FWIW, I partly agree with adaher in this debate. Radical Islam is a major Mideast problem. The Saudi regime is part of the problem, not part of a solution. Where adaher and the GOP go wrong is thinking that directing venom against Muslims would be helpful. :smack: And now, like wearing their cutesy American flags, pronouncing a certain phrase has become another of their childish badges.
YES. Over the past several decades the U.S. has passed up many opportunities to ally more closely with Iran, whose people have generally been pro-U.S. An Iran-U.S. detente would have been a major force for peace and stability, but the U.S. has rebuffed Iran continually, till now Iran is allying with Russia.
It may not be too late. The treaty Hillary helped negotiate may improve U.S.-Iran relations (though of course the Republiopaths will just stupidly hate Iran even more if it’s linked to names like Obama, Kerry and Clinton).
Probably not. It would require a major shift in our food infrastructure in order to segregate GMO and non-GMO food.
80% of Americans are dumbasses.
And of course, organic food is never sprayed with pesticides. Except all the times it is. And Roundup is relatively benign.
Riiiiight. Because, you know, public opinion is so clearly in favor of GMOs. A whopping 20% of people don’t want a burdensome, expensive, and completely pointless law passed against them!
Waitaminute - who said “we’re not supposed to talk about [them] because PC”? If anything, it’s the sort of US right-wing evangelical groups who have been fomenting anti-gay hatred in those countries - and certain people <ahem> who actively promote the idea of Muslim exceptionalism - that don’t like us talking about those good Christian countries in Africa who persecute gays. “PC” has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Calling a stupid conservative idea a stupid liberal idea does not make it so.
Glad to see you’re on board with letting Syrian refugees in! We knew you’d get there eventually.
It’s not individual Muslims who are the problem, it’s Islam itself, right?
Except we should be backing more liberal and tolerant and progressive Muslims, yes?
So, liberal Islam good, conservative Islam bad?
Maybe it’s not Islam that’s the problem, but the uptight, fundamentalist, intolerant, right-wing version of it.
It interests me that the ones saying liberals aren’t speaking out enough about the dangers of right-wing theocracies are their counterparts in the USA, attacking those same liberals who are busy speaking out about the dangers of right-wing theocrats on a daily basis, regardless of their particular religious stripes and being called unpatriotic for their efforts.
Just saying, maybe the people in the United States who most closely resemble the religious uptight nutters shouldn’t be suggesting that we’re not doing enough to eradicate people who think in uptight religious terms.
You can’t just restrict the discussion all of a sudden to just part of the Muslim world.
Yes, and they also have sizeable minorities trying to prevent that. The commonality isn’t Islam, it’s instability.
Yes, exactly. And many more.
The Islamic world is fucked up in many places, but you risk replacing the simplistic ideas you’re opposing with a new kind of simplistic idea, that all Muslims are radicals or that radicals are everywhere.
True, once Turkey finishes crushing the Kurdish movement beneath her benign heel, there will be that much more peace in the ME. The sort of peace one finds in graveyards.
Iran isn’t any better as an option. Shiites controlling Sunnis is as provocative as Turks or Jews controlling them. Heck, Sunnis aren’t too happy with Sunnis controlling Sunnis, especially if they aren’t interested in jihad against non-Sunnis.
I’ll let the experts opine on its persistence (though I quote from one source below), but it is certainly a pesticide. I suspect you meant that Roundup isn’t an insecticide, which is of course a non sequitur in context.
I’ve no idea if the following propaganda has been debunked … and neither do most of the people posting on the topic.
[QUOTE=https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/monsanto/roundup.php]
A recent study by eminent oncologists Dr. Leonard Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden, has revealed clear links between one of the world’s biggest selling herbicide, glyphosate (commonly known as Roundup, marketed by Monsanto), to non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a form of cancer - NHL. There are even requests for permits for higher residues on genetically engineered foods because they are highly resistant to herbicides, instead of reducing herbicide use, glyphosate resistant crops may result in increased residues. They are already on sale. Farmers knowing that their crop will tolerate or resist being killed off by the herbicides will tend to use them more liberally. …
Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the most toxic herbicides, and is the third most commonly reported cause of pesticide related illness among agricultural workers. Products containing glyphosate also contain other compounds, which can be toxic…
Monsano’s advertising campaigns have convinced many people that Roundup is safe, but the facts just don’t support this. Independent scientific studies have shown that Roundup is toxic to earthworms, beneficial insects, birds and mammals, plus it destroys the vegetation on which they depend for food and shelter. Although Monsanto claims that Roundup breaks down into harmless substances, it has been found to be extremely persistent, with residue absorbed by subsequent crops over a year after application. Roundup shows adverse effects in all standard categories of toxicological testing, including medium-term toxicity, long-term toxicity, genetic damage, effects on reproduction, and carcinogenicity.
[/QUOTE]
California voters voted down a GMO labeling law, just a few years ago. Now, it’s true that the proposed law had problems, like limiting just what sorts of things would have to be labeled, but it was a start. I voted against it because it should have covered everything instead of carving out things that were not going to be covered.
Then companies who care about your business can choose to cater to your understanding of science or lack thereof. If you’re worried about pesticides in corn, genetic modification has led to a 95% decrease in pesticide use in corn 1996 to 2010. Probably an even larger drop by now. See DOIs 10.1126/science.341.6147.728 and 10.1126/science.341.6147.730 . If you’re worried about particular pesticides and want them labeled, that’s a different questions with a different cost benefit analysis.
thats the new stupid liberal idea of the day. Iran is a terrorist regime and a prime example of regressive radical Islam as its governing philosophy. Don’t give me this “its Shiite and ISIS is Sunni so lets team up with Iran” BS: Iran arms and funds other anti-American groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and reputedly helped Al Qaeda at times.
There is no other way to interpret “Death to” X-country, be it America or its allies, ANY of them, including its Jewish one, as anything other than what it is; a death threat.
I haven’t read the Atlantic piece yet but both the article I quoted and the Vox piece you mention are essentially #hottakes based on high-school history and superficial analysis.
This is the kind of incisive in-depth understanding of Iranian culture and politics we’ve come to expect from modern conservatives, which is why GOP Congresspeople like Tom Cotton keep getting embarrasingly schooled on the basics of international and domestic law and diplomacy by the Iranians.
Good job dismissing and ignoring the tens of millions of Iranians who hate their governments and have no wish to harm the US or Israel! God forbid we actually reach out to these people…