Your reasoning is flawed. Ron Paul and other conservatives want to get rid of the EPA because they believe it restricts job growth, not because it doesn't do its job well enough. If this report is accurate, it shows the EPA allowed a corporation to introduce a product into the environment without adequate testing, putting the food supply at risk. Paul and other conservatives (he claims to be Libertarian, but the practical effect of his policies is to empower pretty much every conservative point of view) want to eliminate government agencies because of their mistaken ideology that people will always make wise and good decisions if left free to do so. This is demonstrably false via a multitude of examples in which agencies failed to act to protect public interest while allowing corporate interests to profit. The 2008 Wall Street collapse is the most evident example. Conservatives have made great efforts to convince people that deregulation is the solution to a huge problem that was caused by deregulation in the first place. I find this to be an insidious form of lying.
I can't believe a Democrat would even consider voting for this. This is what sucks about our government (one of the many) we need Dems in congress right now to get some things ironed out, but this is deplorable that their vote can be bought. Another broken spoke in the wheel. These three need to be singled out and embarrassed in public to the point they change their vote. I am surprised that a dem would vote against the interest of health, more of a republican thing to do. give the money back to Monsanto or whomever and make this right.
As a fiscal conservative, I believe Scott Walker to be the best Governor we have had in a long time. Fortunately he was not recalled. The citizens outside of Dane County actually voted for fiscal responsibility in this State.
On the other hand, I agree with the right of all citizens to hold signs in the Capital building. I have been in the Capital building at times when the singers were active, and will admit that they can be disruptive at times to others taking tours, or to the legislators trying to do their jobs. As long as they "Peacefully Assemble", and do not interfere with the rights of other citizens, I see no problem with their activities.
That's an awesome idea, but unfortunately you cannot do that. "The custodian is not authorized to comply with an open records request at some unspecified date in the future. Such a response constitutes a denial of the request." WTMJ, Inc. v. Sullivan, 204 Wis. 2d 452, 555 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1996)
A quote from the 3rd paragraph: "The riskiness of genetically engineered crops comes in part from their ability to cross-pollinate crops in other fields, spreading their genes far and wide." This would be true if the DNA was being inserted into the Chromosomes of the plant. However, the DNA in question is in the form of a "plasmid" which is a ring of DNA the floats freely in the cell and is not in the nucleus. This plasmid is packaged in a virus shell which injects the plasmid into the target cell. The plasmid then reproduces itself inside the cell and also produces the protein it is programmed for. It will pass itself along to all future generations of that plant.
The most serious problem is that this plasmid does not restrict itself to the species barrier. If you or any other organism ingests part of a plant infected with this plasmid, the plasmid is released as the food is digested and can find its way unaltered into the cells of the organism that just ate it. If you just ate a GMO food, that plasmid can find its way into your cells unaltered and start producing the same protein it produced in the original host plant. At this point in the game, it is not possible to tell whether this new protein will have a beneficial or detrimental affect on you. Bacteria can also pick up this plasmid and pass it on to organisms that have had no direct contact with the original host. The risk is much greater than most people have recognized.
Your reasoning is flawed. Ron Paul and other conservatives want to get rid of the EPA because they believe it restricts job growth, not because it doesn't do its job well enough. If this report is accurate, it shows the EPA allowed a corporation to introduce a product into the environment without adequate testing, putting the food supply at risk. Paul and other conservatives (he claims to be Libertarian, but the practical effect of his policies is to empower pretty much every conservative point of view) want to eliminate government agencies because of their mistaken ideology that people will always make wise and good decisions if left free to do so. This is demonstrably false via a multitude of examples in which agencies failed to act to protect public interest while allowing corporate interests to profit. The 2008 Wall Street collapse is the most evident example. Conservatives have made great efforts to convince people that deregulation is the solution to a huge problem that was caused by deregulation in the first place. I find this to be an insidious form of lying.
Pages