Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Being against TPP because of NAFTA is fighting the last battle again. There are no jobs to lose with [View all]CK_John
(10,005 posts)33. So you don't believe we have a jobs problem, but why the nasty snark and
the big fuck you???
It's my belief and I am trying to offer a needed solution. SocSec at age 50 is needed.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
51 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Being against TPP because of NAFTA is fighting the last battle again. There are no jobs to lose with [View all]
CK_John
Feb 2014
OP
The usurpation of US laws? That's usually a rightist argument employed against UN mandates
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#8
Manny--that's an Internet search. Tell me the actual US law you think is usurped?
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#12
I don't have a problem with extending copyright protections for individual authors by 20
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#24
First off, you agree that 1. US law would need to be changed to abide by the TPP
MannyGoldstein
Feb 2014
#27
Manny...you are utterly incorrect in point 1. The fallacious point 1 makes points 2&3 moot.
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#37
Indeed...so why are you blaming Obama for a piece of legislation by a Republican?
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#40
I don't click on links without a summary. What is your specific question? nt
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#41
Well, pointing out that you are blaming Obama for a law passed 16 years ago is hardly scoring
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#44
Cali, I am asking a very specific question---what US laws will be usurped? PIL is a complex
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#14
Ok.....that's different from usurpation. I can challenge a law, without usurping it. nt
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#16
Actually, you cannot sue on the basis of lost profits. You can on sue on the basis that investment
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#36
Every case you posted proved my point...you cannot sue merely for.loss of profits...
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#46
I'm really not seeing the problem with UNCTAD, and while you say this forces standards down,
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#49
I did read what you posted. And I agree that it is expensive for governments to defend these
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#51
And these are still meaningless terms because no one is being specific. Look, Krugman
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#18
You're re fighting NAFTA, it was, but it is not today. We are trying to get a treaty with Asia
CK_John
Feb 2014
#5
India and China both have a thriving urban middle class, not all sectors are doing as well, but
CK_John
Feb 2014
#6
See my post below. He's been pimping TPP from one angle or another for 6 months+. n/t
X_Digger
Feb 2014
#32