IGX

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:You're better than that.

Divorce your reflexive predjudice against her ( I share that ) and look at the subject matter.

The subject matter is a free trade treaty. That's all we really know.

That's totally untrue. We have shitload of leaked documents...which is why reasonable people across party affiliation are deeply concerned, if not for the content of those potential agreements, at least for the subversion of process.

Fast Track authority should be revoked. Full stop.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:You're better than that.

Divorce your reflexive predjudice against her ( I share that ) and look at the subject matter.

The subject matter is a free trade treaty. That's all we really know.

That's totally untrue. We have shitload of leaked documents...which is why reasonable people across party affiliation are deeply concerned, if not for the content of those potential agreements, at least for the subversion of process.

Fast Track authority should be revoked. Full stop.

It has the approval of the POTUS and the majority party in both houses of Congress. It's fully in line with the process-- far more so than Obama's other signature achievement.

That said, I'm not an expert on the actual details, only the histrionic interpretations of them.

That's the type of brilliant observation that brought us the Iraq war and NAFTA.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:That's the type of brilliant observation that brought us the Iraq war and NAFTA.

As someone said earlier in this thread-- you're better than that.

Rubbish. Its not histrionics to fundementally disagree with a secretive process wholly owned and operated by lobbyists ( for refresher, I am myself a registered lobbyist).

So no... I stand by both Iraq and Nafta. Intentional blindness to the issue for expediency and to avoid hard thinking ( Iraq fits best here) is exactly what's going on here. That's not histrionics, that's pointing out the obvious problem.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Intentional blindness to the issue for expediency and to avoid hard thinking is exactly what's going on here. That's not histrionics, that's pointing out the obvious problem.

You seem unfamiliar with how politics, and the politicians, in DC works.

FWIW, I support Sen. Wyden's efforts towards transparency. Sen Warren's-- not so much.

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Intentional blindness to the issue for expediency and to avoid hard thinking is exactly what's going on here. That's not histrionics, that's pointing out the obvious problem.

You seem unfamiliar with how politics, and the politicians, in DC works.

FWIW, I support Sen. Wyden's efforts towards transparency. Sen Warren's-- not so much.

check that bullshit.

You know damn well I know exactly how it works. This is...in fact the problem.. That we all know how it works.

And drop the nonsensical Logic that because Warren wrote an article that I support her as a politician. I don't....but even a broken clock gets right twice a day. Its that sort of purposeful obfuscation that undermines your point altogether.
Read that shit and the reason out for the class why the "move along...nothing to see here" argument should be trusted.

terra wrote:They somehow manage to get us arguing over shit like gay marriage and any other non-issue...

Gay marriage isn't a non-issue. It's was/is a critical part of "their" plan.

And if it was a non-issue, you wouldn't see every Jewified nation on earth diverting legislative and judicial resources into putting it into law.

Turdacious wrote:

Swamp Fox wrote:I know that previous free trade treaties have cost jobs and destroyed industries in the USA.

And deflation in consumer prices-- there is a trade off.

This is the understatement of the thread. Free trade is good. Yes, some people lose their jobs, but everyone else in the country benefits. The special interests who pop up to prey on jingoistic nitwits every time a trade deal comes up are the ones who are trying to fuck over the country. The President is actually doing something right for once.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
check that bullshit.

You know damn well I know exactly how it works. This is...in fact the problem.. That we all know how it works.

And drop the nonsensical Logic that because Warren wrote an article that I support her as a politician. I don't....but even a broken clock gets right twice a day. Its that sort of purposeful obfuscation that undermines your point altogether.
Read that shit and the reason out for the class why the "move along...nothing to see here" argument should be trusted.

You're shocked I wasn't swayed by an article written for the college protest crowd? We need to stop the corporations and fight against slave wages (for people where the other option is no wages)! Her argument is populist protectionism.

No turd I'm shocked that you're being such a tool. I gave you several points of reference to begin aquainting yourself with the issues. You did a surprisingly shabby job of responding with anything other than drivel.

Labeling the reasonable distrust of the meat of this deal histrionics is foolish. It reminds me of how the left loves labeling everyone who supports the second smenrnt a gun nut paranoid about full registration. there are lots of crazy preppers hiding ammo in the back yard... There response may be extreme but it doesn't mean they aren't right to worry.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:No turd I'm shocked that you're being such a tool. I gave you several points of reference to begin aquainting yourself with the issues. You did a surprisingly shabby job of responding with anything other than drivel.

Labeling the reasonable distrust of the meat of this deal histrionics is foolish. It reminds me of how the left loves labeling everyone who supports the second smenrnt a gun nut paranoid about full registration. there are lots of crazy preppers hiding ammo in the back yard... There response may be extreme but it doesn't mean they aren't right to worry.

LOL. By 'several points of reference,' you mean two. One was an op-ed that I read, the other is a podcast that I'm not going to spend an hour listening to. Try again.

You have a niggardly understanding of embedded links. The Warren article included several. Let me hold your hand.....

https://wikileaks.org/tpp/
https://wikileaks.org/tpp/#start
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/


A variety of other opinions...

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tran ... rtnership/
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/12/the_10_ ... rtnership/

Oh Hey Look....some people disagree with that take...Hmmm. I'll read those too.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/tpp/?_r=0
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/2164 ... s-big-deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery ... n-workers/

For a guy who plays smart, you're about as sophisticated in your conservatism as a Rockwell painting.

I am so right-wing I am anti-corporation. But, even if I were pro-corporation I would be pretty damned shocked that not only would they not tell me what was in the bill but they wouldn't even tell me why they wouldn't tell me what was in the bill...

Blaidd Drwg wrote:You have a niggardly understanding of embedded links. The Warren article included several. Let me hold your hand.....

https://wikileaks.org/tpp/
https://wikileaks.org/tpp/#start
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/


A variety of other opinions...

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tran ... rtnership/
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/12/the_10_ ... rtnership/

Oh Hey Look....some people disagree with that take...Hmmm. I'll read those too.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/tpp/?_r=0
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/2164 ... s-big-deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery ... n-workers/

So it's a trade agreement that says that each country has to play by the same rules? Treaties like this are by nature take it or leave it. Be honest (because you're someone who understands the legislative process)-- the reason you want this thing negotiated by Congress is because you oppose it.

And those articles in favor of TPP-- all written by people with backgrounds in the dismal science (i.e. people who studied how trade and markets actually work). The others-- not so much.

bennyonesix wrote:I am so right-wing I am anti-corporation.

What?

The corporation is a-cultural at best and anti-cultural at worst. And by cultural I mean traditional Western Culture.

It exerts a leveling, fragmenting and deracinating influence on society.

It also promotes discontent and dissatisfaction with the present and a simultaneous obsession with the here and now.

It orients the individual towards mere manufactured wants and away from the true needs of man: spiritual and artistic.

It is a powerful tool for providing physical comfort. But it is very very dangerous.

I am sure you and I define right-wing differently. You likely think of Nazism. I say Nazism was not right-wing or fascist but rather a Communism for the Race. Nazi Germany v USSR was an internecine conflict.

The fascist regimes were all anti-corporation and pro-tradition: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Peru, Chile, Japan etc...

I think the best way to put it is that both the left and the right dislike corporations for their focus on the here and now. The Right because it destroys the traditional and the Left because it won't leap into the future by overcoming itself...

And those articles in favor of TPP-- all written by people with backgrounds in the dismal science (i.e. people who studied how trade and markets actually work). The others-- not so much.

Do you know who an economist is?

Anyone who says he is.

Fascists are anti-corporation?

Did you just say that?

Also, in regards to the TTP;

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) wants the Senate to attach a provision that would require that religious liberty be factored into any new trade deals, injecting a social issues debate into an already fraught battle over economics and prosperity. He and Brown will get votes on their proposals on Monday evening.

And Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have offered amendments aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration. Cruz says he won't support anything that doesn't include his amendment.

Turd, what is your opinion on TTP providing an avenue for corporations to sue entire countries, and, the idea of suits against countries for perceived threats to future, possible profits?

Testiclaw wrote:Fascists are anti-corporation?

Did you just say that?

Yes I did say that.

I define fascism as a third way response to European Liberalism and Communism. It was a political movement that sought to re-institute the traditional and Western Christian pre-Liberal and anti-market culture. As I said above, under my definition Nazism was not a type of Fascism.

Of course, you could argue in the meta and ironic manner of today and say that the people who called themselves fascists were simply the dupes of the Liberals and thus pro-market and pro-corporation... But that would be facile and of little to no use...

Your turn. How do you define fascist?

What fascist regimes were corporatist?

Testiclaw wrote:Turd, what is your opinion on TTP providing an avenue for corporations to sue entire countries, and, the idea of suits against countries for perceived threats to future, possible profits?

Would corporations, or the arbitration board, have the ability to compel countries to pay under TPP? Without that ability (if corporations actually get the right to sue that you're talking about), it wouldn't mean much of anything.