for spreading their version of the truth yet these atheists are bent over backwards trying to convince a believer the atheists version of the truth. Pot meet kettle. This is like debating whether country vs rock vs rap vs etc. Music is the best

Captive market. Someone has to prop up the eu with some of the prizes of efficiency they have in that organization.

You can't ratchet up taxes in rich people in today's world because they can say you guys go fly a kite I'll set up elsewhere. A big reason why the rich are getting richer is at more wealth is being generated elsewhere and those new consumers are buying products/services from the rich people whereas before only western people could afford. I can honestly say that for the past 6 years when the emerging markets have been on a roll has been the most financially lucrative time of my life. It's about making things people want at a price they are willing to pay. I don't know what the issue is with going after people with gross incomes at 250k and over, as it is dangerous because at the bottom end of that scale is where a great deal of small businesses operate at, and their margins are tight in order to compete with others. That takes a lot of incentive out of start ups.

Nope, it's because of the port factor. BC is a busier hub than Atlantic Canada because of the china factor. Atlantic Canada has the bad luck of being in a crappy spot far away from export markets. Fishing is an industry that only works when its tightly regulated, however since there is not much of aquaculture and fish farming out there, it's going to be tough to have a primary industry. There are many years of oil/nat gas in Alberta along with pop growth. Along with research in the energy sector, Alberta has no foreseeable problems in the near future. Fishing is a pittance compared to a lively port, hence why BC is booming whereas Atlantic Canada is not.

Apparently it was overwhelmed and the green revolution in agriculture solved that little problem. Never underestimate our ability to adapt.

That's what I'm thinking too. The charges I don't know, sex assaults imo are very hard crimes to prove. Its like the movie "the crucible". He'd be better off to go to sweden and take it to trial. 2 statements might be enough to get a court date, but I don't know about a conviction.

Last time I checked, my significantly altered fields seem to feed a lot more people than untouched prairie. My premise still stands.