White House Chef Says Future Food To Be Made From Chemicals, Not Real Food Ingredients

[Highlander]

you know what.. you think i am ill researched an ill read or written, IDGAF WHAT YOU THINK...

that is the best part of this.

 

so, just to keep in the general fun of all this.. you can just kiss my

 

and to think some years ago, i had started to gain respect for you.

i'm not sure why you are more intent on 'winning' an 'argument'

than you are about having a decent discussion.

 

I have no intention of sparring w/ you or anyone for that matter that

is only out for a 'win'. qh4 man.. geesh... only game players would

say some dum stuff like that.

 

intellegence is measured in many ways. maybe (just maybe) your

intellegence quotient might (just might) be higher than mine but you

have the social skills of a venemous snake.

 

and.. i don't need to defend Mezz.. he does a fine job holding

his own.

 

btw... your new avatar is much more befitting this new 'you'.

i remember when you were a nice guy ... once... yrs ago.

 

please don't think that b/c i do not respond to you again as

a sign that you have 'won'. I have just grown tired of your

peevishness.

 

I don't have time to cut and paste ALL your 'heinous' comments,

as you have so referred to them, you chose that word, not i.

 

Did CL say something disrespectful to Mezz before Mezz started making comparisons to GWB and fascists? Maybe in your book, getting compared to GWB is a compliment. It looks to me like Mezz hurled the first insult in this thread. Are you seeing something I'm not?

Edited August 1, 2012 by Highlander

[cristinew]

Mez did hurl the first one ,, but i think they both really do enjoy this

[imiubu]

Did CL say something disrespectful to Mezz before Mezz started making comparisons to GWB and fascists? Maybe in your book, getting compared to GWB is a compliment. It looks to me like Mezz hurled the first insult in this thread. Are you seeing something I'm not?

 

I have no beef w/ you. I read this thread in it's

entirety as it was being written. I have since

went and re read it several times.

 

I said one thing in support of Mezz's statement.

CL has dragged it out to be that I am defending

him. He needs no defending from me.

 

CL thinks he is clever in the way he twists things

until he gets others upset. I have seen this in

SEVERAL threads and I am sick of it and.. so

are many others I have been told.

 

I for one am sick of his bullying and then for

restorium2 to come and 'defend' him is laughable.

CL needs no more help defending himself than

Mezz does.

 

At this point who cares who thru the 1st stone.

CL said in his opening statement that GMO was

the wave of the future (not verbatim) then he backpeddled.

 

I do not like caveatlectors personna and have no respect for him.

I did, prior to he and the others leaving. Now he just

seems imbittered and I for one am sick of his argumentiveness.

 

 

DOESN'T ANYONE ELSE SEE THIS ?

[cristinew]

GMO was

the wave of the future

 

 

is the wave of the future,,, Profit driven

[MightyMightyMezz]

 

 

Did CL say something disrespectful to Mezz before Mezz started making comparisons to GWB and fascists? Maybe in your book, getting compared to GWB is a compliment. It looks to me like Mezz hurled the first insult in this thread. Are you seeing something I'm not?

 

It might have been harsh of me but it's true. Population control and GMOs really are pushed by Bush and other fascists. Kissinger wrote a paper on population control that really spells it out.

 

 

 

National Security Study Memorandum 200

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200) was completed on December 10, 1974 by the United States National Security Council under the direction of Henry Kissinger.

 

It was adopted as official U.S. policy by President Gerald Ford in November 1975. It was originally classified, but was later declassified and obtained by researchers in the early 1990s.

 

The basic thesis of the memorandum was that population growth in the least developed countries (LDCs) is a concern to U.S. national security, because it would tend to risk civil unrest and political instability in countries that had a high potential for economic development. The policy gives "paramount importance" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries, to control rapid population growth which the US deems inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States, since the "U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad", and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States. It recommends the US leadership to "influence national leaders" and that "improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the U.N., USIA, and USAID."

 

Thirteen countries are named in the report as particularly problematic with respect to U.S. security interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. These countries are projected to create 47 percent of all world population growth.

 

The report advocates the promotion of education and contraception and other population control measures. It also raises the question of whether the U.S. should consider preferential allocation of surplus food supplies to states that are deemed constructive in use of population control measures.

 

Some of the key insights of report are controversial:

 

"The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States. . . . The location of known reserves of higher grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments" [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].

Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth" [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].

"Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the ‘establishment,' ‘imperialists,' multinational corporations, or other-often foreign-influences blamed for their troubles" [Chapter V, "Implications of Population Pressures for National Security].

"We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs. Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country. "Third World" leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time." [Chapter I, World Demographic Trends]

The report advises, "In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion."

Edited August 1, 2012 by MightyMightyMezz

[restlesslegs]

Yes many see it and have tried to discuss it to no avail. Many are not happy with the way the site has become with all the bickering. They do not even see themselves for who they are or what they have become or what they have done to this site.

[Highlander]

Mezz, are you suggesting that anybody who thinks that we need to cut down on the number of babies being born is a fascist? That's what it seems like to me.

 

Or do you feel that reasonable minds can also see population planning as something we need to think about today?

[MightyMightyMezz]

Mezz, are you suggesting that anybody who thinks that we need to cut down on the number of babies being born is a fascist? That's what it seems like to me.

 

Or do you feel that reasonable minds can also see population planning as something we need to think about today?

 

I think anyone who has bought into it should look deeper into where it is from and what the goals are. For example many people are passionate about reproductive rights but are unaware of the racist and eugenicist origin of the Family Planning movement (google Margaret Sanger for some truly hateful ideology.)

[cristinew]

Restless please do not cut down this site, cant you see they are having fun

 

Alfi what happend to his post over there ?

Edited August 1, 2012 by cristinew

[CaveatLector]

I think anyone who has bought into it should look deeper into where it is from and what the goals are. For example many people are passionate about reproductive rights but are unaware of the racist and eugenicist origin of the Family Planning movement (google Margaret Sanger for some truly hateful ideology.)

Therein lies the problem. You want to attribute other characteristics of people who support notion X with other people who support notion X. It makes no sense. It is illogical and you did what you did because you didn't like my position. I happen to be pro-choice. Does GW Bush share that same view? No. But guess who does, Obama. So I suppose now I'm a socialist pig??? Your insults make no sense and it's time you accept that. If I agree with family planning does that make me a racist because of the origins of the movement? The popularity of cotton in the world was brought about by inexpensive slave labor. Cotton would not have been used as much as it was had they paid workers a fair wage. So, if I like cotton does that mean I agree with slavery?

 

Personally, I am position neutral on GMO. I don't have enough information on it to embrace it or despise. However, I do know that there will likely come a time on this earth, when the population is high enough, that the population cannot be supported by organic growing. Raise your hand if you grow your marijuana 100% organically. How do you deal with mites?

 

The fact is we don't NEED to give our milk cows hormones ot make them produce more milk, for example. However, without it we would probably be paying $6/gallon of milk. Why? Supply and demand. Supply would go down and demand would still be there. The same goes for grain, the staple food product of most of the world. At some point in time demand will outpace supply which will lead to food shortages. That WILL happen if the population trends remain the same. It doesn't matter how many front yards contain gardens. It doesn't matter how many skyscrapers exist where you have a garden on every floor. If the population CONTINUES ON ITS CURRENT TREND then there will come a time where organic growing will not keep up with demand. Why? Because we will have limited space to grow and insect/weather/nutrient issues. That means one crop lost to drought or floods or insects, etc., could cause food shortages. GMO has the potential to produce more drought and bug tolerant plants. For that reason I think it will be necessary in the future. Does that mean I like or support genetically modified plants? No. See my comment above regarding my neutrality. So you can argue that I am backpedaling all you want but the fact remains that my opinion hasn't changed.

 

If you asked me whether diesel engines, and thus their pollution, are a good thing I would say, "no, but for now they are necessary." Does that mean I am backpedaling? Of course not. If you asked me if x rays are a good thing I would say, "no, but they are necessary." So when I say GMO will be the way to go in the future if populatin trends continue then that by no means indicates that I embrace GMO. It means I think that is probably the only viable option. If you actually read and comprehend what my initial post said then you would see that I wrote SPECIFICALLY that there will have to be a balance of population versus food production. What I said was, "We either need to get our population under control or accept that we need new and better ways to produce the food necessary to feed the planet." So your accusations of backpedaling arise out of YOUR personal spin put on what I said. I didn't backpedal. I said I think GMO will be necessary, not that I love it. So how about you pick up some reading comprehension pointers somewhere before you go on the attack next time.

 

Furthermore, you don't have to like, or agree with, my opinion. That is your option. But your personal attacks and obscenties make it clear that you feel it should be your way or the highway.

 

 

As for imiubu running his/her mouth--if you actually went back and did reread the content then I ask, what did I say in my first post that warranted your retort that everything I say is negative? I wrote nothing negative at all. The only reason you piped up was because you wanted to add support to what mighty was saying. So I'm calling you out. Point out exactly what I said that was negative. I'll make it easy on you. Here is a verbatim cut and paste of the post you jumped on.

 

"GMO will be the only way to go in the future. If the world population continues to rise at its present rate there will not be enough real estate to plant the foods necessary to feed the world in 100 years. GMO plants are developed to increase a plant's resistance to disease and drought as well as to increase production.

 

We either need to get our population under control or accept that we need new and better ways to produce the food necessary to feed the planet. If you think free range chickens and non-hormone fed milk is expensive now wait until the earth's population grows exponentially in the next century. Do you realize that the world's population has DOUBLED in 50 years? "

 

Where is the negativity? Where are the attacks? Calling that post negative is like calling someone negative who posts their opinion on abortion.

[MightyMightyMezz]

Your logic fails again. How does saying I think pro-choice people probably haven't looked into the racism and eugencism behind family planning mean I think they are racist/eugenecist? It doesn't one bit.

[restlesslegs]

Not the site and not mezz, you know who is meant Chris, the few who believe they are above everyone else. I do believe imiubu stated it spot on. What post? Every post and comment is still there that afi or anyone else for that matter has made. Direct me to what it is you mean and maybe I can help you find it.

[cristinew]

its been deleted but i saved it

 

now show me the link to afi questions to the great leader? you replied to it so you must know where it is.

Edited August 1, 2012 by cristinew

[restlesslegs]

Sorry you aren't able to find it Chris maybe you should look under the name and track from there you will see nothing has been deleted.,

 

The Lord is not part of our site but in faith he is, he is my only leader.

Edited August 1, 2012 by restlesslegs

[cristinew]

we know restless your just like him ,,, cover it up.. is he banned now?

[cristinew]

has your leader been speaking to the FBI again lately, where did he come from? what is his past? you would be surprised about S C

[CaveatLector]

Your logic fails again. How does saying I think pro-choice people probably haven't looked into the racism and eugencism behind family planning mean I think they are racist/eugenecist? It doesn't one bit.

Haha, it isn't MY logic that fails. That's the point. It's YOUR logic. You brought up Bush and Fascism because of my view on population management. How did Bush and Fascism have any bearing on my viewpoint whatsoever? They didn't. You brought it up to be condescending and categorize me as a Fascist for my viewpoint. Using YOUR logic one can extrapolate that those who agree with family planning can be categorized as racists because a racist started the whole ideology of family planning. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. You are being obtuse.

 

Parenthetically, I didn't say anything about pro-choice people and racism. I used your example of family planning and your claim of a basis in racism. You are equating pro-choice with family planning. Two different things. Reading comprehension....

[restlesslegs]

Chris you have all the answers are one of the "chosen" ones why don't you tell me? All sites are read by everyone. hmmm lets see what will we find in you all pasts? Do I give a rats butt no and why do you? You talk about silliness and act the same. Come to the site I will guide you how to do a search since you seem to be unable to.

[MightyMightyMezz]

 

Haha, it isn't MY logic that fails. That's the point. It's YOUR logic. You brought up Bush and Fascism because of my view on population management. How did Bush and Fascism have any bearing on my viewpoint whatsoever? They didn't. You brought it up to be condescending and categorize me as a Fascist for my viewpoint. Using YOUR logic one can extrapolate that those who agree with family planning can be categorized as racists because a racist started the whole ideology of family planning. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. You are being obtuse.

 

Parenthetically, I didn't say anything about pro-choice people and racism. I used your example of family planning and your claim of a basis in racism. You are equating pro-choice with family planning. Two different things. Reading comprehension....

 

Again everything you accuse me of is what you do. You have no reading comprehension or rather your reading comprehension is destroyed by your ego. To wax poetic your frantic, pedantic, overly-semantic antics belong deep in the Atlantic.

[CaveatLector]

Again everything you accuse me of is what you do. You have no reading comprehension or rather your reading comprehension is destroyed by your ego. To wax poetic your frantic, pedantic, overly-semantic antics belong deep in the Atlantic.

I gave you hard examples everytime of why you are wrong. Examples of your own words.

 

All you do is insult and rhyme. Good at the former, not so much the latter. I don't see a rap career in your future. Keep your day job.

[MightyMightyMezz]

 

I gave you hard examples everytime of why you are wrong. Examples of your own words.

 

All you do is insult and rhyme. Good at the former, not so much the latter. I don't see a rap career in your future. Keep your day job.

 

It's not an insult, it's an appraisal. I've shown you how your reasoning is flawed but you keep making similar errors. You're pedantic to the point of ridiculousness; I could keep showing you indefinitely and I don't think you would ever get it. Sometimes I enjoy a good debate because it forces me to learn but there really is no debate with you, it's all trying to show you the flaws in your logic which you never seem to grasp.

Edited August 2, 2012 by MightyMightyMezz

[Highlander]

Mezz, I don't care to wade into this debate.

 

I just want to point something out to you.

 

You jumped into this thread to accuse someone of being a fascist and (mas o menos) aligned with GWB for advocating population control. It took to post Number 103 in this thread for you to explain why population control discussion upsets you,

 

I think anyone who has bought into it should look deeper into where it is from and what the goals are. For example many people are passionate about reproductive rights but are unaware of the racist and eugenicist origin of the Family Planning movement (google Margaret Sanger for some truly hateful ideology.)

 

Again, commenting solely on your method of communication, why on earth would you come out gunning with the (you=GWB=Fascist) talk when this topics first came up when you could have make the point finally unveiled in post #103 right from the git-go and said "Don't you realize that the real purpose behind the population control policies were......x, z, y,.....???."

 

Honestly I read through pages and pages of crap before I got to one sane reason why you're opposed the to "population control" idea. Most people won't have this much patience. Your message was lost - not even lost but not expressed - until 100+ posts into this. This seems to suggest an empahsis on your person rather than your position, but that it for you to decide.

 

My only real 2 cents here is to suggest to you that if it takes until post 100+ to get to the practical foundation for your position, you're going to struggle to gain the support of very many people with real intellect.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Highlander

[MightyMightyMezz]

Well, why didn't you or someone else just ask what I meant? I love discussing information and ideas. It's just kind of hard to stay on track when someone is deliberately misinterpreting what I say.

[CaveatLector]

Well, why didn't you or someone else just ask what I meant? I love discussing information and ideas. It's just kind of hard to stay on track when someone is deliberately misinterpreting what I say.

Or here is a better idea. How about you just TELL people what you mean. Now it's everyone else's fault?

 

As for flaws in MY logic--lay them out old school in a logic formula. Eg: if x then y...

 

Show me these flaws in logic. If it's flawed logic I am using then it should be pretty easy to point it out. So tell me which of my arguments uses flawed logic and describe the logical flaw.

 

I'll go first. Rather than constructively argue your position regarding population management you instead chose to engage in an ad hominem argument basically calling me a fascist.

 

So let's hear it. Which argument of mine uses flawed logic and how?

[MightyMightyMezz]

 

Or here is a better idea. How about you just TELL people what you mean. Now it's everyone else's fault?

 

As for flaws in MY logic--lay them out old school in a logic formula. Eg: if x then y...

 

Show me these flaws in logic. If it's flawed logic I am using then it should be pretty easy to point it out. So tell me which of my arguments uses flawed logic and describe the logical flaw.

 

I'll go first. Rather than constructively argue your position regarding population management you instead chose to engage in an ad hominem argument basically calling me a fascist.

 

So let's hear it. Which argument of mine uses flawed logic and how?

 

I've already done it over and over. Take your own advice and read the thread. Jeeez