text:
The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points
Genetically Modified Organisms are unsafe for people and the environment.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
|Voting Style:
|Point System:
|7 Point
|6 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|11,179 times
|Debate No:
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)
1st round: Acceptance.
2nd, and 3rd round 4th round: Arguments and rebuttal.
5th round: Conclusion and summary
I accept this debate and I will be arguing against the banning of GMOs.
One thing we can all agree on is that no one is eager to buy gene-altered food. Genetically modified foods do nothing for the public. They provide no extra nutrition, flavor, or safety. [7] Instead, these food products only offer risks, which include potential toxicity, allergy reactions, and lower nutritional value. [7] GMO's do more harm than good for humans and our environment. On top of that they are not required to be labeled, so many are eating GM food unknowingly. This is carefully calculated, because polls show that 87% of people would be leery of them. [8] I will outline major reasons why this practice is a huge threat to our health and the world.
1. UNTESTED : Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are one of�the most dangerous and radical changes�to our food supply. [1] These largely unregulated ingredients are found in 60-70% of the foods in the US.
Many consumers believe that the FDA approves GM foods through rigorous, in-depth, long-term studies. [1] The scary fact is that there are no safety testing requirements. Instead the agency relies on research from companies like Monsanto.
2. CORRUPTION : So why do we have all these farms, and why is our food made with GMO's if it is so bad? That can't happen, right? Wrong. Monsanto has made us the unknowing guinea pigs for foods that make them a lot of money and offer us nothing but risk. [7] This company has a history of toxic contamination, deceiving the public, and putting harmless small farmers in this country out of business. Monsanto's research is meticulously designed to avoid finding problems, helping their company, but threatening the public. [1] Monsanto was declared the worst company of 2011 by Natural Society for threatening both human health and the environment. [2] Monsanto is currently responsible for 90% of the genetically engineered seed on the United States market. [2] Before the FDA decided to allow GMO's into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. [3] They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored. This is concerning news for the people who most likely unknowingly eating this food on a daily basis.
3. RESEARCH/HIDDEN DANGERS : Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. [3] There was one Human Feeding Experiment, which revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines continues to function well after the fact. [3] This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their proteins inside us. This could mean:
*If the antibiotic gene stays in our bodies, it can create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics. [3]
*If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories. [3]
What's even sadder is that humans are the guinea pigs of what will come out of eating GM foods for decades. Many of our upcoming generations are eating it from birth. It has been proven that GMO foods pose a higher risk for children, as their little bodies are more susceptible to these harmful effects. [6]
There are countless documented research showing dangerous affects on the human body.
Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality [4] The study showed that after feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, GM fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.
4. MASSIVE PESTICIDE POLLUTION : GM crops are a major reason for the expansion of pesticide use in recent years. [7] They require massive amounts of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides which are poisonous to our world, and our health.The most famous and dangerous one is called Roundup which dramatically increased in use, and is causing a growing epidemic of resistant weeds, which now infest millions of acres of America's cropland. [7] Pesticides cause a variety of health problems, pollute our waters, food, air, and threaten natural wildlife.
5. CROSS-BREEDING : Once the mutant genes are out of the bag, there is no going back. Cross-breeding is guaranteed with GM alfalfa and corn. [1] (The U.S.D.A. claims to be figuring out ways to avoid this happening, but by then the damage may already be done.) [1] This is threatening food that is meant to be organic. When G.E. alfalfa is widely grown, since many dairy cows eat dried alfalfa (hay), and the contamination of organic alfalfa means the milk of animals fed with that hay can no longer be called organic. [1] These GMO seeds will end up contaminating the food supply, and if years down the road there is severe epidemic problems, it will be too late to reverse. Are we ready to take that chance? I'm here to state that no, we aren't, and should not support GMO foods.
The only way to stop GMO contamination is to stop growing GMO's.
http://naturalsociety.com...... [2]
http://www.responsibletechnology.org...... [4]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... [5]
http://www.seedsofdeception.com...... [6]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... [7]
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...... [8]
1. UNTESTED: In order to prove that GMOs are unsafe, my opponent must show that a lack of testing has allowed unsafe food products to hit store shelves. But this is not the case. My opponent cites 60% - 70% of food products in the United States contain GMOs, but my opponent doesn't even show any research that says GMOs have caused more deaths or cancer as a result of more and more GMO food products being introduced into the food supply. My opponent's claims that GMOs are untested and that the gov't. relies on research from Monsanto is outlandish. GMOs undergo the same kinds of testing as other products under the same category are tested for, including toxicology testing for any poisonous chemicals that may end up in the food supply.[1. http://www.pewtrusts.org...]
2. CORRUPTION: I think we can all agree that Monsanto is an evil company. If you want to read up on all the nasty things Monsanto has done, I would recommend The World According to Monsanto by Marie-Monique Robin. But using the irresponsibility and corruption of one company to justify banning GMOs is illogical and wrong. Several good things have come out of genetically modified organisms. Until recently, millions of diabetics have had to rely on insulin from cows and pigs, but through genetic engineering processes, human insulin protein is being created and produced more effectively, providing a necessary nutrient to over 25.8 million people in the United States more efficiently than before. Other drugs made available by genetic engineering include "human growth hormones, follistim (for treating infertility), human albumin, monoclonal antibodies, antihemophilic factors, vaccines and many other drugs" [2. http://en.wikipedia.org...\][3. http://books.google.com...].
What my opponent is referring to is the possibility of horizontal gene transfer from a GMO plant into the human body. However, the possibility is very low. In an independent study conducted by Southern Illinois University Carbondale (Not by Monsanto like my opponent insists), 56 piglets consumed genetically modified corn. The study found that none of the genes from the corn wound up in the flesh or the blood of the piglets [4. http://news.siu.edu...]. There is also other compelling evidence various sources that suggest that gene transfer from GMOs is extremely low. This is the reason why:
The transfer of plant DNA into microbial or mammalian cells under normal circumstances of dietary exposure would require all of the following events to occur:
- the relevant gene(s) in the plant DNA would have to be released, probably as linear fragments;
- the gene(s) would have to survive nucleases in the plant and in the gastrointestinal tract;
- the gene(s) would have to compete for uptake with dietary DNA;
- the recipient bacteria or mammalian cells would have to be competent for transformation and the gene(s) would have to survive their restriction enzymes; and
- the gene(s) would have to be inserted into the host DNA by rare repair or recombination events. [5. http://www.fao.org...]
This evidence is also supported by many other sources. [5. http://www.who.int...][6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...][7. http://www.nature.com...][8. http://www2.ups.edu...]
My opponent claims that mice fed a diet of GM soy" lost the ability to have babies. They suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups." But my opponent only cites one poor little source that does not discuss the actual testing procedures used to come up to that conclusion. So the fact that GMOs caused the deaths of these mice is probably false. Since Monsanto produces GM-soy that is resistant to roundup, farmers have a tendency to increase the use of herbicides on their fields to kill off weeds since they know the soy won't die. But the herbicide has been found to remain on crops such as "Roundup Ready" corn and soy when they are sold to consumers in a variety of products [9. http://www.livestrong.com...][10. (Cited below)]. It is most likely that the GMO crop did not have anything to do with the killing of the mice, but it was the herbicides and pesticides remaining on the crop that caused the disabilities of the mice conducted in the study.
My opponent claims that GMOs require the use of pesticide, herbicides, and fungicides. This is completely false. GMOs can produce a successful crop the same as regular crops without the assistance of these chemicals. It's just that some GM crops are used irresponsibly and harmful chemicals are used more widely. But the notion that eliminating GM crops would eliminate fungicide, pesticide, and herbicide use is completely false. The best way to sharply reduce harmful chemical usage is to implement crop rotation techniques so that pests and diseases will be able to die out due to lack of a host to live off of. Even GM crops such as GM banana varieties have reduced fungicide usage in other countries because they have been engineered to be resistant to diseases such as Panama disease, which has caused the near extinction of the Gros Michel banana nearly 50 years ago and is causing the downfall of the Cavendish banana today [11 (Cited below)]. Gros Michel was the kind of banana sold in grocery stores in the early 90's until plantations began dying off after diseases like Mosaic virus and Panama disease killed banana plants. The Cavendish banana replaced the Gros Michel as the grocery store banana, but today plantations growing this banana across the world are negatively affected by several kinds of banana diseases that are being fought with large amounts of fungicide use. With the invention of GM bananas, over 500 million people are able to benefit from bananas that are not only resistant to diseases, but are fungicide-free [11].
GMO contamination happens and is unlikely to be stopped. But even so, the risks for being harmed by GM crops directly is small, and that other health concerns over GM crops can be mitigated by reducing chemical usage on food crops. Organic food can always exist in home gardens and for people who want organic food, but it will be harder to grow truly organic food because of field contamination. However, organic farming practices can still be implemented with GM food crops by using compost instead of artificial fertilizers and by using nature-friendly pesticides such as ladybugs.
10. Robin, Marie-Monique. The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and the Control of the World's Food Supply. New York: New, 2010. Print.
11. Koeppel, Dan. Banana; The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World. New York: Penguin Group, 2009. Print.
UNTESTED: The US government conducts no independent testing of these crops, because patents prevent outsiders from testing the biotech seeds without company approval. [5] I think this is proof enough. Due to the mistrust and evil practices of Monsanto, wouldn't it make sense only to allow testing to insiders with similar interests, or scientists with a big pay day? Due to the lack of testing on GM foods, safety is a huge concern.[1]
Concerns encompass human and animal health, to the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds. [2] Critics argue that after only 14 years of using GMOs, it is still unclear whether or not the technology has long-term adverse effects. [2] It is irresponsible to make GMO so widespread, before we know the repercussions. To trust the government to make these decisions may not be wise. Especially, when scientists themselves are arguing the negative effects.
Scientist, Doug Gurian-Sherman, who served on an FDA biotech advisory subcommittee from 2002-05 stated, "We simply aren't doing the kinds of tests we need to do to have confidence in the safety of these crops."
His studies on minute doses of Roundup (a natural herbicide) disrupt sex hormones like androgen and estrogen. [3] The inert ingredients in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans kill human cells and disrupt the synthesis and action of human sex hormones. [3] Animals studies conclude that Roundup is an endocrine disruptor. [3]
We must remember humans aren't the only ones to worry about here. All organisms, down to insects are at risk. Take the bee for example. Without bees crops would be at risk, and humans would be affected. US bees are dying from antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, likely to be the result of widespread (GM) crops.[4] This is just one small example of how one thing going wrong can snowball into an out of control disaster down the road.
CORRUPTION: CON and I both agree on Monsanto's corruption. You state that the evil of one company shouldn't affect the rest of them, but that is assuming the rest are more trustworthy. Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta combined own 47% of the global seed market which robs consumers and farmers of the most basic right to choose what they will eat and grow. The entire GM seed business is based on corporate control: The seeds are non-replenishing and must be purchased anew each season, eliminating the farmer tradition of saving and re-using seeds. [6]
The World's Top 10 Seed Companies
1.Monsanto (US) - $4,964m - 23%
2.DuPont (US) - $3,300m - 15%
3.Syngenta (Switzerland) - $2,018m - 9%
4.Groupe Limagrain (France) - $1,226m - 6%
5.Land O' Lakes (US) - $917m - 4%
6.KWS AG (Germany) - $702m - 3%
7.Bayer Crop Science (Germany) - $524m - 2%
8.Sakata (Japan) - $396m - <2%
9.DLF-Trifolium (Denmark) - $391m - <2%
10.Takii (Japan) - $347m - <2% [7]
I thank the CON for pointing out some of the good things that have come out of GMO such for illnesses and such, and I think�the core issue behind the genetic engineering is ethics. I am here to say that it is morally wrong to change nature to suit man's desires. Take salmon for instance. If you took a GM salmon, and for some reason it got loose, and mated with regular salmon in the wild, it runs the risk of contaminating wild salmon with altered genes. "Recent scientific evidence shows that if GM salmon escape, they could successfully breed with wild stocks, potentially destroying the genetic adaptations that have allowed fish to thrive for millennia." [8]
RESEARCH/HIDDEN DANGERS: This is probably the most confirming evidence I found in this whole debate. Monsanto has ties in everything. Your research that came from Southern Illinois University Carbondale (that you claimed not to be from Monsanto... which is true) is actually indirectly influenced by Monsanto.
Monsanto donated $104,000 to be used for research under the direction of Jason Bond and Ahmad Fakhoury, professors of plant pathology in the College of Agricultural Sciences. [9] The donation stems from an ongoing research agreement between Monsanto and the university. [9]
"Monsanto saw an opportunity to assist the college in a way that would also help them achieve their goals," Bond adds. [9]
I think we can all read between the lines.
MASSIVE PESTICIDE POLLUTION: A lot of GM crops do require more pesticides than their counterparts, but even if some do not it's not at no cost. Some GE crops are actually classified as pesticides. [10]The GE New Leaf potato, produced the Bt toxin to kill pests that ate it. EPA regulations had never anticipated that people consume pesticides as food. Creating foods that are poisonous to pests, are also poison to us.
CROSS BREEDING: The CON and I both agree that preventing cross breeding is near impossible. I don't know about all people, but most do not have the means to grow a myriad of vegetables in their own organic garden. To constitute food as organic is a lengthy, expensive, and controlled process. I want the right as a consumer to go to the store and buy my organic vegetables like anyone, and I'd like to be assured that they are not tainted by these dirty GM practices.
http://www.naturalnews.com... [1]
http://laudyms.wordpress.com... [2]
http://pameladrew.newsvine.com... [3]
http://santostrading.com.au... [4]
http://laudyms.wordpress.com... [5]
http://www.csmonitor.com...... [6]
http://www.gmwatch.org...... [7]
http://www.treehugger.com... [8]
http://www.sustainabletable.org... [10]
I'd like to thank my opponent so far for the debate. In the previous round I mentioned I would only be providing rebuttals in that round since the character limit prevented me from making any additional arguments. This round I will heavily state my case and the positives of genetic engineering and I will explain how genetic modification is a necessary tool in order to improve agriculture, cure diseases, and to prevent deaths of millions of people throughout the world. I will also be explaining why genetically modified organisms could be considered safer than organisms cultivated and produced under traditional breeding techniques.
Contention 1: Genetic engineering is more precise and produces desirable results faster than conventional breeding.
Let's consider what genetic engineering actually does verses conventional breeding. In a tomato plant with 10,000 genes coding for different characteristics of the tomato, genetic engineering would allow for the precise insertion of 1 gene from another organism into the DNA of the tomato plant [12. http://bit.ly...;]. Wheras with conventional breeding techniques, half of the genes from one plant and half of the genes from another plant of the same species are combined together and a desirable product is much harder to produce. For example, it took 6000 years for the puny teosinte grain to be conventionally bred into modern grain that Americans call corn [13. http://accessscience.com...]. Genetic engineering could have made this process much faster because corn is only different from teosinte by 3 genes [14. http://www.koshland-science-museum.org...]. Modification of only 3 genes out of 32,000 genes is what made corn a much more desirable grain than the worthless teosinte [15. http://www.sciencedaily.com...].
This is what makes genetic engineering all the more preferable than conventional breeding. All types of plants could be modified to produce desirable traits much faster than traditional breeding methods and it would also become possible to induce new traits in plants that wouldn't have been possible with conventional breeding methods. These would include increased drought tolerance, increased frost tolerance, disease resistance, bigger yields, sweeter fruit, more nutrition and basically any other quality that would provide some kind of benefit. The possibilities are virtually endless with genetic engineering, while they are severely limitated by conventional breeding.
Contention 2: All forms of crop breeding can produce unsafe crops.
Ever since genetic engineering became possible in the early '70s, GM crops have been much more scrutinized and tested than their conventionally bred counterparts because of the unknown effects these new plants would have on the environment and in people. But traditionally bred crops are often tested less often than GM bred crops because the traditionally bred crops don't provoke any reason for testing because they are considered as safe. But some traditionally bred crops such as potato and celery produce their own toxins naturally. Traditional breeding has and could produce just the right combination of genes from two relatively non-poisonous plants to produce a plant that produces highly toxic potatoes and cause a very severe case of human poisoning. There was a case in California where a new variety of celery was bred from conventional techniques, grown in fields, and harvested. It was only until it was harvested that it was found to contain very high levels of toxin. This was evident when the celery harvesters developed very bad skin rashes [16. http://bit.ly...].
What this illustrates is that no matter how plants are bred, conventionally or genetically engineered, there exists risk of producing something that is harmful. All of these risks though could be mitigated through adequate testing for both traditional breeding and genetic engineering.
Contention 3: Genetically modified crops save lives.
Earlier in the debate I mentioned that genetic engineering was able to produce human insulin much more efficiently than before. My opponent agreed that it did. I also mentioned the case of spreading banana diseases in South America and Asia and that genetically modified bananas have saved the lives of millions of people because no longer were their plantations being wiped out due to these cruel diseases. They now have food to feed their children who were dying. This is one of the greatest advantages of GMO technology.
Contention 4: Organic crops are not necessarily natural nor safe.
Organic food is a food that "is produced using methods that do not involve modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, do not contain genetically modified organisms, and are not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives" [17. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. But when you look at the word natural, many of our food crops sold in stores are not natural because they have been grown and altered by humans [16. (Above)]. Tomatoes, Corn, Grapes, and Apples have all been transformed from their natural states in nature to produce something that is desirable for humans to eat. My opponent wishes to eat something that is organic, and not genetically modified, but in reality these food items I have listed above are technically genetically modified through conventional breeding techniques. Is it still safe to assume that anything organic is safe? An organic potato could have high levels of toxins harmful to humans. It's organic, but it's not really safe. All food is potentially harmful, not just GMOs.
Untested: My opponent has claimed that round-up ready soybeans have inert ingredients that kill human cells and disrupt the synthesis and action of human sex hormones. But this is also true of regular soybeans and organic soybeans. "Raw soybeans, including the immature green form, are toxic to humans, swine, chickens, and in fact, all monogastric animals." [18. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. So I really don't see the argument here.
Corruption: My opponent keeps using the Corruption of Monsanto and other biochemical companies to try to say that GMOs are unsafe. But that's a logical fallacy, an ad hominem. Just because a company is corrupt doesn't mean what they produce is unsafe for human consumption. In fact, I'm still here, alive, and I have eaten GMO products. My opponent's arguments here have no backing for the banning of GMOs.
Research/Hidden Dangers: As I have pointed out above, all crops have hidden dangers, even the ones not genetically engineered. My opponent keeps using the corruption of Monsanto to say that GMOs are unsafe, but has yet to provide any convincing truth to that argument.
Massive Pesticide Pollution: Several natural plants are toxic, such as arsenic. The fact that plants now contain their own pesticide doesn't mean pesticide pollution will go up. If crops are engineered with their own pesticide, it will eliminate the harmful pesticide spraying that occurs over agricultural fields. This will eliminate the pesticides that could be inhaled by animals such as humans, providing a much safer alternative than spraying.
1: Con has compared genetic engineering to conventional breeding. This is like comparing an apple to a banana. There are huge differences between the two that I will discuss, which make them virtually incomparable. Put it this way: The most critical difference between natural and GM breeding is that natural breeding crosses organisms that are already closely related—whereas, GM breeding slaps together genes from up to 15 wildly different sources. [1] The mixing of genetic material across species is a dangerous and unnatural. [2] New amino acids and proteins are created that are not recognized by our bodies when ingested. [2] This means even if it looks like food, in reality the DNA is not and does not benefit our bodies in the same ways. Precise techniques do not equate success. It is possible to make an endless supply of Frankenfood that endangers our health, animals health, and contaminates our world.
2: What dangers does an organic strawberry, or lettuce head have? It is a fallacy in itself to say that I haven't provided any convincing argument that GMO's are unsafe. The corruption of Monsanto is not what makes GMO's unsafe. GMO's in their own right are dangerous. A powerful corrupt corporation spreading GMOs at an alarming rate and driving good small farms out of business makes it even worse. I laid out several arguments, such as the salmon, and the bees that show just two ramifications of GMOs. I have stated in many sources how it affects human health. Monsanto is not the reason to stop GMOs, it just justifies why it all the more important.
3. GMO foods have not done anything for world hunger, nor have the improve agriculture. Earlier this year, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a detailed report entitled "Failure to Yield". [4] The report's findings were straightforward and indisputable. [4] After 21 years of research, billions of dollars, GM crops have done nothing to significantly increase yield: so much for the "feeding the world's hungry" spin. [4]
4. Just because a potato may be toxic doesn't mean you can discount all the other healthful organic foods that are good for the body before their genes are modified. Your using the potato as a fallacy, "poisoning the well", when GMOs are the real culprits poisoning our bodies.
Untested: When I cited my example, it was not meant to isolate the dangers of soybeans. Roundup on its own is an endocrine disruptor, and can cause cancers, and a myriad of health problems.http://www.biosafety-info.net... My argument has been oversimplified by the CON. This is not only affecting humans. A lot of other organisms are feeling the affects, and even the bee population is suffering.
Corruption/dangers: Many concerned doctors hypothesize that the disease-causing symptoms of GMOs being consumed today will take years to show up. [3] GMO's aren't going to make you drop dead. That is not the argument. The damage can take years, decades, generations. Each generation is weaker than the previous due to the damage. I recommend the book Pottenger' s Cats. It's great research that proves how successive generations fare far worse than the previous due to poor eating. You state that I am attacking Monsanto, GMO's. But I am not attacking Monsanto to make my case. I am simply stating the facts of Monsanto to support the reasons why GMOs need to be banned. Take for example, nuclear weapons. They are well known dangerous. On top of that fact, you put them in the wrong hands and they can threaten the world. This is my case for GMOs. On their on right, GMO's are proven to be harmful. Concurrently, they are in the wrong hands (Monsanto), which endangers people, our children, our children's children, and mother nature. Is it fair to say that just because I am okay that I will threaten my kids, or their kids? Is it fair to say that just because I can eat them for 5 years I will be fine, but how about 20, 40 years down the road. We need to think long term as a whole, not individual and selfishly.
Massive Pesticide Pollution: Several natural plants are not themselves toxic, they are grown in soil that is contaminated, therefore some plants such as the coffee bean plant for example, soaks up the contamination more readily. GM plants only contain this pesticide, because GMO's have altered and inserted it. It is a siction that GMO plants don't require pesticides. As I have proven,many times they require more. Animals are not just inhaling these chemicals. We are having them for dinner. The whole case for GMO's was to improve agriculture, and provide benefits for humans. It has done no such thing, and caused bigger problems.
I hope people don't walk away from this thinking that GMO food can prevent world hunger. The exact opposite is occurring. The same poor nations are where thousands of farmers routinely commit suicide after being completely bankrupt by Monsanto's overpriced and ineffective GM seeds. [5] This is well known as the GM genocide. Traditional seeds turned out providing much better. This may be the case because GMO plants require much more water than conventional, and many of these areas are prone to very dry and hot weather.
All the more reasons to support the banning!
http://www.mnn.com... [1]
http://conspiracyfactory.blogspot.com... [2]
http://www.naturalnews.com... [3]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4]
http://www.activistpost.com... [5]
Who are the people opposing genetic modification? Americans, Europeans and rich people are. The United States alone has so much food that 1/3 of Americans are obese [19. http://www.cdc.gov...]. People are asking what the point is in GMO's. "They're unsafe", "I'm going to get cancer", "We don't need them, we already have enough food". Of course Americans want to make GMOs illegal because they're afraid of the potential side effects. But many of these claims are not based on hard cold research and statistics. It's also possible to make safe GM crops and it's also possible to ban the crops that are harmful.
My opponent says GMOs can't cure diseases. But they already have, and they still have the potential to do so. Has it ever come across your mind that malnutrition is a disease? The GM banana has saved lives of millions of people in Asian and African countries. It is in fact curing the malnutrition disease because these people are now able to eat something and not die as a result. My opponent says that GMOs caused diseases. How is this true?
My opponent keeps saying they're unsafe to eat. And yet I said that gene-transfer is a very low possibility. The cancer that might result from eating GMOs is not from the GMO itself, but is from the chemicals sprayed on the plants themselves. GMOs are safe to eat. This is not a debate about pesticides, this is a debate solely on GMOs. My opponent keeps bringing up pesticide and herbicide usage time and time and again. GM crops can be engineered to produce their own pesticide. My opponent even says that Round-up is "a natural herbicide" in round 3. And then she says roundup is dangerous. Well what about natural plants? They aren't necessarily safe either. I've highlighted the dangers of natural plants in the previous round. These GM plants don't need those chemical sprayings in order to survive, therefore the argument is irrelevant.
My opponent also says GMOs haven't done anything for world hunger. But she did not attack my argument in the other round that the GM banana has saved the lives of many people in Africa. Therefore the argument is sustained. She cannot bring up a new argument saying that GMOs haven't done anything for world hunger, because I have already shown that several times it has and my arguments went uncontested.
Many of the other arguments my opponent brings up like the creation of new proteins are all possible to an extent. But when only a few genes are modified out of several thousand, only a few proteins need to be tested, therefore the process for testing them is quite easy and straighforward [20. http://www.gmo-compass.org...]. Testing of these GMOs would mitigate this issue because the effects of these proteins could be examined. And not all GM modification results in a new protein being formed [20]. My opponent says that the process of GM modification from different sources is unnatural. But just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it's safe or unsafe. The modern corn, tomato, grapes can be organic, but they are not natural because humans modified them by conventional breeding.
And at the last of my opponent's debate round, she has this to say:
"All the more reasons to support the banning!"
I dare you to tell that to a sick, malnurished, and dying African child. GMOs have put smiles back on the faces of these families in Africa because it gives them hope, and it gives them their pride back that they can grow what they need to grow.
The CON makes his case that I am attacking Monsanto, not GMOs, or that I am attacking the pesticides, and not the GMOs. As I have stated in previous arguments "the corruption of Monsanto is not what makes GMO's unsafe. GMO's in their own right are dangerous."In reality, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including: allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. [1] I also proved that the research that claims GMOs to be safe is tainted, as it is endorsed by the Biotech companies themselves. The CON found scientists from Southern Illinois University Carbondale stating GMO safety, which I uncovered to be biased. Monsanto donated a large sum of money for that very research and said "Monsanto saw an opportunity to assist the college in a way that would also help them achieve their goals,"
CONs argument is that GMOs have cured disease because he defines malnutrition as a disease. That is a bold claim to make, and only supported by one instance of a GM banana. GM bananas did not save the world from malnutrition. If all you ate were GM bananas, you would still suffer from malnutrition. The world has a surplus of food, but still people go hungry. [2] They go hungry because they cannot afford to buy it. They cannot afford to buy it because the sources of wealth and the means of production have been monopolized by corporations. [2]
We are told that ... by refusing to eat GM products, we are threatening the developing world with starvation, an argument that is imaginative ... The only reasons GM crops are being used is because they are patentable and are potentially an enormous profit, while gaining control over the world's food supply. [2]
GMOs fail allergy tests
GMOs may make you allergic to non-GM foods
GMOs and liver problems
GMOs, reproductive problems, and infant mortality
GMOs inked to sterility, disease, and death
"Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food" - Hippocrates
http://www.seedsofdeception.com... 1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2
I'd also like to thank my opponent for a challenging debate and for requiring me to do a lot of research on this subject. I'd like to say thanks to anyone who is reading this because it means you are taking a lot of time out of your day to come and read all of this. If anything, I'd say reading the conclusion of this debate is most important, so please do not vote until you have read the debate entirely.
This whole debate boils down to two things: It comes down to whether or not GMOs are really necessary. It also comes down to whether or not GMOs are more beneficial than harmful.
Below is a map of the world showing the percentages of populations that are undernourished. Parts of South America, Asia and largely Africa are the most undernourished places in the world.
http://www.restlessbeings.org...; />
Image from: http://www.restlessbeings.org...
Let's take a look at Africa for example. Africa's population has more than tripled since 1960, yet the amount of food production in Africa has gone down 10% [21.http://www.guardian.co.uk...]. As a result, many people are not getting the food they need and many of them aren't getting enough nutrients. One solution is to let nature take over and to let people starve and die. But is that really the best solution we have to offer? In my opponent's closing arguments, she says that people go hungry because they cannot afford the food even though the world has enough food to support every single person on Earth. But there are no supermarkets in Africa. Even if we could ship food to Africa, transportation costs would be tremendous because there's no road system to distribute the food to everybody [22. http://bit.ly...]. And even if we could give them food, who's going to pay for the costs of transporting the food to everyone in the continent almost every week inside a country that is insanely massive? The best thing we can do is to let Africa become sustainable by letting them use new technology that would allow them to be able to do so.
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com...; />
From: http://bigthink.com...
But here's an interesting tidbit. Almost all of the farming in Africa is practically organic [23. http://www.nytimes.com...]. It's because these people can't afford commercial chemicals to spray on their farms. But organic farming hasn't been able to support the people of Africa. What's the solution to world hunger? My opponent hasn't provided anything as an alternative solution to GMOs. Drought is a major problem in Africa. Organic food is not resistant to drought, neither is food produced with commercial farming methods. But a GM corn that is resistant to drought can fix the problem [23]. Disease is also a major problem and GM bananas are already showing that they are a viable technology to going around that problem.
Issue of safety. My opponent keeps saying that GM technology hasn't done anything (present tense), but uses the issue of safety as it could create massive problems in the future (future tense). But my opponent is ignoring what GM technology can do in the future, and is ignoring that GM technology, while in use for more than 40 years, hasn't created massive safety problems in the past. I want you voters to realize this that my opponent has been weaving in and out of the facts to appease her case to the voters. But what she ignored is crucial.
- My opponent keeps stating that GM technology could create safety problems in the future. But in the past 40 years when GM technology has been prevalent and 90% of all corn we eat is genetically modified, nothing of a widespread epidemic of disease has occurred from the GM technology. I have also shown that GM testing is a precise science that can stop plants containing any toxins harmful to humans from entering the food supply. I'd also like to say that allergens only effect a small portion, 1% - 2% of the population [24. http://www.fao.org...]. And while allergens effect a small portion of the population, new research is showing that they can be cured permanently [25. http://www.fmshk.org...]. So the notion that my opponent would like you to believe that genetic engineering produces something that enters the food supply, causing widespread disease and death is completely unfounded. It hasn't happened in the past or currently even with my opponent showing that Monsanto has an influence on test results. Testing procedures can always be more heavily regulated and supervised, ensuring that GM crops are considered much more safe in the future.
- My opponent also keeps using 1 same source over and over again that says GMOs are unsafe (seedsofdeception.com), while I have shown plenty of sources that say say the opposite.
The bottom line is that GM technology can do things non GM technology can't do.
GMOs can solve world hunger while non GMOs can't.
GMOs can allow Africa to become sustainable so that countries don't have to keep providing expensive foreign aid.
GMOs can be created to include vitamins and nutrients like iodine that can solve iodine deficiency problems.
GMOs can fix diseases like malnutrition.
GMO testing is very precise and has not, nor will not, produce anything that could cause widespread disease in the future.
GMOs are safe and they are beneficial. Vote Con.
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by wmpeebles 6 years ago
Posted by wmpeebles 6 years ago
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. To win, Pro wold have to show that there is something characteristic of GMOs that makes them all inherently unsafe. Pro did not provide that, nor even any convincing examples of bad consequences having actually occurred. Pro provided convincing counterexamples of beneficial products. Pro granted the benefits of medical products, while denouncing them as unethical for having fooled with mother nature. Safety was granted, however. Con did a very good job of researching the topic.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct simply because Cons biggest and best thought out argument was in the last round. Con get arguments because the last round was conclusive, GMOsn have the potential to save lives.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.


text:
Apple TV on the way?Valentino brings 3D fashion to the Web, tweet seats cater to those with smartphone withdrawal, and an Apple TV is rumored to come in three sizes.
It's Tuesday December 6, 2011. I'm Kara Tsuboi at cnet.com and it's time to get loaded. Apple TV rumors are surfacing again. This is time Australian tech site Smart House says a major company in Japan leaked information that Apple is gearing up to launch three TV sizes ranging from 32 to 55 inches. It's also rumored that the displays will ship at the same time as Apple's A6 processor which is what the iPad 3 is expected to run. Similar to Siri the software will supposedly let users call a program using their voice. This week fashion and tech worlds collide. Famous fashion designer Valentino has digitized 300 dresses original sketches and archival footage. Users can download an application to their Mac's or PC's but most of the data is stored on the Cloud. Couldn't say while the collection is comprehensive some of the tech like the zoom feature is outdated. And that is not fashionable. The Sony Ericsson line will soon be known just as Sony. The company is planning to drop the Ericsson from it's smart phone and future tablet's line. Sony still plans to release it's Nozomi smart phone at Mobile World Congress next year but that will likely be the last Sony phone with Ericsson branding. The change should be official by the middle of next year. If you haven't heard of the H1 Siri hack, it's an unofficial way to install the voice command software on the last gen iPhone4. It came out yesterday but users had reported issues with rebooting, malfunctions with the camera and possible bricking. The Siri hack also sends users data to the software's creators not something most people are comfortable with. So unless you need to talk to your iPhone4 we recommend waiting for a bug fix. Finally some major US theaters are now encouraging people to use their phones mid performance. Places like Cincinnati Symphony and the St. Louis Shakespeare Festival are setting aside tweet seats for people who need to connect to their social networks. Proponents say it helps people stand gauge with what their watching by swapping information about the show. Let's just hope that tweet seats are the cheap seats. Those are your headline for today, I'm Kara Tsuboi for cnet.com.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|IBNS Journal 57-2
IBNS Journal Volume 57 Issue 2 will be posted to members shortly. Articles include: Ireland Currency Commission Essays, Banco Nacional Ultramarina Notes for Portuguese India in Goa, Moire Patterns. Login to download your copy.
|Read more...
|Banknote of 2018 Nominations
Do you know of a Bank Note Issued in 2018 that should be nominated for the Banknote of the Year? Send your nominations to firstname.lastname@example.com
Nominations closed 31 January 2015. Voting Closed 29th March 2015.
The Banknote of 2014 is Trinidad & Tobago's 50 Dollar Note
Click on the Nominations to view images of the Obverse and Reverse of each note
View Full Terms and Conditions


text:
Many observers doubted a woman could ever pole vault over five-meters. But the barrier was officially broken Friday at the World Athletics Championships.
The women's pole vault final was delayed for two days because of bad weather. But the wait was worthwhile for Russian Yelena Isinbayeva. The gold medal favorite cruised to her first world title and on her final attempt, broke her own world record by easily clearing the bar set at 5.01 meters. She says the weather was the biggest factor in her achievement. "Today when I woke up, the sun was shining in my room. And I thought 'yes, today is everything.' The weather was perfect. And I am so happy that today the weather was so good for us," she said.
Isinbayeva also was awarded a $100,000 bonus for setting a new world record.
Russia picked up two other gold medals Friday. Sergey Kirdyapkin strolled to a personal best time in the men's 50-kilometer walk. He clocked three hours, 38.08 seconds under bright sunshine in the Helsinki city streets.
After three straight silver medals at the world championships, Olympic winner Olga Kuzenkova finally spun and threw for gold in the women's hammer with a toss of 75.10. "I am really thrilled with happiness," she said.
In the evening session, Ladji Doucouré of France clocked 13-point-zero-seven seconds in the 110-meter hurdles while Xinag Liu of China followed (13.08) to outclass four Americans. Allen Johnson was the fastest of the quartet to earn bronze (13.10). Doucouré says he almost did not win.
"I really came well out of the starting blocks. The first four or five hurdles came out pretty well. At the end I made a few mistakes that almost cost me the race," he said.
American Allyson Felix became the youngest world champion in the women's 200-meter event. The 19-year-old Felix sped past pre-race favorites Christine Aaron of France and Jamaican Veronica Campbell to win in 20.16 seconds. Felix says her run progressively improved. "I did not get out as well as I would have liked to coming off the turn. And then I just wanted to keep going and just stay relaxed, stay calm. I knew I was really strong and I just wanted to rely on that," she said.
American teammate Rachelle Boone-Smith also sprinted hard, moving from fifth place to dip in front of Arron (22.31 both women) and claim silver.
Jeremy Wariner added another gold medal for the United States by easily winning the men's 400-meter race in 43.93 seconds. "I was fortunate enough to get lane three and have them all out in front of me. I could keep an eye on every single one of them while I was running. So I could not ask for a better race than that tonight," he said.
American teammate Andrew Rock followed for a silver medal (44.35).
The strong finish to the day boosted the U.S. medal count to 11 gold, seven silver and two bronze. Russia vaulted into second place with four gold, four silver and five bronze. Ethiopia slips to third in the standings with two gold, two silver and one bronze.


text:
The problems that the show encountered weren't standalone versus mythology. Basically the show didn't really get off the ground because the network pretty much wanted to back away from the concept five minutes after they bought it and then ultimately, the show itself is also kind of odd and difficult to market. I actually think they did a good job, but it's just not a slam-dunk concept. It wasn't like our numbers were huge and plummeted. They were tiny and still somehow managed to plummet. We alienated both our viewers. – Joss Whedon on Dollhouse.
I could write a lot just about the paragraph above and not say it nearly as well as he said it. Joss actually had a bit more to say and the stuff about FOX backing away from the concept (due to the sexual/exploitation/fantasy) elements were particularly interesting. As ever, Whedon handled himself with grace and good humor. I recommend reading Mo Ryan's feature and the full interview with Whedon.
Dollhouse returns tonight with two episodes at 8pm. It will also air two episodes from 8p-10p on December 11 and December 18, before taking a break and then airing its final three episodes on January 8, January 15, and January 22.


text:
When Leo Honeycutt's long-awaited authorized biography of former four-term Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards hit the bookshelves in late 2009, Trina Scott bought a copy.
Edwards was convicted in federal court of scheming to rig riverboat casino licenses during his last term in office, the same year Trina, who grew up in Baton Rouge, graduated from Broadmoor High School — 1996.
"I knew who he was and kind of what happened," said Trina, adding that it wasn't something she was very interested in at that age.
She discovered a lot of things in "Edwin Edwards: An Authorized Biography" and, when finished, came away with a surprisingly different viewpoint about Edwards. In fact, she, like thousands of others, wrote Edwards a letter telling him that, while she was a registered Republican, her opinion of him had changed as a result of the book.
"After the book came out, I got about 3,000 letters and email a week from people telling me their opinions had changed," said Edwards. "I wanted to let them know I'd gotten and appreciated their letter, so I created a form letter that began with 'Dear friend' that I personalized by striking out 'friend' and putting their name."
This is what he sent to Trina. She wrote back and said she was hoping for something a little more personal than a form letter. He wrote her back hoping to give her a more favorable impression of himself. In her next letter, Trina told him she lived only about 30 minutes from the prison and that she would like to visit him.
"She was smart enough to send a picture of herself," quipped Edwards.
He made all the necessary arrangements for her to visit, and she showed up one Saturday and spent seven hours with Edwards.
"I kept hoping all the way there I wouldn't like him — that he'd be cocky and hateful," confessed Trina. "When he came in the door (of the visitors' room) it was like nothing I'd ever seen before. He was going around talking to everyone. He was larger than life is the best way to explain it. When I met him, I thought he'd be like bitter or negative or angry, but he was so positive and upbeat about everything and I just … I don't know … I was amazed by that, I guess."
"It was like throwing a rubber raft to a drowning man," said Edwards. "I was 80 years old, in prison and broke. She intrigued me and flattered me."
So, for an entire year, every Saturday, Sunday and holiday, with a couple of exceptions, Trina made the trip to visit Edwards at the federal prison at Oakdale from 8 in the morning until 3 in the afternoon. They would talk about "everything and nothing" and, during the course of those extensive conversations their relationship began to evolve.
"We couldn't do anything but get to know each other for a year," said Trina. "I feel like I learned every detail about him. That made us a lot closer."
Edwards had already confessed his love for her several visits back when she got ready to leave one day. As she turned at the door for one more goodbye, she found herself saying "I love you."
"I opened my mouth to say bye and it just kind of fell out. I was wishing I could grab it and put it back in, but it was too late," said Trina, laughing at the memory. "After that, I decided to embrace it and just go with it."
On July 30, Trina became Edwards' third wife in a small family ceremony at the Monteleone Hotel in the French Quarter. It took place eight days before his 84th birthday and was followed by a luncheon at Galatoire's.
"He pretty much did everything," said Trina, who turned 33 Aug. 19. "All I had to do was buy a dress and show up."
"Few things are better the third time around, but this is," added Edwards.
Trina may not have initially been familiar with many aspects of Edwards' life, but she was aware of his reputation with women. "You'd have to really have your head in the sand not to be aware of that," she said with a chuckle, but since a relationship wasn't what she was looking for she didn't give it much thought. "I'm certainly not worried about it now."
Being the third Mrs. Edwards has thrust her into the spotlight and she seems to be taking it all in stride. The relationship is nothing like she thought it would be. Many people are naturally skeptical of the 51-year age difference between the two, but both say it is not an issue for them. "It's difficult to explain," said Edwards, "but it happens. We're living proof of that."
"It never crosses my mind unless someone mentions it," said Trina, adding that she does understand why it might be puzzling for some people. "As far as I can tell, my children are OK with it, and as long as they're OK with it, that's all that really matters to me."
Trina has two sons from a previous marriage — Logan Scott, 14, and Trevor Scott, who turns 12 Sept. 3. Logan is a student at East Ascension High School, Trevor at St. Amant Middle.
"They get along with Edwin so well. They absolutely love him," she said, admitting she worried at first about how her sons might view the relationship.
Edwards takes an active role in the boys' lives — picking them up from school, helping with homework, riding the neighborhood on four-wheelers and joking around with them. And yes, mom is sometimes the butt of that joke.
"He's the most fun; everything you mention has a joke," added Trina.
What is no joke to her are the comments made by some that she's a bad mother for raising her children around the former governor. "If they knew us personally or spent any time around us, they would know the truth," she said. "Some people are going to be negative and ugly no matter what."
Edwards confessed to having "some trepidation" in helping to raise teenagers at his age. "I didn't know what I could teach them, but they're teaching me. I'm happy to be living with them. They're very well-behaved, mannerly boys."
Just as Edwards gets along with her children and family, Trina said she enjoys a good relationship with his. "It's hard for us all to get together, but we had everyone over here for Father's Day," she added. "We have lunch together when we can on a fairly regular basis."
She's aware, too, that a lot of people think she married Edwards for money — "which he doesn't have" — or attention but "I honestly had no idea … I knew that people might occasionally want to take a picture of me, but I had no idea how big of a deal it was going to be. It surprises me now."
Since Edwards was released from house arrest in July, he has been touring the state with Honeycutt to promote and autograph copies of his biography. Trina has been constantly by his side. She is always surprised by people's reaction to Edwards, by "how many people love him." And she said it seems every person who comes up to speak to the former governor has a story to share with him — the first time they met, the first time they voted for him, how their opinion has changed as a result of reading the book.
The Edwardses both have maxed out on the number of Facebook friends allowed — 5,000, so that they've had to create a fan page. Just last week, someone created a Facebook page to petition President Barack Obama to pardon Edwards, so Edwards can run for governor of Louisiana one more time.
"I'm not responsible for it, but I support it," said Trina of the pardon petition. "I'd love to see that happen."
Touring the state for book signings and speaking engagements is just part of the couple's busy life. They've begun filming for a reality TV show "pitch piece" to shop to the networks, several of which have expressed interest.
"At first I through it would bother me, I was so camera shy," Trina said of having the cameras around. "Now it's like they're not even there. Most of what they've been filming so far was when we were out so it's not too much of us at the house … we would of had cameras in our faces anyway."
She's excited about the prospect of a reality show, but said she won't get upset if it doesn't come to fruition.
Trina, who graduated from LSU-Alexandria last December with a degree in psychology, is also excited about attending law school, which she originally planned to begin this fall. "I hope to be known as something beside Edwin Edwards' wife one day," she said, adding that it does make it easier to help other people and causes because of the connections that relationship provides.
The busy schedule she and Edwards have been keeping lately has also forced her to schedule time with her friends weeks in advance, no more spontaneous get-togethers. She and her best friend even have a standing phone date for every Wednesday. Trina added that they've all been understanding and supportive.
The former governor is also working on a sequel to Honeycutt's book. Focusing on the trial that sent him to prison, the book will use federal court documents, Trina said. And, while she's seen the boxes of material, she hasn't read through it.
Also on the newlyweds' agenda is getting to know their Pelican Pointe neighbors better, a process that's been hindered by their hectic schedule; doing more within their community; and traveling, including their delayed honeymoon. "He wants to go out West … I'll follow him wherever he wants to go."
Until then, Trina likes having the former governor's undivided attention: "We're together 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I think I got him in his better years."
"One thing's for certain, the first two weeks of this month — no one's life has been better than mine," offered a smiling Edwards.


text:
Early American Style Dresser
Today I am sharing with you an Early American style dresser and mirror that I bought at an auction. It's a large piece and not something that is practical to move constantly. So I put it in my living room until I had time to work on it. After it was finished I put it back in my living room since my booth was full. It's a balancing act to keep the booth stocked and have a supply of inventory ready to go, too.
As I mentioned, it is a large piece. And heavy, too! I cannot even begin to lift it with the drawers in. With the drawers out it is a little easier but it's not something I want to move on a daily basis. It's made of solid wood and the drawers are extra deep which allows for plenty of storage.
My guess is this dresser was manufactured mid-century (-ish). It's not an actual early American piece, but rather a nice reproduction.
My guess is this dresser was manufactured mid-century (-ish). It's not an actual early American piece, but rather a nice reproduction.
The veneer on the original was very pretty, but there was minor wear and tear over the majority of the surface area, so it was ideal for a fresh new look. In addition to the removable mirror, it also has a tempered glass top which was custom made for the dresser. I took the glass off for the "after" photos, but will put it back on when I offer it for sale.
I considered doing something "wow" to really play up the details on the dresser, but in the end I went with an elegant white finish and let the details remain subtle. I think the overall effect is restful and calming which works well for bedroom furniture. I very lightly distressed some areas and gave the drawer fronts a worn heirloom finish to make it appear that it has naturally aged over the years. I'm still debating if I like the worn finish and might tone that down a little before I take it to the booth.
I actually finished the dresser over the 4th of July weekend, and yes it has been sitting in my living room since then. But I finally got the other furniture pieces cleared out so I could snap some photos of this one. But I need to get it out of the house before cooler weather sets in so we can enjoy the fireplace. Since then I've finished more projects and added a few more pieces back into the room! Honestly sometimes it gets a little crazy around here. My husband takes it all in stride, but I'm secretly hoping he gets fed up one day and says, "Honey, this is crazy; I'm going to buy you a workshop!"
Dimensions: 51" wide x 24" deep x 35" high (height with mirror attached is 70 1/2" high)
Dimensions: 51" wide x 24" deep x 35" high (height with mirror attached is 70 1/2" high)


text:
It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Djayed
reply to post by muse7
I think the responses you will get will be vague, misleading, and complete right BS. Ryan has nothing to bring to the table but to help Romney hold this country back.
Bush and his views about science really hurt our country, we need to stop allowing religion to dictate the republican party's platform.
Originally posted by schuyler
Originally posted by Djayed
reply to post by muse7
I think the responses you will get will be vague, misleading, and complete right BS. Ryan has nothing to bring to the table but to help Romney hold this country back.
Bush and his views about science really hurt our country, we need to stop allowing religion to dictate the republican party's platform.
His question was about Ron Paul's position on states' rights. It had nothing to do with Ryan. It had nothing to do with Bush and science. It had nothing to do with the Republican Party. It had nothing to do with Romney. If there's anything misleading it's your post, which isn't even on topic.
Do you mean that nobody should be allowed to make decisions about any civil issues? I don't think you do. I must be misunderstanding.
I don't think States can be trusted with civil issues, we saw it in the 60's when the federal government had to step in and extinguish the racism and violence towards blacks in the South. I'm not saying that the federal government should be trusted, . . .
The "reason" why people want to ban something doesn't matter at all, the question is do they have enough votes to get it through? So unless there is a Constitutional question, 51% ought to do it.
but I believe that abortion and gay marriage should be allowed. Even if some people don't agree with that. Morality is subjective but placing a ban on abortion and on gay marriage would infringe on the rights of people just because of some consider those things "immoral".
The only reason we have the Church and State position we do now is because that's what the Supreme Court interpreted it to mean. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the arrangement has to be the way we have it. As for the idea that Biblical reasons can't be used in reaching government decisions, I'm confused again. The whole Civil Rights movement from the Civil War on is full of Reverends, Priests, Preachers, and Ministers. They used Biblical arguments. Heck Obama has used "Brother's keeper" several times now. (Even though he's got the context wrong.)
We also have the separation of church and state, the basic arguments against abortion and gay marriage stem from the bible.
The solution to a Sarah Palin Supreme Court is to reduce the number of issues that are Constitutional questions and return those decisions to the States. In the case of abortion, or anything else, there will always be states that allow it and those that don't. You can choose where to live. You can live where the rights that are important to you are protected. Otherwise, you risk the possibilty that those rights aren't available anywhere for anyone. Your choice.
Well, (and watch this for weasel words) in a sense we are, and in a sense we're not. As you know, we started out with a lot of feisty and independent states that wouldn't let anyone tell them what to do. They sort of grudgingly agreed to set up a federation and surrender some of their powers to it, in order to make things run more efficiently. (Forgive me for going over this easy stuff. I know you know it, it's helping me think.) Ever since, there's been pushing and shoving on each side to get more power for themselves. But however the battle went, there were really only two players, the central government and the states.
Why bother calling ourselves a country then?
You can. It's usually more of a hassle than moving to, say, Kansas, but it's an option.
If you don't like the laws of your country - why can't you just move to another country?
Excellent question. You're right, that's the question. (I'm about to get wordy, come back in five minutes.) A State can only make rules for it's own citizens. D.C. makes rules for every citizen in every state. It's taking away the power of the state to make rules on that subject. Do that often enough and the states become just rubber stamps for the President. That's not how it was supposed to be.
Why is a State's right to determine what's right for everyone more important and more valuable and more right than a country doing the same thing?
You can. It's usually more of a hassle than moving to, say, Kansas, but it's an option.
Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"[150] and "an unshakable foe of abortion".[151] In 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have defined life as beginning at conception at the Federal level.
in answer to your question, op - ron paul is following a constitutionalist perspective that limits federal power.
Unlike the way it's gone to state literally just being servants to the Federal. That is the absolute last thing the Founders intended


text:
advanced search
Mario HanusFabian Winckler
deltatre AGMünchener Str. 101b,Haus 5D-85737 IsmaningPhone: +49 (0)89 / 45225-150Fax: +49 (0)89 / firstname.lastname@example.com
Advanced search
Only words with 2 or more characters are accepted
Max 200 chars total
Space is used to split words, "" can be used to search for a whole string (not indexed search then)
AND, OR and NOT are prefix words, overruling the default operator
+/|/- equals AND, OR and NOT as operators.
All search words are converted to lowercase.
Displaying results 1 to 10 out of 48


text:
make an impact & money
doing work you love
doing work you love
sign up and get career lovin' tips & advice
straight to your inbox!
straight to your inbox!
Feeling dissatisfied with your job (or career path)?
Hey, I'm Rebecca, and I'm here to help you out of job dissatisfaction and into career clarity, so you can help others, enjoy what you do, and make money at the same time!
If you're here, I'm going to guess you either:
You want to do work that makes an impact, uses your strengths, and that you actually enjoy doing, while earning the money you need to live the lifestyle you want. At the same time...
You're not sure where to start and the whole process of changing your career feels overwhelming.
"It's been over three years since working with Rebecca, and I'm still so grateful for the work we did. Since our time together, I've completed my Masters at the London School of Economics, have just accepted an Executive Director position with an international NGO, and I'm hanging up my professional pilot hat. Finally. Rebecca - I couldn't have done all this without you. Working with you helped me so significantly. It helped to put me on this new path that is in line with what I actually want to be doing. From the bottom of my heart, thank you Rebecca! I can't thank you enough."
-Sonya Sangster, Vancouver, Canada
For the most part, your work is "ok", but...
What's the deal with Rebecca?
I believe in using our work as a force for good in the world. In fact, I believe that by simply doing work we love (to the best of our ability given our life situation), we can help heal the world. No grandiose gestures to "change the world" necessary.
My heart's calling? To help you figure out what that thing is that combines your unique purpose, skills, strengths, values, ideal lifestyle, and interests into something only you can do. Then I help you make it happen - while busting through some fears and limiting beliefs along the way.
What People Are Saying About Rebecca's Career Consulting
Kevin Hassett, Florida, USA
Since working with Rebecca, I have quit my job, bought a round-the-world airplane ticket, and will be continuing to build my own drop-shipping company while I travel!
Hayley Beamish, Vancouver, CAN
Rebecca's step-by-step process made the whole procedure of "figuring out what to do with my life" less daunting. I have now come up with a concrete plan to go to culinary school and begin a cooking video blog & web series.
Jon Fleming, Vancouver, CAN
Rebecca was able to help me focus and get the clarity I needed. I have now decided to pursue my own career as a coach, to help others improve their self-esteem at work!
With my Vancouver clients, I like to meet face-to-face (because we can!). However, if you live elsewhere, we can still work together--thanks to technology (Yay!).


text:
Now we know why the Carlos Tévez 'Welcome to Manchester' billboard so irked Sir Alex Ferguson when the Argentine swapped Manchester United for Manchester City last summer.
Having publicly dismissed Tévez's qualities as insufficient to warrant his continued employment at Old Trafford, perhaps the bleak financial picture painted by United's annual accounts yesterday betrayed the real reason for the player's defection from red to blue. By taking his recent strike-rate to 11 goals in nine games as City coasted past Blackburn at Eastlands, Tévez not only proved his goalscoring prowess, he also lifted Roberto Mancini's team into the top four.
Noisy neighbours or not, City are now beginning to make actions speak louder than words. Win their game in hand on United and Mancini's team will close to within three points of the champions and it is Tévez's goals that are providing the hot breath down Ferguson's neck.
-- Has Carlos Tévez proved Sir Alex Ferguson wrong? Have your say in our sport debate
United are due at Eastlands in seven days' time for the Carling Cup semi-final first leg. With Tévez in this form, it is not a trip that Ferguson will be relishing.
With new signing Patrick Vieira sidelined with a calf injury, City had few problems swatting aside a Blackburn team they could meet again at Wembley in next month's Carling Cup final. Blackburn would have granted Vieira a gentle re-entry into English football. Even before Tévez's seventh-minute opener, Sam Allardyce's players gave the impression of a team that would happily settle for emerging from Eastlands with a point.
With on-loan Chelsea forward Franco di Santo operating as a lone striker, Blackburn were always going to struggle to avoid extending their winless run to 11 games. And their task became ever more difficult when Tévez put City ahead with his 13th goal of the season inside the opening 10 minutes.
Blackburn goalkeeper Paul Robinson, whose excellent form this season has prompted genuine talk of an England recall, will hope that Fabio Capello and goalkeeping coach Franco Tancredi missed the weak punch that nudged Martin Petrov's corner into the path of Benjani on the edge of the six-yard box.
The Zimbabwean forward, starting his first Premier League game since Dec 2008, guided the ball to the far post, where Tévez held off two defenders before bundling the ball into the net with his right thigh.
Another game, another goal for the Argentine, who was allowed to leave Old Trafford last summer due to Ferguson's insistence that he 'wasn't worth' the £25 million required to turn his two-year loan into a permanent contract.
There are not many United forwards threatening to score at anything like the rate that Tévez is managing at the moment, yet Mancini will know that if he sustains this form, the striker will fuel real belief at Eastlands of a push for the title between now and May.
City for the title? A month ago, such a suggestion would have appeared utterly ridiculous, with Mark Hughes's dismissal implying they were nothing more than a club experiencing yet another crisis. But the failure of United, Chelsea and Arsenal to pull clear of the pack has enabled Mancini to talk up a surge to the club's first league championship since 1968.
As Vieira pointed out last week, none of City's rivals can claim to have a forward line of such potency. Even Benjani, seemingly heading for the madness of Notts County in August, looks capable of competing with Tévez, Emmanuel Adebayor, Robinho, Craig Bellamy and Roque Santa Cruz for selection.
And it was his shot against the post on 40 minutes that led to Richards, who sprinted almost 80 yards, racing into the penalty area to score City's second goal from close range.
Trailing by two goals, Blackburn were backed into a corner, but Allardyce introduced forwards David Hoilett and Nikola Kalinic at the start of the second half in an effort to inject some purpose into his team.
Sitting just three points above the relegation zone, Blackburn cannot be complacent about their survival hopes but, if they continue to perform so anaemically, they will slide towards peril.
City are only looking upwards, however, and Tévez ensured that they climbed into the top four when he scored his second of the game on 49 minutes. Tévez started the move with a pass to Benjani from the halfway line before sprinting towards the penalty area from where he collected the return ball and beat Robinson from 20 yards.
Tévez should have claimed a hat-trick when he wastefully headed wide from six yards on 59 minutes, but the next goal came from Blackburn, when Morten Gamst Pedersen curled the ball past Shay Given from 20 yards 12 minutes later.
The hat-trick that Tévez deserved came in stoppage time, however. Robinho's lay-off prompted a crisp finish from the edge of the penalty area. "Fergie, sign him up," roared Eastlands. Too late for that. Tévez is proving his point in blue.


text: MarketResearch.com predicts global TV advertising will reach $163 billion this year Published on January 09, 2012. Rockville, Md.—Global TV ad spending will reach $163 billion this year, up 5.4% over last year, according to a new forecast from MarketResearch.com. Quadrennial events, including the U.S. presidential election, the London Summer Olympics and the UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) Championship, will help boost TV ad spending this year, according to the report. By 2017, global TV ad spending will total $214 billion, MarketResearch.com predicted. The full report is available for purchase here. Most Popular In this article: BtoB


text:
The labyrinth is an ancient symbol of wholeness; and the path of the labyrinth represents our journey in life. Labyrinths help us feel centered and balanced, and gain insights into our lives.
This deck of labyrinth wisdom cards highlights the symbolism embedded in the labyrinth, and assists you in accessing your inner wisdom. These labyrinth wisdom cards will guide you to finding answers to questions, advice in difficult situations, and encouragement on your path in life.
The accompanying handbook contains information about labyrinths, tells you how to use these cards, and provides additional information on the particular aspects of each wisdom card
Labyrinth Wisdom Cards is a deck of 48 guidance and inspirational cards based on the symbolism in the labyrinth that reflects aspects of your journey in life.
14.99 € *
Delivery weight: 420 g
In stock
Labyrinth Wisdom Card Reading
This is a one-to-one, 30 minute, personal interpretation of the Labyrinth Wisdom Cards chosen over a video call with Tony Christie, creator of the Labyrinth Wisdom Cards
45.00 € *
Delivery weight: 21 g
In stock
Prices incl. VAT, delivery extra


text:
Monday, March 11, 2013
St. Patrick's Day at the Indoor Winter Market
You can count on the Emporia Farmers Market for St. Patrick's Day treats and delicious baked goods. Those who arrive at the market early, starting Saturday at 10AM, will have the opportunity to take home some fresh and local greens! Market products this time of year include romaine lettuce, spinach, carrots, radishes, fresh farm eggs, yeast breads, a variety of cookies, popcorn, and assorted treats. Live and cut herbs, as well as starter plants and seeds for gardens are for sale, as well. The market is also the place to pick up a one-of-a-kind gift of jewelry, decorative bags, yard ornaments and other handmade items.
Live music will be provided by Anton Zouplna III. Stop for a cup of coffee while you sit and listen as this talented young man entertains with a tasteful mix of guitar instrumentals.
The Indoor Winter Market takes place on the first and third Saturdays through April at the Emporia Humanitarian Center, 215 W. 6th Avenue. For more details about the market or about becoming a market vendor, please see the EFM website at www.emporiafarmersmarket.org or contact market manager, Tracy Simmons, at 620-343-6555.


text:
5m black stereo 1/4" jack extension cable for headphones.
You have no items in your shopping cart.
support and sales: email@example.com
Problems with your login?comments and ideas: firstname.lastname@example.com
SchneidersLaden Skalitzer Str. 135a 10999 Berlinabove Kaiser's @ Kotti (U1, U8) Tel: +49(0)30-97894131 or +49(0)30-695808770
- Imprint
- Privacy Policy
© Copyright SchneidersLaden GmbH. All Rights Reserved.


text:
The stories of the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division's assault on Juno Beach on 6 June 1944 have been told many times and in many ways. This page will not attempt to re-tell those stories. It will simply set the scene and list members of the Royal Canadian Engineers who were decorated for gallantry that day.
Role of the RCE
The RCE component was assigned many tasks that day and landed according to the demands of those tasks. First on the beach was the 5th Field Company with a platoon of the 18th under command. Their task was to clear the beach of underwater and other anti-landing obstacles. AVREs* of the 5th Assault Regiment, RE and tanks of the Royal Marines were in support of the 5th Field Company along with other supporting RE heavy equipment specialists. The goal was to clear four landing zones on the beach in less than an hour.
Forty-seven AVREs were landed on Juno Beach supporting the RCE. Although operated by Royal Engineers, it was a Canadian sapper, Lieutenant J.J. Denovan, RCE, who conceived the design for the AVRE (Assault Vehicle, Royal Engineers), essentially a modified Churchill tank outfitted with a 105-mm mortar called a Petard. The AVRE could also mount a dozer blade, assault bridge, crane, or fascines and rolled track for crossing broken ground. The Petard proved especially useful in opening exits through the sea wall bounding Juno Beach on 6 June 1944.
Reality set in very early and some things did not go as planned. In some cases, the Sappers landed after the infantry. Nonetheless, they moved to the front as quickly as they could. In other cases, the Sappers landed first and got to work immediately. Lanes were breached, often by Sappers working in up to four feet of water on the rising tide removing mines and shells from obstacles and sometimes towing them out of the way. All this was done under fire and many were killed or wounded. Ironically, some sections of the 5th Field Company arrived late on the rising tide and one of their landing craft was struck by no fewer than three mines. Rough weather in the Channel kept two sections at sea for two days!
For the most part, the 6th and 16th Field Companies and the rest of the 18th Field Company landed on their assigned task sites between H+5 and H+90 minutes according to the plan. Some landing craft were stuck in up to 10 feet of water and men used lifelines to pull themselves to the shore. With their D-4 and D-7 armoured dozers and dump trucks filled with supplies, they set out to do their jobs under continuing machine gun, mortar, and sniper fire. With the support of RE AVREs, the first beach exit was ready by 0930 and others open by noon. A section from the 6th Field Company destroyed a bunker by digging a sap under its foundation while under fire and covered by the infantry.
Once the infantry and armour were off the beaches, and the tide began to recede, major efforts turned to removing the rest of the obstacles and improving the exits and marshalling areas. Sappers also accompanied the infantry and armour off the beach. A platoon from the 6th Field Company was redeployed to clear a minefield gap by hand as the 'Crabs', Sherman tanks with flails, had yet to arrive. Engineer reconnaissance parties accompanied troops moving inland and dealt with booby traps and mines as expected. Snipers were a constant danger. The CO of the 16th was wounded three times before being evacuated.
The Cost
The day was costly. Eighteen sappers were killed and more than 40 wounded. Their stories can be viewed in the article Juno Beach Tributes: D-Day Fallen Sappers.
Gallantry Awards
D-Day awards to Canadian sappers included the Distinguished Service Order, Military Cross, Distinguished Conduct Medal and Military Medal to the following:
Maj Frank Alexander McTavish - Distinguished Service Order - 5th Field Company
Lt James Edward Whittaker, Military Cross, 5th Field Company
Spr Walter Richard Coveyduck, Distinguished Service Medal, 5th Field Company
WOII Seymour Wylde Howes - Military Medal - 16th Field Company
Sgt James Albert Romaine, Military Medal, 18th Field Company
L/Sgt Alexander Finnie Killah - Military Medal - 5th Field Company
Lance-Sergeant Garbutt Chapman - Military Medal - 6th Field Company
Sgt Alexander Semple - Military Medal - 18th Field Company
Lance-Corporal Harry Joseph Bartolacci - Military Medal - 16th Field Company
Lance-Corporal William Arthur Amos - Military Medal - 18th Field Company
L/Cpl John Aubrey Clifton - Military Medal - 5th Field Company
Spr Raymond Donald Foster - Military Medal - 16th Field Company
Spr Ralph Charles Spencer - Military Medal - 6th Field Company


text:
Haym Salomon: American Patriot, a new children's book by Susan Goldman Rubin, tells the story of a Revolutionary War-era immigrant who helped George Washington's army survive by providing money and supplies. Haym joins the Sons of Liberty and shows up at Fort Ticonderoga, returns to New York and gets arrested by the Redcoats, escapes from jail the night before his hanging, and eventually helps found the Bank of America. In Rubin's version, he does it all with a puppy by his side, drawn with cute appeal by David Slonim. It's one of two recently-published children's books that exemplify a view of American Jewishness that is not only anachronistic but ineffective, based on assumptions about what Jewish children need that are more suited to the 1930s than the 21st century.
I remember Howard Fast's 1941 version, Haym Salomon: Son of Liberty, from the Jewish section of my childhood bookshelf. I don't recall actually reading it, though: I was too busy with tales set in Chelm, or starring Zlateh the Goat; later, I became entranced with Chaim Potok's tortured adolescents and Anzia Yezierska's rebels. When I wanted Jewish warriors, I had Bar Kochba and the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Next to them, Haym Salomon couldn't hold a candle—or, a gun.
Since as far back as 1911, Salomon biographies have been a fixture of American Jewish publishing: a new one appears every decade or so, including several versions for young adults, starting with Fast's. Teenagers are, perhaps, old enough to recognize heroism even when it comes in the form of a no-interest loan. The author of many nonfiction books for children, Susan Goldman Rubin aims for the younger set, but Salomon's story suffers from the need for simplicity. He was, let's face it, a moneylender—not the profession most likely to excite a boy about his Jewish heritage.
At least the Jewish Revolutionary War hero of Hanukkah at Valley Forge, by Stephen Krensky, is a soldier, though we never actually see him fight. Instead, he explains the story of the Maccabees to General Washington, who comes across the light of the soldier's menorah while wandering through the snowy camp. With gorgeous paintings by Greg Harlin, the book alternates between scenes of the two revolutions: by the end, Washington has walked off into the night, a war still left to win. He's inspired, though: "The fight for liberty is an ancient one. And no one likes squirming under the thumb of a distant king."
Krensky knows what children like: He's the author of books on subjects like dragons and dinosaurs, along with dozens of adaptations of the TV show Arthur. But the stilted language shows how this book too often privileges history over youthful interest, while never providing quite enough facts to feel real. The author's note explains that "some of Washington's dialogue here has been borrowed from his own writings in the hope of echoing his real voice"; Krensky bases the tale on a memory supposedly shared by Washington years later at a lunch with a Pennsylvania Jewish family, and passed down in the family's lore. This family doesn't appear in the story itself, and we don't get much detail about the generic soldier, with one caveat: While some soldiers "were without coats or shoes," the Jewish hero soldier looks about as warmly dressed as Washington himself. We also don't learn where he found himself a menorah: perhaps on Valley Forge's Upper West Side?
Haym Salomon: American Patriot can't decide whether it aims to entice children or make them eat their kosher greens. We get that cute dog (not, apparently, based on fact), along with a pirate and his parrot, but young readers must also wade through too many pages filled with encyclopedic explanation. ("The Hessians did not care about the American Revolution. They were career soldiers who fought other people's wars to earn money. The British had hired them to fight on their side and had brought them over to America.") Rubin describes Salomon as a religious man, and includes a famous scene in which Salomon raises $20,000 for the Revolution at a Yom Kippur service. But she leaves out the anti-Semitism highlighted in Fast's version (the villainous British who capture Salomon mutter "cursed Jew" at every opportunity). Being Jewish in Revolutionary America, according to Rubin, was no big deal: Haym Salomon, proto-Joe Lieberman.
There is a kind of Shylock anxiety to both books, a "does not a Jew bleed (for his country)" tone. They may be displayed by multi-culti teachers during units on the American Revolution, but it's hard to imagine children reading them other than dutifully, which begs the question: why do they exist?
The answer is simple. To declare, "us, too." We can be both Jewish and American, even patriotic: celebrate Hanukah and camp with fellow soldiers, observe Yom Kippur and finance freedom. As far back as the Revolution, we served our country. These books reflect an approach to educating American Jewish children that is exactly opposite to the actual needs. My parents or grandparents—and their Christian classmates—might have needed to be told that there was no conflict between being Jewish and being American. The issue for them was acceptance. Today the concern facing Jews is assimilation.
More than anything else, reading is what made me, as a child, feel Jewish—what made me want to be different, and to celebrate that difference. There were books about Chelm—being Jewish was funny. And Bonchte the Silent—being Jewish was steadfast. And Anzia Yezierska—being Jewish was scrappy. And the Rabbi of Nemirov—being Jewish was compassionate. And Tevye—being Jewish was, sometimes, a pain in the neck.
I have four nephews under the age of ten, and I wish a similarly sundry connection for them. Most of the time, they're more interested in wrestling with each other than in any form of Jewish heritage. That's age-appropriate, I guess; I only want their noses stuck in a book some of the time! And when they do settle down to read something Jewish, it can't be too mainstream American. They're more likely to stay interested if they have to do some wrestling with their heritage, too.


text: Nutrition is Your Competitive Edge. Today's healthcare environment demands professionals who recognize that nutrition is a key ingredient in successful patient outcomes. Professionals who study the science behind nutrition……who apply research-based best practices…who advocate for nutrition care as a critical component of patient care. These are the physicians, nurses, researchers, dietitians, pharmacists and other experts who attend ASPEN's Nutrition Science and Practice Conference. View ASPEN18 Photos


text:
|Nelly Thompson was a happy housewife who did not care much about anything but keeping her house and raising the kids. But there was one thought which deprived her of her sleep. She had once seen Terry, her son, in the shower, and his sizeable cock was her obsession. One evening she could not keep in her lust anymore and simply pulled Terry's pants off! At first she was anxious whether Terry would like her mature body, but the boy was so passionate:
Mary's father, lives with Mary, while their mother moved to another town after
divorce. Bob has many friends, and Mary, a shy pretty girl,
is often the target of their jokes. Bob was having more and more intense fantasies about Mary giving blowjob to him and his friend, so there came an evening when he invited his sexy daughter to have a couple of drinks: Mary performed so good she was all soaked in cum of her father and his amazed friend!
|Anthony Kowalski, a divorced teacher, loved his cute blonde daughter Amanda more than anyone in the world. Since her very childhood he enjoyed taking photos and filming her on camera. When she grew into a very beautiful teen girl, Anthony's shootings acquired a different taste. Sometimes he thought that it would have been great to film her naked, and one day he talked her into some naked posing, which led them to a totally hardcore incest scene:
Customer Support
Related random videos.
There are no videos in the list.
Language: japanese | spanish | italian | french | german | dutch
Random pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
Random friendly site pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
Rape sex porno tube links: Rape video | Sex video rape | Rape videos | Rape sex videos: | Rape sex porn
Rape Portal - the best rape video sex site on the net! Raped teens, daughters embedded on rape videos and photo galleries.�Mega full violence collection of real rapes you can found on this extreme rape video site and it's all for�FREE
Incest Portal - You can see incest sex video here. | Rape porno - You can see rape porno video here. | Raped Moms | BDSM Rape | Rape Anal | Rape Asian | GangBang Rape | Country Rape | Defloration Rape | Femdom Rape | Rape Incest | Perfect Rape | extreme-rape | amazing-rape | crazy-rape | boundrape | facialrape | videofantasyrape | humiliationrape | gapingrape | screamingrape | rough-rape | punishedrape | tiedrape | kedcorp naturewanderers | Friendly Sites |
incest sex galleries mostbrutalvideo incest 1005 incest?id=templar tit job sex tube | asians incest tube tmnt sex website | guys fucking sleeping moms to sexy | four penetration dictor porn pics to watch english sex movies online
hot incest videos in family incest thong dream sex | real sex at home with my mother video tiger tube sex | sexmms tiny tits getting interracial sex | download video force incest porn tiny virgn sex
uncensored videos wife on bus gets stripped naked and incestd titys sex | force her incest porn movies threesome sex site | father incest daughter video sex download three sum sex | hot videos of incest in nagpur tila tequila sexn
This site can ONLY be accessed by legal adults (over 18 or 21). This site MUST NOT be viewed by minors!
All models are 18 years old or older. USC title 18, #2257
Proof on the file with custodian of records
We do not condone non-Consensual sex.
This site is about ROLE PLAYING FANTASY only and performed by professional actors and models.


text:
|Complete Games for Sale - click name to purchase
(All games are previously played unless otherwise noted)
Game Condition => Pricing Scale (click link above)
# 01130 - 1995 Game of Knowledge game University Games $19.95
Excellent Condition
# 00000 - 1995 Game of Knowledge game University Games $16.95
Very Good Condition - Sold Out
# 01132 - 1995 Game of Knowledge game University Games $15.95
Acceptable Condition
Game of Knowledge game
©1995, University Games
Ages: 10 to Adult
Players: 2 or more
|Don's Game Closet
|Game Parts Available for Sale
No Parts Available for Sale
|1 Game board
6 Playing pieces
36 Rings
(6 of each color)
1 Standard 6-sided die
396 cards with
1584 questions
|Game Contents
|Minimum Purchase Required More info
Click the "Buy Now" Button, which opens a secure
window to PayPal to make your purchase. To make
your purchase add up the total of the parts you wish
to order and enter that amount into the box of the first
page. On a later page, on the left side of the page,
please list the parts you are ordering in a drop down
box. Parts will be sent out within two days of payment.
|Related games
See 1990s games
See Educational games
See Trivia games
See University Games
|Check Our
Recently Added Games