Enough! Can we stop the divisive anti-TPP @#$%-stirring?

[MannyGoldstein]

Look people, I'm getting tired of the LIES about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, slung by the moonbat followers of a wild-haired Socialist and his soul mate, that difficult woman from Massachusetts.

Let's look at some of the BS accusations, vs. the REAL truth.

Accusation: the TPP is secret.
Fact: Literally hundreds of corporate representatives and lobbyists have instant access to the latest negotiations, updated on a daily basis. DAILY UPDATES!!! What could be more transparent? Would HOURLY updates make these moonbats happy? Incredible! Members of Congress can see documents too, if they show up in person so an educated person can walk them through all the big words. And if there are no scheduling problems. Look, the Office of the rich Wall Street banker in charge of cutting deals US Trade Representative is busy, they don't always have time to meet.

Accusation: The TPP will only benefit a few Americans.
Fact: Literally hundreds of thousands of Americans are in the top 0.1%. Hundreds of thousands! That's a lot of people!

Accusation: The TPP will send a ton of American jobs to other countries.
Fact: It's the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Partnership Do you moonbats even know what the word partnership means? It doesn't mean one-sided.

Accusation: The TPP will cripple US sovereignty, giving corporations rights currently reserved for our elected representatives.
Fact: In case you haven't noticed, the Era of Big Government is over. Government sucks, corporations are much better. As President Obama explained it perfectly, "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems". And don't give me any of that nonsense about USPS having to pre-fund 75 years of pensions in advance, corporations could do that too if they didn't need to pay competitive salaries to their CEOs. And if they didn't need to actually deliver anything their customers paid them for.

Hopefully my learned-yet-concise prose has cut through the Far-Left Flatus of Falsification that has wafted across our exceptional country. Now that you little people know the TRUE truth, you can calmly return to eking out your meager existences. And maybe learn a few words of Vietnamese, like this:

"Tôi tự hào để đào tạo bạn để mất công việc của tôi, tôi được thăng lên một cái gì đó gọi là Soylent Green."

(Note: if you look that up using Google translate, it shows a translation that's totally wrong, don't believe a word of it. Damned Left-wing disruptors and their Google-bombing and tricky tech stuff.)

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[NutmegYankee]

1. And remember, this is 'Murika! You too can be part of that 0.1% someday.

Now bow down and worship your corporate betters.

[orpupilofnature57]

205. +1000 !!!!

[NanceGreggs]

2. Have you noticed that ...

... the people who are complaining about the secret negotiations are the same people who somehow know every detail of what's in the finalized "secret" agreement - which, BTW. hasn't been finalized?

I think what we need to rely on for the TRUE Truth is the usual unimpeachable source - the "some people are saying" folks.

[Egnever]

9. +1

[rhett o rick]

10. The President is trying to keep the negotiations secret but there have been leaks.

And some Representatives have been privileged to see parts of it. No one claims to know all of it. But if you think the parts that haven't been revealed might be beneficial to the 99%, you're dreaming. From what has been revealed, this agreement is very damaging to the 99%. I wonder about those that try to tell us not to be concerned. Do they really think that the corporations that are writing this agreement will look out for us instead of their own profits and power? Is that what you think? Why is the president against having open debate on this agreement?

[AgingAmerican]

16. Have you noticed that...

... the people who for over a year have denied Obama would ever sign on to such an atrocity have painted themselves into a corner? Most don't dare enter threads like this one any longer...

The one or two still in active denial remind me of the 'Black Knight' from Monty Python's Holy Grail...

[NewDeal_Dem]

25. Have you noticed the element of hysteria in their discourse lately?

[pampango]

84. I dare say "Hysteria Blvd" is a 2-way street.

There’s a lot of hype about T.P.P., from both supporters and opponents. Supporters like to talk about the fact that the countries at the negotiating table comprise around 40 percent of the world economy, which they imply means that the agreement would be hugely significant. But trade among these players is already fairly free, so the T.P.P. wouldn’t make that much difference.... opponents portray the T.P.P. as a huge plot, suggesting that it would destroy national sovereignty and transfer all the power to corporations. This, too, is hugely overblown. Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government actions, but, no, the Obama administration isn’t secretly bargaining away democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html

[Union Scribe]

93. That article is becoming a bit threadbare no?

I mean, you've been holding him up as a human shield on this thing, but the more leaks out the worse it gets and not even your buddy there can stop people from figuring that out.

[pampango]

95. I'm comfortable with Krugman as a "human shield".

I would love to see more leaks, particularly of the chapters on labor rights and environmental standards. If they are as weak on standards and enforcement as many fear, I will join you in condemning TPP.

I don't think Krugman has a reputation for trying to stop liberals from "figuring things out". Quite the opposite. If we disagree on that, so be it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

113. Krugman is "controlled opposition"

We now know the truth about ACA and Johnathan Gruber...
the false narratives, the payouts, and conflicts of interests.
Yet, Paul Krugman went on a limb to defend Gruber and his role.

Now, there have been sweetheart consulting deals in the past, which were really a way of buying support. And if Gruber were a highly implausible candidate for this kind of consulting, you might suspect that this was one of them. But Gruber had a well-established record as a prominent health care modeler long before any of this came along; here’s a quick list from Google Scholar. It was perfectly natural that he would be hired to do this.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/more-on-jon-gruber/?_r=0

Kinda make the premise that...
I don't think Krugman has a reputation for
trying to stop liberals from "figuring things out" ring hollow

[Major Hogwash]

180. And Manny is going the wrong way down the boulevard!

He's always driving in the wrong lane, speeding while texting, or talking to his brah on the cell phone.
Just because some woman in Massachusetts, who voted for Reagan twice because she believed that trickle down economics would lift us all up by our bootstraps, does not negate the fact that driving while under the influence of fear does not account for a majority of the minor accidents in this country.

[MannyGoldstein]

194. Wrong-Way Manny!

Love it!

[sabrina 1]

186. Then REVEAL everything that is in it. If the opposition to it is 'wildly overblown', that

can easily be answered by a little TRANSPARENCY.

And we have seen some leaks, which don't make the opposition seem the least bit overblown to me. In fact it is understated considering the little we do know already.

[pampango]

198. I wish all international negotiations were public - as Woodrow Wilson famously proposed.

Unfortunately, such negotiations - whether the TPP, the China climate agreement, the Cuba diplomatic agreement and the ongoing negotiations with Iran - seem to happen in private. In the case of the China and Cuba deals we did not even know there were negotiations going on.

And we have seen some leaks, which don't make the opposition seem the least bit overblown to me.

I agree. If the rest of the agreement is as bad, then it is a very bad deal.

I do wonder how it is that the chapters that anger the left have been leaked, while those that might anger the right, like those dealing with labor rights and environmental protection have not been leaked, AFAIK.

[JDPriestly]

234. Really?

Krugman continues to admit that Obama is bargaining away the right of Congress to establish the rules on the monopolization of the rights to intellectual property including copyrights and patents.

What the T.P.P. would do, however, is increase the ability of certain corporations to assert control over intellectual property. Again, think drug patents and movie rights.

Is this a good thing from a global point of view? Doubtful. The kind of property rights we’re talking about here can alternatively be described as legal monopolies. True, temporary monopolies are, in fact, how we reward new ideas; but arguing that we need even more monopolization is very dubious — and has nothing at all to do with classical arguments for free trade.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

Now, the corporations benefiting from enhanced control over intellectual property would often be American. But this doesn’t mean that the T.P.P. is in our national interest. What’s good for Big Pharma is by no means always good for America.

In short, there isn’t a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view. Nor does there seem to be anything like a political consensus in favor, abroad or at home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html?_r=0

I realize that most people don't understand how mightier copyrights and patents that extend way beyond a reasonable period will do to economic progress. But let me tell you it will be devastating.

Article I, section 8 of our Constitution authorizes Congress to establish the rules about patents and copyrights in the US. We should not enter into agreements that freeze the rules on them because we need the flexibility in that are to accommodate new scientific or artistic developments. This is a really touchy area. Signing an agreement will bind us but will other countries really keep an agreement that might force them to buy necessary drugs at a higher price than the price at which they could copy them and produce them themselves?

Not only does this, yes, add to the numerous threats to our sovereignty and our Constitution that existing trade and other agreements have thrust upon us but it is just a dumb thing to agree to.

And having to defend America in these international trade, commercial courts is a big chore, costs lots of money. We just do not need more of these international trade agreements. We are mired in enough of them already as Krugman points out.

Of course, the law firms that get to pile up to represent this interest and that one in the international trade/commercial courts like the NAFTA court love these deals.

[sabrina 1]

246. Thank you for your very imformed post, JD. I don't think there is much doubt

that this deal will devastate the working class here, give Foreign Corps power over may of our established laws, Environmental eg, labor also. See the Longshoremen who have already been dealing with some of this for several years now, re Big Corps.

[NanceGreggs]

30. What exactly is "this atrocity" ...

... Obama has "signed on to"?

If the negotiations are "secret", how can anyone know what the treaty actually sets out?

And if the treaty is not finalized, how could Obama have "signed on to it"?

If ever there were a case of "some people are saying" being promoted as the basis for setting one's hair on fire, THIS is it.

[beerandjesus]

39. Checkmate, liberals!

It's SECRET, so you can't POSSIBLY KNOW ANYTHING!

So your only reason for opposing TPP is YOU MUST HATE OBAMA! RAND PAUL! RAND PAUL!

[NanceGreggs]

49. I find it rather difficult ...

... to oppose something I know nothing about.

Sadly, that lack of knowledge doesn't deter some people from opposing something they know nothing about anyway.

[beerandjesus]

51. Then why are you chiming in on this thread?

Some of us know plenty about TPP to be really upset about it. If you don't know anything about it, I don't see how you can presume to add to the discussion.

Unless you're just here to say that anything Obama supports is, by definition, good.

[NanceGreggs]

55. Well, if you know "plenty" about it ...

... why don't you enlighten the rest of us?

Precisely what provisions of the secret and yet-to-be-finalized treaty are you upset with?

And I mean "precisely" - not "people are saying", not "if" the treaty provides for (fill in the blank), not "my assumption is".

PRECISELY what are the finalized provisions of this non-finalized treaty that have your knickers in a twist?

[beerandjesus]

57. That's a cute gambit, pretending that I'm the one claiming some occult wisdom on the subject.

But (a) it's intellectually dishonest to act as if some information were functionally equivalent to no information, and (b) if you've already decided that any existing information is to be branded as hearsay and hence dismissed out of hand, then there's no point in trying to persuade you. You're actually arguing a lot like a creationist.

And in any case, it's neither here nor there. There have been numerous leaks, and while many details are indeed secret, there is quite a bit of information for anyone intellectually honest and curious enough to go looking for it... and alas, NONE of it makes Obama's position relative to working people look very good.

Therefore, you have no business feigning moral superiority relative to those of us who are concerned about the myriad ways in which the TPP would be deleterious to the welfare of our families and our country.

[NanceGreggs]

65. It would seem obvious ...

... that the people "feigning moral superiority" in this instance are those claiming to "know" what is contained in a treaty that they haven't seen.

And despite asking on this thread, and others on the same topic, no one seems willing - or capable - of explaining what is it they KNOW for a fact.

" ... those of us who are concerned about the myriad ways in which the TPP would be deleterious to the welfare of our families and our country."

Please share with us the provisions of the still-to-be-finalized treaty that will impact our families and our country, and explain exactly how that impact will come about.

TIA!

[beerandjesus]

66. Not playing any more

I already replied to what you're saying, and it's obvious what side you're on. Your sanctimony is tiresome.

[NanceGreggs]

69. I'm not on any "side".

I am simply asking those "in the know" to tell us what it is they KNOW.

Apparently, there isn't anyone here who can share what they "know" - because they don't KNOW anything.

[stillwaiting]

85. You are most DEFINITELY on a side.

If everyone held your position regarding the TPP, it would basically ensure no opposition until it was passed. And, from what we have learned it is possible that many parts of the TPP may not even be made public for several years after it passes.

The TPP apparently deals with MUCH more than trade. It has been crafted by corporate lobbyists (not even "our" elected representatives). TPTB seem to be hell-bent on keeping it secret until its passage. For all of these reasons and more it should be opposed. I have no idea how anyone that believes in a representative democracy could feel any different.

We will NOT know what's in the TPP until it's passed (if TPTB get their way). According to you we shouldn't get upset about the TPP until we know the EXACT details of the FINALIZED version, but we won't get to know that until after it's passed. It's much too late by then, and that should be obvious to anyone.

[840high]

157. Yes you are on a "side".

[Oilwellian]

131. Here are three provisions Dem congressional members have exposed

On Tuesday, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) sent a letter to US Trade Representative Michael Froman demanding answers about backdoor financial deregulation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The senators highlight three parts of the TPP that could undermine current and future efforts to regulate Wall Street and prevent another financial crisis:

(1) Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which allows foreign companies or investors to sue governments for losses in expected profits

(2) "Market access" provisions that could prohibit restrictions on predatory financial products, like risky forms of derivatives

(3) Limitations on governments' ability to impose capital controls, which could stymie efforts to prevent future financial crises as well as efforts to pass a financial transaction tax

The senators asked USTR Michael Froman to respond to their questions, with negotiating text documentation, by January 6th.

Here is the text of the letter:

Daily Kos

There are so many examples out there, one who is reasonably intelligent can piece them together and know the TPP is something we should all be very concerned about. Your lack of curiosity on this issue is your choice, however not everyone is that apathetic.

The biggest irony of all? Obama refers to those of us who have been paying attention and voicing our concerns, "ignorant." LOL I mean, you just can't make this shit up!

[MannyGoldstein]

139. "Exposed". Do we know what that word *really* means?

There was a man in town who was exposing himself in the library, that turned out to be a crime.

Expose means different things to different people. I'm going to wait for the full text of the final agreement before I pass judgement on the meaning of that word.

Also, I find it very telling that you've chosen a word used to describe the behavior of sex offenders in relation to actions taken to embarrass a Democratic President.

And, taking a look at the issues raised by those Lefty Senators... a bunch of nothing. Take "Investor-State Dispute Settlement". What could be more fair? If American companies that run prisons want to run prisons in Canada, but the Canadians prefer to have them run "humanely" and without "totally unnecessary injuries and deaths", that means a loss of US profits for the 0.1% jobs. Why shouldn't US corporations get those profits back?

What is it with you people? More smears, and inequality for the 0.1%.

Regards,

TWM

[Oilwellian]

146. Manny, please, I did not need that kind of exposure

C'mon man! Now I'm the one who is naked and it's so cold outside! How could you do that to me, Manny?

[AgingAmerican]

160. Crickets from the peanut gallery

nt

[sabrina 1]

190. I have responded to your inquiries at least twice as has another DUer upthread. LEAKS!

LEAKS are how people know something about what is in it! So it isn't surmise, or 'feigned', nice attack on millions of decent people who actually care about the future of this country.

How do YOU know that the millions of people who oppose this bill are ALL FEIGNING outrage. How about providing something to prove that other than just 'surmise'.

[NanceGreggs]

269. Given that nothing is finalized ...

... any "leaks" at this point would consist of provisions not yet agreed to, proposals that may never be agreed to, even "wish list" propositions from participating parties that no one expects will ever be taken seriously.

It is ALL conjecture - combined with supposition, rumour, "people are saying", etc.

What I said was: "... that the people "feigning moral superiority" in this instance are those claiming to "know" what is contained in a treaty that they haven't seen."

I was referring to posters on DU who "feign moral superiority" by pretending to know what will be in the finalized treaty, and then lecture others for being blind to its impact - and yet when asked for details of the impacting provisions AND their consequences, no one seems able to cite even one.

There is also the obvious problem: you can't claim that a treaty is suspect because it is being negotiated in "secret", and at the same time claim to "know" what is in it. And you can't claim to "know" what is in a finalized treaty until it is finalized.

[grasswire]

230. SOP for the poster you replied to.

Jump early in a thread, seize on a tidbit, and then deflect, deflect, deflect.

[beerandjesus]

63. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

If you don't know anything about the topic, why are you chiming in?

Now, mind you, I'm not asking an epistemological question about whether anyone can possibly know anything. I'm asking why YOU seem to have a strong opinion, if you don't know anything about the subject at hand?

[NanceGreggs]

67. That's just the point.

I don't have any opinion - strong or otherwise - about the provisions of a treaty that have yet to be disclosed.

And yet so many here seem to "know" what an unfinalized treaty will say in its finalized form. So I am asking them to share their knowledge with the rest of us.

So far, no takers.

[AgingAmerican]

162. "About the provisions of a treaty that have yet to be disclosed"

Nor do you acknowledge provisions of the treaty that have been disclosed. Your awkward little game has been exposed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

177. That's because THERE ARE NO ...

provisions of the treaty. There are drafts and drafts are drafts until all parties sign on.

[AgingAmerican]

178. And there is no denial either

It's just forswearing until it's set in stone at which time it becomes denial!!!

...and even then it's just a river in Egypt.

[beerandjesus]

238. A river in Egypt called "ODS! ODS! RAND PAUL! RAND PAUL!"

[AgingAmerican]

239. lol

nt

[treestar]

120. Nobody knows, because it is secret

So why are you against it?

Wait until it comes out as to what's in it.

[AgingAmerican]

184. The fact they have to keep it secret

...is a tell

[treestar]

204. Even so, it will come out someday

So it's just setting oneself up not to be objective.

[1StrongBlackMan]

176. Really ...

What do you "know" other than the negotiating positions of the parties to the agreement? The "leaked drafts" are not any indication of the positions of the other parties, that have yet to sign on to the draft.

[Ramses]

54. i find it difficult to understand how you know

Nothing about an agreement that has been fully supported and wants fast tracked by this President.

Are you willfully ignoring what is in the news and on websites detailing this very agreement?

Or are you complicit?

Simple question.

[NanceGreggs]

74. Oh, I know about the agreement itself.

I know that it is still being negotiated.

I know that it's provisions have yet to be disclosed or finalized.

That's why I'm asking those on this thread who "know" what the provisions say to share their knowledge with the rest of us.

Am I complicit? Complicit in what? Complicit in admitting that I don't know what the provisions of an as-yet unfinalized treaty are?

[Scootaloo]

78. You know it's a "Free Trade agreement," right?

Do you know anything about the effects of prior "free trade agreements"?

This is literally all that you need to know. because I promise you, flat-out promise you, that nothing in this agreement will strengthen US jobs, empower labor, raise our wages, lower our prices (except perhaps for foam rubber shit from China), diversify our economy, or decrease US poverty.

Free trade agreements never do that. They are designed not to do any of that. because free trade is all about the free movement of capital between the people who already have it, and not actually about helping hte people who don't in any way. Most of them in fact act as a money press, squeezing those at the lower end of hte income spectrum in order to juice out hte last bits of wealth for those at the top.

But by all means. Feel secure in your belief that ignorance somehow protects you from reality. That because you don't know the specific details, means that this one will deliver all the medicine our economy needs - in spite of the fact that it is simply not in the nature of the beast.

[pampango]

87. Even its opponents acknowledge it has little to do with "free trade" as tariffs are already low

and only a small part of the agreement has anything to do with that.

... trade among these players is already fairly free, so the T.P.P. wouldn’t make that much difference.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html

I promise you, flat-out promise you, that nothing in this agreement will strengthen US jobs, empower labor, raise our wages, lower our prices (except perhaps for foam rubber shit from China), diversify our economy, or decrease US poverty.

The purpose of the TPP is to make labor rights and the environment part of trading rules. This is both for their intrinsic values and as a means to deal with the competitive advantage that China, India and other poor countries have in terms of weak labor laws and lax environmental standards.

Do you have a problem with including labor and environmental standards in trading rules? Are you certain they are not in the draft document that none of us has seen? Is there a better way to incorporate labor and the environmental standards than through multilateral negotiations, which are almost always done in secret - witness the climate agreement with China, the diplomatic agreement with Cuba and the ongoing negotiations with Iran? We did not even know the first two negotiations were even happening, much less what issues and positions were under discussion, until they were completed. That does not mean that they are bad.

Do we have no more trust in Obama than a tea-party republican has in him?

Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondents opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

Free trade agreements never do that. They are designed not to do any of that. because free trade is all about the free movement of capital between the people who already have it, and not actually about helping hte people who don't in any way.

Why do the countries with the most 'free trade', those in Europe, also have the strongest unions, middle classes and social safety nets?

[Shemp Howard]

109. Absolutely right, Scoot!

It doesn't really matter what lofty goals free-trade proponents might have. All that really matters is what the results are. And that can be seen from the examination of prior free-trade agreements.

Consider the agreements in place in Europe now. All of those nations have a large middle class, with strong union protection. And all of those nations have governments that are responsive to worker abuse and environmental abuse. Free trade can work in cases like these.

Now consider NAFTA. One side has a middle class that expects a living wage, say $15 an hour plus. The other side will work for much, much less. The other side also has governments that will turn a blind eye to employer abuses. Even a dunce can predict which way the manufacturing jobs will flow.

So now I ask, is the TPP situation more like the Europe or more like NAFTA?

[annabanana]

129. "free Trade" only means Free Capital.. Labor can go leap. . . .n/t

[pampango]

136. Good point. Europe has solved that problem. Conservatives here rail against "open borders" liberals

so it is unlikely that we will be able to do anything like what Europe has done. (Of course, that is true of many policies that contribute to strong unions and a strong working/middle class.)

[whathehell]

100. The very fact that a trade "deal" is being kept secret from the public is

disturbing in and of itself, isn't it?

[Thespian2]

102. Please check

with Representative Alan Grayson, D-Fl. He was allowed to read only small parts of the worst "trade" deal ever. He will instruct you on the facts and why everyone should oppose this corporate takeover. He is not allowed to tell anyone specifically what is in the TPP, but he sure as hell opposes the whole damn thing.

[treestar]

121. I think most of these anti-TPP posters

Ask us to assume it's exactly like NAFTA, which they claim ruined the US economy (though it was good in the 90s and the housing bubble was the problem).

[JonLP24]

248. It was not good in the 90s

Many manufacturing jobs went overseas. Motorola is a local example. It used to be the largest employer in the state of Arizona and now you can't even find a plant.

[treestar]

249. Is that the only indicator?

Unemployment itself was low. Why do jobs have to be manufacturing jobs? Why are they more valuable and if so, why don't economists keep the statistics that would relate? One would think the first stats you would have would be the rate of manufacturing jobs amongst employed/unemployed people to reflect the non-economic health in employment and show how bad it would be that even 100% employment, if it was not enough manufacturing jobs, led to other problems.

[JonLP24]

251. They employed the most people

that went offshore not to mention they had the higher wages & most benefits. The statistics are there, look at the trade deficits.

[treestar]

252. then wouldn't the trade agreement

be an attempt to help with that?

Without trade agreements, it would be just whatever the market allowed.

[JonLP24]

255. I'm not understanding what you're saying

Maybe you should ask people who were laid off by Motorola.

The U.S. goods trade deficit with NAFTA was $86 billion in 2013.
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta

[bread_and_roses]

128. I guess the AFL-CIO is another "know-nothing" people too ....

... but then hey, who are they anyway? And it's not like they EVER supported Obama anyway, right?

[sabrina 1]

188. Surely you know that our Representatives in Congress have been denied access to

the secret negotiations on this agreement? That alone ought to be enough to oppose it.

And you missed the leaks I suppose. If you google a little you can find out something about how this legislation would affect our Environmental laws.

Otoh, perhaps you have considered all of this and are simply willing to trust all these Global Corps with the future of this country.

[tkmorris]

42. You are not a serious person

You KNOW the answers to those questions. You appear to believe that if you word it cutely enough it will appear as if the things opponents of the TPP are saying are ridiculous.

They aren't. Your attempts at spin very much are though.

[NanceGreggs]

48. No, I don't know the answers to those questions.

And neither do you.

I fully admit that I have absolutely no idea what a treaty, which has yet to be written, will say in its finalized form.

Why is it so difficult for others to admit the same thing?

[grasswire]

231. Look, the poster pulls the same clown act on every issue...

.....that favors TPTB. Exactly the same "techniques".

[AgingAmerican]

47. The atrocity = the trade agreement

nt

[NanceGreggs]

56. Oh, I am well aware ...

... that "the atrocity" being referred to is the trade agreement.

What I am not aware of is its exact provisions - which so many people here seem to know, but somehow can't actually articulate.

[AgingAmerican]

60. Why tie yourself in knots in denial?

If you don't know what's in it? Why is it secret? What are they hiding?

Obama has stated he will abandon his base and team up with Republicans on this travesty. But wait, you say he doesn't support it maybe? He supports it.

Obama says he willing to defy Democrats on his support of Trans-Pacific Partnership

[NanceGreggs]

72. Exactly what am I "denying"?

The only thing I have denied is knowing what is contained in the treaty. Do you really have a problem with that?

You've provided a link to an article where the AUTHOR or the piece states that "President Obama signaled Wednesday that, at least on international trade, he is willing to defy his fellow Democrats."

Did Obama actually say that? No, he didn't. But I think we should all assume that the author knows what Obama really "meant".

Do you have a link to Obama saying "he will abandon his base and team up with Republicans on this travesty"?

[AgingAmerican]

75. That the TTP sucks

I already posted the link.

[NanceGreggs]

76. How can I know that the TPP sucks ...

... when I have yet to read it?

Obviously, reading the actual document and assessing its provisions is not necessary for some to form an opinion.

I prefer to base my opinion on facts - rather than alleged "leaks", message board posters' predictions, or what "some people are saying".

Now, if you've actually read the still non-existent treaty, maybe you can explain to all if us how it sucks, and why.

[AgingAmerican]

77. By reading the parts that have been made public

...that you refuse to acknowledge.

[Owl]

127. Exactly.

[pampango]

92. Obama will be fighting republicans on TPP more than he will Democrats.

Obviously, there will be some Democrats opposing him on TPP and some republicans supporting him on it. He will be DEFYING (scary word alert) a minority of his base while fighting a majority of republicans.

If you don't know what's in it? Why is it secret? What are they hiding?

What was Obama hiding in the climate agreement with China? In the diplomatic agreement with Cuba? In the on-going negotiations with Iran?

The 1936 republican party platform in reference to FDR's first term in office:

It has coerced and intimidated voters by withholding relief to those opposing its tyrannical policies.

It has destroyed the morale of our people and made them dependent upon government.

Appeals to passion and class prejudice have replaced reason and tolerance.

It has created a vast multitude of new offices, filled them with its favorites, set up a centralized bureaucracy, and sent out swarms of inspectors to harass our people.

It has bred fear and hesitation in commerce and industry, thus discouraging new enterprises, preventing employment and prolonging the depression.

It secretly has made tariff agreements with our foreign competitors, flooding our markets with foreign commodities.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29639

[w4rma]

155. In other words, there is a huge opportunity here to pull Republican voters over to the Democrats.

And rather than convince these Republicans to vote Democrat, Obama and the other Democratic neoliberals will work to ostracize them further.

[pampango]

167. True. Of course republicans look at this as a huge opportunity to pull Democratic voters over to

their side, since a sizable minority of Democrats agree with them on this.

Do you convince republicans to vote Democratic (not "Democrat&quot by adopting their point of view (kind of becoming 'republican-light') or by convincing them that we are right? It brings up the old Truman expression, "Why would you vote for a Democratic candidate who is espousing republican beliefs rather than just voting for a republican?"

[sabrina 1]

192. We have to BE right, in order to convince people we ARE right. And if Dems support this

and manage to get it passed, despite all the opposition of their base, which Obama says he's willing to ignore, again, they I hope we won't hear them claim they can't get some of the GOOD STUFF passed because 'Republicans'.

I believe this is a done deal. I believe it will pass, tragically.

Because Corporations run this country now and as Bill Moyers stated recently, 'The Secret Weapon of Corporations is CONGRESS!'

So who is representing the people?

[pampango]

206. That would imply that the republican majority is right in their opposition, while

the Democratic majority is wrong. Is the correct strategy then to join the republican majority in opposing TPP in order to convince them that we ARE right? How is acting like them going to convince them to vote for Democrats?

... despite all the opposition of their base, which Obama says he's willing to ignore ...

Of course if 60% of Democrats are in favor and 40% are opposed, Obama is going to have to "ignore" part of the base no matter what he does. There is no doubt about.

I believe this is a done deal. I believe it will pass, tragically.

I disagree. I don't think the republican majority in congress has any reason to give Obama fast track authority. Republicans would not renew fast track authority for Clinton, even after NAFTA, because they did not trust him to keep labor and environment issues out of trade agreements. I think they dislike and distrust Obama as much or more than they did Clinton.

To give fast track authority to Obama would give up the republican majority's ability to strip out the provisions that they don't like, such as on the environment and labor rights, and pass a new TPP more to their liking. If they did not have a majority in both houses, republicans might feel compelled to grant fast track, but I see no reason for them to do so now.

Without it Obama would be a fool to submit it to a republican congress. It's not going to happen.

[sabrina 1]

211. Don't worry, if Corporations want this, there will be enough 'renegade' Republicans to help

pass it. Their opposition is merely show right now.

We've observed this game for over a decade now, where one party is given the task of getting something done, (not by the people btw).

Republicans eg, were tasked with getting all the wars started. Which they did, and when they needed votes, some Dems were willing to make up the numbers.

Bailouts, same game. Both parties got a shot at that.

I don't CARE what Republicans say. I do CARE about issues and if they happen to be playing the role of opposition on something, I have zero interest in that.

This is what is so wrong. And THEY know it. The 'team' game. You just played it, probably without realizing it.

I am supposed to suddenly change my mind because Republicans are saying they will oppose something I oppose. That USED to work. But it doesn't anymore.

Dems need to oppose it because it's BAD for this country. But if they don't, then however it is stopped is fine with me.

[AgingAmerican]

156. So a majority of Democrats will support Obama on this?

Don't think so. Only the Third Way® support it and they admit they don't even know, or want to know, what's in it.

[pampango]

161. Can't say they will, but they support him now.

The poll did not break down which Democrats support it and which don't. One would expect it would be more conservative Democrats who would agree with republicans and oppose it, but that may not be the case.

[AgingAmerican]

163. A majority of Democrats support internationalization of financial deregulation?

On what planet?

[pampango]

169. I would hope they support the internationalization of financial regulation.

How else can the world control what Big Money does? We have to cooperate with each other to achieve this.

And, of course, the TPP is a complex agreement. I suspect that no one alive will agree with everything in it or not agree with anything in it. If I support the UN or a climate change treaty that does not mean I agree with every rule and policy in it, just that I think it is overall a good thing.

If 60% of Democrats support the TPP, it does not follow that 60% agree with everything in it - just that they think it is overall a good thing.

[AgingAmerican]

170. Deregulation, not regulation

nt

[brentspeak]

235. Some information about "pampango"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=659610

[treestar]

253. Yes, because Republicans would want it to be as the market alone determined

They'll probably label support for any international agreements as communistic.

Plus they will claim it destroys our "sovereignty" which to them is any cooperation with another country.

[Mojorabbit]

52. There have been leaks out the wazoo, that is how we know. nt

[NanceGreggs]

59. Oh, "leaks".

That's just one degree below "some people are saying" - but pretty damned unimpeachable as a source, nonetheless.

[AgingAmerican]

62. Wikileaks

http://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/tpp-ip2-chapter.pdf

Plenty more where that came from if you need more....

[NanceGreggs]

70. Well, you can't argue with a source like Wikileaks ...

... the site where everyone is free to post whatever they want. No factual basis needed - and no salesman will call.

[AgingAmerican]

71. Ah, so it's just a trick!

I am reminded of a horse being led to water....

[NanceGreggs]

73. What's a trick?

You ARE aware that Wikileaks entries can be posted by anyone, without regard to whether what they are posting has any factual backup?

You ARE aware of that much, aren't you?

[AgingAmerican]

154. Oh and Wikileaks

...isn't 'wikipedia'. You have the two confused. And Wikipedia doesn't work that way either lol

[Major Hogwash]

182. Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

That's the best rebuttal I have evah read!!

[Capt. Obvious]

242. This post

is your biggest fail since claiming you're not an apologist because you have nothing to apologize for.

[QC]

279. Wikileaks...Wikipedia...they're pretty much the same thing, right?

They both have Wiki in them, after all.

[Capt. Obvious]

280. She has nothing to Wikigize for

[sabrina 1]

215. Leaks, documents are far more than 'some people are saying'. But hey, if you

want to ignore facts, nothing much we can do about that. Just don't ask for them and then reject them, it wastes people's time which is not very respectful of people.

[pampango]

94. Have there been any leaks concerning the chapters on labor rights and environmental standards or

have only the chapters that scare liberals been leaked? Is it just a fluke that potential leakers could not get their hands on the labor and environment chapters?

I would love to see those chapters. If they are as weak on standards and enforcement (national sovereignty be damned) as many fear, I would join in condemnation of the whole project.

[Katashi_itto]

81. Damn, I really thought better of you than this.

Very disillusioning

[stillwaiting]

86. Great on social issues. Not such a strong supporter on economic issues. It's a trend. nt

[Katashi_itto]

88. Exactly! Like having social justice will make a difference when the country is impoverished beyond

measure.

Not only that but this is tacit approval that impoverishment is ok.

But hey we voted Dem, so our conscious is clear.

[AgingAmerican]

164. It's called the 'Third Way®'

nt

[QC]

165. Liberal on social issues, rightist on economics. Libertarian, in other words.

Yet that crowd is always quick to accuse genuine progressives of being libertarians.

Kinda like the way Republicans always holler that someone else is doing what they are actually guilty of themselves. Ever notice that?

[Katashi_itto]

277. Why vote Republican, when you can vote 3rd way?

[QC]

278. All of the greed, none of the guilt.

How's that for an ad slogan!

[Puglover]

105. "Disillusioning"?

I was thinking more along the lines of utterly embarrassing.

[Katashi_itto]

116. Well I was trying to be polite

[QC]

158. Quiet, you!

She has nothing to apologize for!

[Puglover]

171. LOL!

Lord. That really was quite something wasn't it?

[Capt. Obvious]

243. heh heh heh

I love that that gets referenced with every Molly Eh-vans appearance.

[NanceGreggs]

271. Sorry if you are disillusioned.

I think I've always been pretty open about relying on facts rather than hearsay, "leaks", and "some people are saying."

[freedom fighter jh]

196. You can find info about it here:

http://citizen.org/tpp

I believe some info has been leaked -- that's how people know some things about it.

[freedom fighter jh]

207. More, from Alan Grayson, who has seen it.

He got to see it cause he's a congressman.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017235851 , @ 3:30, for the privileges TPP would give to corporations.

Thanks, Midnight, for posting.

[1StrongBlackMan]

175. LOL ...

no one has said President Obama wouldn't sign the TPP ... What we (yes, I include myself in that number) have been saying is a TPP with a universal wage floor, worker protections and environmental protections would be good for the American worker.

[randys1]

227. IDK if the TPP can ever pass the smell test, but I tell you what we should do...

Lets not vote in 2016
we will show them


Before I hand the country over to the most vile, filthy,disgusting, racist motherfuckers on planet earth, cant I get something for it first?


Maybe they can pay me to do this?

[rhett o rick]

22. Have you noticed that Sen Sanders and the progressive DEmocrats are against the TPP.

Have you noticed that Pres Obama, H. Cinton-Sachs and the conservatives support the TPP.

Where do you stand? I ask but I know you won't say.

[NanceGreggs]

46. Have YOU ever noticed ...

... that the people who decry lock-stepping are the biggest lock-steppers?

That the people who claim to think for themselves always point to someone like Sanders, or Warren, or whoever - and insist that their opinions MUST be held as sacrosanct, and lock-stepped behind?

That the people who refer to "the progressive Democrats" are invariably referring to the people who agree with them - all other Democrats being, according to them, non-progressives?

Where do I stand? I stand with the facts as they become apparent, not with those who assume their own facts not in evidence and proclaim them to be worthy of comment.

I stand with the Democratic Party, and not with those who whine about it incessantly on a message board - as though their whining actually accomplishes anything.

I stand with The President I admire and respect - and not with people who are too fuckin' stupid too know that admiration and respect are NOT equivalent to idol worship and mindless cheerleading.

I stand with people who debate political policies that are actually in place, rather than debating the provisions of a treaty they have yet to see - because it has not yet come to fruition, and its provisions are as yet unknown.

What I CAN'T STAND is people who use words like "authoritarian, Third Wayer, DINO, Conservadem," etc. as an accusation against anyone and everyone who doesn't conform to their own narrow-minded views.

[Scootaloo]

80. Yes, other democrats are very often non-progressive

It's not a startling concept for anyone who pays attention. The Democratic party is a center-right party that counts progressives as its base, simply because the other party available is a radical fascist party. This is a major part of why democratic politicians have a pretty inconsistent win record, because of the disjoint between the party and the people who usually vote for it.People like Warren and Sanders are deemed progressive because they espouse progressive ideas, beyond the usual and trite mummery of advocating foregone social issues as if they were cutting-edge, only after voters have shown overwhelming support for those issues.

I implore you to read up on the history of free trade agreements. And hten bring me your argument for why you think TPP will be any better. And remember, since you're not idol-worshiping, "the president is for it so i'm for it" isn't an argument you want to make.

[rhett o rick]

225. Sadly she doesn't have an argument against or for the TPP. Her attitude is "wait and see".

That attitude killed us re. the WTO and NAFTA and CAFTA. Germany chose to move away from reliance on nuclear power, yet one of these so-called "trade agreements" allows a Swedish corporation to sue the government of Germany (estimated a $6 billion) for loss of POTENTIAL PROFITS. Pres Obama says that we are not smart enough to understand, so just sit down and shut up. His followers not only oblige but disparage fellow Democrats that won't fall in line.

[yallerdawg]

183. Very nicely said, NG!

I would expect a Democratic website not to be an ECHO ECHO echo CHAMBER CHAMBER chamber like that other party.

We should have polite respectful discourse, and become more enlightened and open-minded because of it.

Otherwise, we end up with reeducation camps and gulags. We don't want that, do we?

[rhett o rick]

217. I appreciate your polite response (except for the "and not with people who are too fuckin' stupid

too know " part). I appreciate your efforts to try to keep discussions decent.

You said: Have you ever noticed that the people who decry lock-stepping are the biggest lock-steppers?

That the people who claim to think for themselves always point to someone like Sanders, or Warren, or whoever - and insist that their opinions MUST be held as sacrosanct, and lock-stepped behind?

Sounds a lot like projection.

While progressive look to Sen Sanders and Sen Warren for leadership, I don’t think a single one would follow either of them in “lock-step”. The first time they supported a policy that brought harm to the 99% in favor of the 1%, you can bet progressives would be screaming.

You see a major difference between progressive and non-progressives is that progressive will speak to all issues while non-progressives will speak to only a few issues. Non-Progressive, while supporting all stands taken by the President in lock-step, won’t defend his positions on the TPP, fracking, indefinite detention, torture, the Patriot Act, NSA spying, etc. The only time non-progressives enter into discussions on these verboten subjects is to disparage those that dare challenge their elected representative.

Seems that you have a problem with the definition of Non-Progressive. Maybe I can help. Progressives do not support the Fast Track method of pushing agreements thru the Senate. Progressives don't support the horrible agreement called the TPP. Those that support those issues are not progressive by definition. If you have a different definition, I'd love to hear it.

[rhett o rick]

228. I have to use more than one post to cover all your rants.

You said:

Where do I stand? I stand with the facts as they become apparent, not with those who assume their own facts not in evidence and proclaim them to be worthy of comment.

I assume you mean the TPP specifically, knowing how you guys don't like to be pinned down. There are know facts about the TPP that we can read, people like Sen Sanders gives his opinions, Rep Alan Grayson (a Democrat) has read part of it and others have leaked parts. None of what has been seen gives any indication that this is anything but a corporate rape of our country. So you say you stand with the facts as they become apparent, but is that really true? Have you spoken to any of the facts? I think you are afraid to evaluate what is know or surmised because you fear that you might not be in line with the President's stand. You guys don't seem to like to commit, just in case you don't fully know how the President feels.

And there is nothing wrong with anticipating what might happen (we have the history of NAFTA to give us an idea) to be sure one tells their ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE how they feel. But I bet you've never, ever told any of your elected representatives how you feel except maybe that you love and support 1000% whatever they are doing.

A progressive tries to keep an open mind. Non-progressives blindly trust their leaders.

[AgingAmerican]

64. Obama abandoned his base on this one

And is teaming up with the GOP.

True to his Third Way® belief system

[great white snark]

27. Yes indeed...It's the tried and true formula that was used during the "cat food commission" outrage

Including the sprinkling in of "oh poor us we can't even criticize" OP's like this one.

[99Forever]

117. I HAVE noticed that some people will defend ANY POS policy ...

... that this President wants, no matter how bad it fucks the rest of us.

[grasswire]

232. ^^

And I wish that progressives would stop being drawn in to the "gambit" played out here on DU over and over and over again as an effort to deflect from the issues.

[1StrongBlackMan]

172. +1, as usual ... n/t

[sabrina 1]

185. We do not know 'every detail. But we have had LEAKS thanks to Wikileaks again.

And considering how long the Congressional Free Trade Committee has been refused access to this 'agreement', we KNOW that THEY don't know much about it either.

So maybe pay attention to what people are rightfully upset over. CONGRESS should be a part of all these SECRET NEGOTIATIONS. They represent the American people.

If what is in this agreement is NOT as bad as the leaks we've seen, which are bad enough, then make it TRANSPARENT.

After all, if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about.

Foreign Corps should not be involved in writing legislation for this country, period, good or bad.

[Andy823]

203. +1000nt

I agree. Way to many people here are willing to believe all the things they hear, or I should say want't to hear, and yet they themselves admit it's all been done in "secret" yet they know all the details. Crazy if you ask me.

[NanceGreggs]

272. Prediction:

The finalized TPP will include nothing even remotely "known" to certain people who claim to be in-the-know right now.

There will then be a well-rec'd thread about how DUers made their ire known, resulting in all of the "America-is-doomed provisions" (forever unidentified) having been struck from the agreement due to their "holding Obama's feet to the fire".

[JDPriestly]

221. I don't claim to know the details of the negotiations or the deal.

I do know that those details are being kept secret. And I conclude that they are being kept secret because we from whom they are being kept secret would be furious, absolutely incensed if we knew the details. I base that on past experience.

I am extremely opposed to these trade deals that set up international court systems for the specific purpose of enforcing the agreements.
opy
I am extremely opposed to trade deals that permit corporations or other countries to interfere in our country's democratic decision-making or that create institutions or entities or courts that supersede our national and state courts.

I don't need to know the details of the deal to know that this agreement will impose some sort of supra-judicial entity that will impose its autocratic, authoritarian will on the American people.

And what is more, we as a nation a re not united enough to compete in "free" international trade. We are disorganized with regard to industrial development. One state competes with the other for industry and for jobs. We have no strategy with regard to what kinds of services and products we can offer to other countries.

Our trade deficit tells the story. The United States is not ready to compete in the world. We are failing badly at it.

I oppose the TPP. I know what I am talking about.

We will relinquish our sovereign rights to decide things like the lengths of the duration of copyrights and patents. That is a well known aspect of the agreement. That means that Obama's little clique that is negotiating this agreement will be taking from Congress its enumerated power to legislate regarding aspects of patents and copyrights. See Article
I, section 8 of the Constitution.

The TPP will be bad for America. It will mean more job losses. We already trade with Japan, and the other countries on the list, or most of them, are too poor to buy our products. This trade agreement will harm America.

[NanceGreggs]

270. Herein lies the problem ...

"I don't claim to know the details of the negotiations or the deal."

"I don't need to know the details of the deal to know that this agreement will impose some sort of supra-judicial entity that will impose its autocratic, authoritarian will on the American people."

By your own admission, you don't know the details. But you go on to say:

I oppose the TPP. I know what I am talking about."

If you don't know the details, how do you know what you're talking about?

"The TPP will be bad for America. It will mean more job losses."

Can you point me to the exact provisions, wording, construct, etc. that will be "bad for America" and will result in "more job losses"?

It is easy to say "this will be bad", or "this will cause job losses" - but if you can't back those statements up with actual FACT, your argument doesn't hold water.

[JDPriestly]

273. I'm quite knowledgeable about the NAFTA court. I expect the TPP will have a similar court.

I base that in part on the speech that Sander Levin, ranking member of the House Committee on Ways and Means gave.

Please listen to his speech. He supports international trade but has grave misgivings about the TPP for the reasons that he explains.

Snader Levin attended the meetings about the TPP that took place recently in Australia. His staff cannot read the documents about the TPP that they need to read to assist him in carrying out his duties to his constituents. Yet I think it is about 600 corporations that have been given access to information about how the negotiations on the TPP are proceeding.

From the summary of the speech in the OP of the thread about it:

First, Levin emphasized that the Obama administration must respect the 10 May 2007 agreement on trade agreements negotiated between the US Congress and the Bush administration. This deal sought to protect workers’ rights, environmental protections, access to medicines, and human rights. The US Congressional Democrats have been aggrieved that Obama and his trade representatives have not honoured this deal: ‘That agreement is — and must remain — a bedrock principle within trade agreements.’

Second, Levin called for reciprocity in the TPP. He observed: ‘The TPP presents an enormously important opportunity to transform the trading relationship between the United States and those partners from something that in some cases looks like a one-way street to a fully reciprocal one with healthy flows that go both ways and create opportunities for everyone — the way trade is supposed to.’ Levin highlighted concerns about market access for agriculture, automobiles, currency manipulation, and state-owned enterprises.

Third, Levin stressed that there was a need to protect national sovereignty in the TPP, and the right to regulate. He commented: ‘Reaching for a high bar to increase standards of living, improve worker rights and strengthen environmental protections, and ensure that trade opportunities are reciprocal does not mean the United States gives up its right to regulate in all of the vitally important areas that affect our interests’. Levin was particularly interested in defending food safety rules, and tobacco control measures. He was also alarmed by the abuse of investor-state dispute settlement: ‘Investor-state disputes have proliferated in recent years and involve increasingly novel and costly challenges to public welfare and environmental regulations.’

Levin commented: ‘While the text must reflect these principles, the devil will be in the details of the text, in the annexes and the ‘non-conforming measures,’ and in the implementation of the obligations’. He stressed that ‘That is true in critical areas, including the environment, state-owned enterprises, labor rights, and a broad range of market access issues.’ Levin observed that, while ‘the quantity of increased trade is important’, ‘in this new era of globalization, the most important test is its quality, its potential impact on the lives of people’. Echoing the concerns of the economist Joseph Stiglitz about the TPP benefitting corporate elites — the 1% — he stressed: ‘The goal must be to ensure that the potential benefits of trade are spread broadly to the many, not just the few.’

htttp://www.democraticunderground.com/10026040549

The NAFTA court is not a good thing. We are a sovereign nation and should not give up our sovereignty to such a court. Without our national sovereignty our Constitution is meaningless and we do not have the right to govern ourselves. These international courts rob us of the right to self-determination with regard to, for example, environmental issues and, as Levin points out, food safety and other safety issues. And those are only a couple of the areas in which we give up sovereignty to some kangaroo court with these trade agreements.

[NanceGreggs]

274. "I'm quite knowledgeable about the NAFTA court."

... does not equate to "I am knowledgeable about what will eventually be part of the finalized TPP treaty."

Levin's comments address what he believes "Obama must do", "what must be respected", the "need to protect nat'l sovereignty", "labor rights", etc.

He lays out a case for what it is important, what should not be given up, what the ultimate goals should be.

What he does not discuss is the provisions already agreed upon that in are in any way contrary to what he is saying is important. That's because no such provisions have been agreed upon.

[JDPriestly]

275. No provisions have been agreed upon. Then why is Obama talking about fast track.

Levin opposes fast-track.

And it is shameful that 600 corporations are told what is in the TPP but we aren't.

And by the way, I am familiar enough with the workings and procedures of the NAFTA court to know that the TPP court may be different as to some details but will essentially function in the same fashion which is counter to the traditions of our country and the requirements of our Constitution.

TPP is not good. It will not be good for America. Obama wants it because he thinks it will help us keep China from overtaking us in various parts of the world. I do not think it will achieve that goal at all.

[NanceGreggs]

276. I admire your passion ...

... in fighting against what you think is detrimental to your countrymen, and the nation as a whole.

The fact that you still can't be specific about what it is you are fighting against in this instance speaks for itself.

"TPP is not good. It will not be good for America."

You still can't tell me why.

[JDPriestly]

281. Because iti s being negotiated by a bunch of international corporations

It will set up an independent international court that will prohibit Americans from making decisions about not only commercial aspects of our life like the duration of patent and copyright rights but how we regulate tobacco and other products, maybe alcohol, maybe wheat, any one of a number of products and because it will permit that international court to impose penalties on us, on our government in some instances in which we vote for leaders in Congress or in our state legislatures that enact certain regulations that foreign companies decide they don't like.

That's the authority that the NAFTA court has. That is the authority that the TPP court will have.

What do you know about the TPP that you like?

Have you ever dealt with the NAFTA court?

Have you read the summaries of the kinds of cases that are heard by the NAFTA court.

In addition, I object to the TPP because our balance of trade is extremely high. We do not export as much as we import. We have to get closer to an even trade balance with the trade agreements we have before we get into yet another agreement.

I have lived abroad quite a bit. I do not think that the economy of the US is well enough organized or thoughtfully enough organized to compete in the international market and still make sure that ordinary Americans do not lose out while very wealthy Americans make a killing.

[msanthrope]

254. You might find this exchange on the TPP illuminating.....

There, President Obama is blamed for using this Presidential Time Machine to go back and pass legislation during the Clinton Administration.

Apparently, he also managed to mind-control Sonny Bono into writing and sponsoring it.......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4550863

Post 1 begins the exchange.

[RiverLover]

3. I guess that's why UPS felt it had the right to sue Canada's Post ofc for hurting its profits

Under NAFTA> UPS called the Postal Service a "monopoly" which hurt their profits. Wanted Canadian taxpayers to fork over $160 million for their lost profits.

Luckily it failed.

United Parcel Service of America v. Government of Canada

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3749.htm

Also see~

http://www.citizen.org/documents/investor-state-chart.pdf

[JI7]

4. LOOK AT ME

[bravenak]

5. Yep.

[Electric Monk]

8. Ok, I'm looking at you, and I see you missing the point entirely. Was that what you wanted? nt

[rhett o rick]

12. Yes look at you. You who thinks that anyone dubious of the TPP are so only because they hate Obama.

You who will disparage those critical of the TPP but never provide an argument in favor.

I think the TPP issue reveals the division in the Democratic Party. The progressive wing does not support the TPP while the conservative wing supports the TPP.

[JI7]

15. there is no division in the democratic party

yes, people within the party don't all agree on things. but there is no big ideological division.

[rhett o rick]

18. Really? You must be in denial. Do you think that H. Clinton and Sen Sanders are on the same

page?

[JI7]

20. what has that got to do with whether there is a division in the party

people within the party have always had differences.

[rhett o rick]

26. These differences are huge. One side hates whistle-blowers, journalists and OWS.

Guess which side that is? They are the same side that supports the NSA/CIA Security State and the Patriot Act. They support the TPP, fracking and bail outs for the Banksters. They support Wall Street and Goldman-Sachs. They support the Neocon continuous war in the Middle East.

These stands are conservative stands that used to be confined to the Republican Party. Now they have crept into our tent.

You may want to deny it but you are going to find that the fight for the Democratic nomination in 2016 will be a bitter fight. Of course the big money will be on your side.

[JI7]

29. where is the evidence for this division ? as i said, people have always had differences

in opinion on many issues. but that doesn't mean there is some huge division in the party.

[rhett o rick]

36. This is no "difference of opinions", this is a difference in ideology. One side favors the 99%

and the conservatives favor Goldman-Sachs and the 1%.

The conservatives think that we can elect H. Clinton-Sachs and maintain the status quo, even as we watch the lower classes sink into poverty. More wars, bigger defense budgets and cut backs in the safety nets.

[JI7]

41. elizabeth warren doesn't seem to have different views from hillary on wars, defense spending

so there is no huge divide as you keep trying to suggest.

[MannyGoldstein]

89. Warren voted against arming "Syrian rebels" to fight ISIS

The exact opposite of what The Next One deems necessary.

[JI7]

123. that isn't a sign of any huge divide

She still supports large defense spending and defended israel on gaza.

Obama and Hillary had different views on some foreign policy issues also like dealing with Iran.

None of that meant some huge divide in the party.

[ellenrr]

82. +

[aspirant]

35. "no division"

In your words "Fuck all the deranged fucks who hate him"

[Phlem]

150. Spot on.

[Oilwellian]

264. LOL

and there you have it.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Right you are, Dr. Pangloss

[BubbaFett]

28. Gor blimey!

I want some of what you are smoking!

[AgingAmerican]

68. It's called the 'Third Way®'

Fresh Thinking lol

Note the article on the Third Way® front page...Fossil fuels for clean energy?

Cognitive dissonance.

[RiverLover]

99. Democrats are divided against the Democratic President

...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, acutely aware of residual public resentment against NAFTA’s 20-year legacy of job loss and wage decline, has firmly ruled out the fast-track route for the TPP. Influential Democratic senators like Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) have already directed their fire at the TPP, with Warren demonstrating her seriousness by voting against Obama’s nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, former Citigroup director Michael Froman. Meanwhile, 150 House Democrats and several dozen Republicans signed a November letter opposing the fast-track process.

http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2014/0314bybee.html

^^^this article is one of the best summaries/explanations of the TPP I've read.

[Cosmic Kitten]

106. "there is no big ideological division" bwahahaha

Keep telling yourself just that!

Oh wait, you must be saying there is NO DIVISION
amongst the campaign money grubbing party members?

I suppose it's how you define "democratic party", eh?

[L0oniX]

168. LMFAO ...ok

[sibelian]

250. Not in front of the Klingons, eh?

:/

[beerandjesus]

32. I don't even think they support the TPP per se...

...they don't even care about Obama's policies, as long as he looks cute in pictures with school children. They don't actually think about things like TPP enough to support them.

[pampango]

98. "... only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea (of 'fast track authority for

Obama).

Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

The progressive wing does not support the TPP while the conservative wing supports the TPP.

Conservatives and republicans oppose 'fast track' and the TPP much more than liberals and Democrats. The ideaolgical divide is not nearly so simple as "progressives oppose TPP" and "conservatives support it".

Many republicans, particularly on the far-right of the party, don't like trade, immigration, the UN, the WTO, international treaties and organizations in general - essentially anything that is not "American" or prevents the US government from doing whatever it wants (invading Iraq, withdrawing from Kyoto), to whomever it wants, for any reason that it sees fit. Any treaty or organization that tells the US, "You can't do that" is anathema in their eyes.

[Cosmic Kitten]

114. You conflate Obama supporters with Liberal, why?

The linked article says "Obama supporters".
No actual congress critters are named.

You should name which "liberal"
congress members support fast track.

[pampango]

135. That was a quote from the article. That liberals support 'fast track' for Obama while conservatives

overwhelmingly oppose it, was the conclusion of the polling organization, not mine.

The linked article says "Obama supporters". No actual congress critters are named.

That's because it was not a poll of congressional representatives, but of regular people. What made you think it was a poll of politicians in congress?

You should name which "liberal" congress members support fast track.

Does that influence your perception of the value of liberal fast track supporters who are not members of congress? It would be different and refreshing to see someone who values the sentiments of people in congress more than those of regular people.

[Cosmic Kitten]

137. Please post the "liberal" quote...

Read it, didn't see it.
How about a C&P for the reading impaired???

[pampango]

138. No problem. Here it is.

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Poll: Only The Strongest Obama Supporters Want Him To Have Fast Track Authority

U.S. lawmakers are most certainly tracking public sentiment to the subject of free trade and how their support or opposition will play out in their districts as voters head to the polls. And if this national poll is any indication only the staunchest supporters of the president in the Democratic Party agree with the idea of granting the White House fast-track TPP authority. The poll was conducted Jan. 14-18 among 816 registered voters, with a margin of error of 3.5 percent in either direction.

“For a republican member of congress there is significant peril [in supporting fast-tracking TPP],” said Molyneux.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher. And perhaps most important: 66 percent of respondents who identified as independent, meaning they have no party affiliation and are a key voting constituency, oppose the idea.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

[Phlem]

152. Thank You.

[Phlem]

148. Yep.

you either support the destruction of the middle class and our Constitution, or you don't. I think the middle ground on this would be ignorance.

[daleanime]

24. Why?

[Logical]

130. LOL, coming from you this is really funny! nt

[Jakes Progress]

145. Why should I look at you. You don't have anything to say about the subject.

[grasswire]

233. The "Look at Me" seeker is the one who ...

.....plays the same game repeatedly.

[Faryn Balyncd]

6. Third Way Manny, you are gifted.

[rhett o rick]

13. Hey, hey don't go encouraging him. nm

[Snarkoleptic]

7. I, for one welcome our new trans-pacific overlords.

[daredtowork]

11. lol - gold. nt

[rhett o rick]

14. Once again you put me in a bind. Whether to rec TWM or not. In either case I won't

be kicking this thread.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Rec *and* alert

Probably too late to alert, but maybe...

[rhett o rick]

31. For some strange reason, my alert button won't work. I think I burned it out on your previous TWM

posts.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Button doesn't work?

LOL.

Obviously, the Internet was invented by the government.

[rhett o rick]

240. Well, without getting too conspiratorial and stirring up the anti-CT Possie, I think

that the NSA can control who I can rec and alert on. And Manny, if you find out I've jumped off the Golden State Bridge, please be suspicious, because I live near Seattle.

ps- The neighbor boy got a fancy drone for Christmas that keeps flying around my house. Of course the damn kid denies it but I'm sure it's him. And I'm sure he painted CIA on the side.

[Lifelong Protester]

17. Three cheers for:

That "wild-haired Socialist and his soul mate, that difficult woman from Massachusetts".

[F4lconF16]

79. +1

"That difficult woman from Massachussetts" cracked me up

Cause you know some are thinking it...

[DeSwiss]

21. It Tastes Great!!!

- AND It's Less Filling!!!!

Damn! What do you people want!?!?!?

K&R

[center]

''Absolute loyalty means a lack of awareness.''[/center]

[MannyGoldstein]

96. A final solution for homelessness *and* hunger

And reduces CO2 emissions.

Why can't Liberals see that?

[NewDeal_Dem]

33. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems".

Did he actually say that?

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Click on the link in the OP and find out. nt

[NewDeal_Dem]

44. OK, I'll say it: he's a tool. Is there any anti-labor sentiment/action he hasn't signed on to?

[QC]

166. He doesn't support hanging union organizers.

In the eyes of his votaries, that makes him a friend of labor.

[Roy Rolling]

34. America, fuck yeah!

American corporate puppets are awsomer than those people in the country called "TPP"--- wherever that is.

[pablo_marmol]

43. Thank you Roy -----

That was very enjoyable!

[PowerToThePeople]

38. that's right. he is not even a democrat

And if you do not vote hrc and love the tpp, neither are you!

[RobertEarl]

45. Hey! You're getting the hang of it!!

There should be no criticism of the president in a time of war. And this, my friends, is war. Our corporations stand to lose big profits if they are not allowed to go overseas and hire cheaper labor than the USians who are so middle class they almost deserve to be put down. And that's what TIPP will do. TIPP it good!!

[Ramses]

50. This needs to be seen by the White House

I can discern sarcasm pretty good,

And this post sums up whats it terribly and disturbingly wrong with Obama supporting such a travesty.

[pa28]

53. Our elected representatives have to claw their way in to take a look at the document.

They have a limited time to look and they have to promise not to take notes.

Must be nice to be a CEO or lobbyist on the stakeholder list you linked to in the OP. They get access to the agreement and daily updates!

Who's your daddy?

[stillwaiting]

90. It's so obviously and clearly beyond corrupt that I have no idea how some don't oppose it.

Well, I have a few ideas, but you know...

[Buns_of_Fire]

103. "Stakeholder" is starting to wear on my nerves, like "homeland" did.

To me, it's almost implying that they have a God-given RIGHT to their almighty profits! I always thought that capitalism implied that there'd be losers as well as winners. Apparently that's not the case in our New and Improved Economy.

Not while all the Big Winners are still willing to toss around those big, fat, juicy campaign contributions and revolving-door jobs, anyway.

[pa28]

144. I know the feeling. I always considered US citizens to be "stakeholders".

When the commerce department uses that word they are referring to Monsanto, Dow and Pfizer. It's a not-so gentle reminder the interest of working Americans don't count.

[AgingAmerican]

219. They need to change it to "The Kittyland"

'Homeland' is too much like 'Motherland' (Soviet Union) and 'Fatherland' (Nazi Germany).

[BrotherIvan]

58. The centrists are vying for medals in Sophistry

It's rather loathesome to watch.

[beerandjesus]

189. +1

Loathsome and pathetic.

[BrotherIvan]

193. I think they think it's working

Now we are supposed to say, NAFTA wasn't that bad. Or it will make a wage floor for people in Myanmar, so who cares if that woman in Utah is supposed to get $.03 an hour! Or, we don't know what's in it because they're keeping it a secret, so YAY! Or, I trust the President implicitly, because...pretty pictures!

Shaking my damn head...

[MannyGoldstein]

201. Good point. This thread could be used as a teaching tool:

Way more fun - and cringe-inducing - than most textbooks.

[BrotherIvan]

210. Or a pitiful attempt at gaslighting

For what? Truly, what can one gain by stooping so low? It's fucking revolting.

[MannyGoldstein]

212. The smartest psychologist I know tells me that

for most people, cognitive dissonance is terribly painful and they'll do all kinds of silly stuff to avoid it.

I think this is demonstrated daily on DU. Another opportunity to use DU as a teaching tool!

[BrotherIvan]

214. Interesting

[JohnnyRingo]

61. From someone who stirs divisive shit here three times a week

I don't mind that you express your opinion, but if someone dares to counter your views you apparently get deeply offended. If I were to post an opinionated piece, I wouldn't assume it's the default liberal position and attack others using names like "moonbat". I could probably expect some pushback here on almost any issue.

I get that you'll tear down any democrat to promote Ms Warren, but you'll likely have to come around to one of the candidates you beat up in a couple years.

I'm not necessarily pro-TPP, after all, I'm a lifelong union member generally opposed to outsourcing, but having a fit to bend everyone else to your will seems counterproductive. Perhaps not reading replies to your own posts is the ticket.

[Number23]

187. Are you sure about that?

I get that you'll tear down any democrat to promote Ms Warren, but you'll likely have to come around to one of the candidates you beat up in a couple years.

I don't get that from the OP at all. Supporting Democrats doesn't seem to be a strong suit and I have absolutely no doubt he'll keep up his cringe-inducing "satire" long after the trumpets blare and the Horsemen have long since left their celestial barn. As long as there are recs to receive from the humor and knowledge impaired here (and there are alot though his cache has certainly dropped since his heyday of every spew getting 200 recs at a bare minimum) he'll be here. Oh, joy.

[MannyGoldstein]

199. Do you have any @#$%ing idea, any idea at all, of

how humiliating it is to hear one's child say "Hey dad, I read on DU that you're a has-been!".

You people are brutal.

[Andy823]

209. Well said.

I agree with you, the odds are no matter who may win the democratic nomination, and then go on to win the WH, sooner or later they to will be thrown under the bus and bashed just like all the others who don't agree with the anti everything crowd, and their leaders here on DU.

[Number23]

224. That goes without saying. And it won't be funny to see it when it happens. It will be just as sad

stupid, and self destructive to see these people throwing the Dem Savior of the Day under the wheels in 2016, 2020 etc. as it is to see it being done today.

[Andy823]

208. Only three times a week?

Seems like a lot more to me, of course his band of merry "followers" keep bumping his posts so it may just seem like a lot more that he really posts.

My problem is that if it's so damned secret, how do all those who seem to "know" every detail get their information?

When see a link to all the information, and it's really from the agreement, then I will decide if is't good or bad.

[Logical]

236. Explain the recs then! nt

[JohnnyRingo]

241. Explain why Manny demands people stop posting opposition.

Most people, self included, skip right past his posts or read them and go on with our day. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't, but when he follows one up with one so insufferable as this one in which he labels those who disagree as "moonbats", it's hard to ignore.

As I mention, I'm not a fan of TPP in particular, but this is only one in a series of divisive posts where he clearly considers his myriad of views as the default DU position. This entry shows his deference to anyone who dares to state otherwise.

Perhaps you and Manny are ideally joined like two cogs in a great machine, turning as one on every issue under the sun, but forums are designed to spur debate and gather input from a variety of sources. That debate is lost when you tell people they need to shut up, as he literally did in this post.

[Logical]

247. LOL, no he did not. His point was that people do not understand how bad TPP could be. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

266. Well said. nt

[Union Scribe]

91. Great thread Manny!

It's always fun watching TPP defenders continue to shred whatever integrity they may have had.

[Autumn]

101. What the fuck Manny. I clicked the blue link in your OP, the USPS can't catch a break.

How on earth was that remark not shouted from the rooftops by Liberals? As for the TPP? Pshaw all we have to do is stall it until 2016 and when presednut Jebby starts refining it and signs it into law democrats here on DU will absolutely hate it, probably more than they hate you.

A big kick and rec. There are days my friend when your writing rocks my world. This was one.

[BrotherIvan]

191. +Yup

[MannyGoldstein]

200. It's the AMERICAN PEOPLE who deserve a break!

A break from the USPS!

It's a disgrace seeing their carriers calmly ambling along their route, secure in the knowledge that they'll have a pension when they age out of the work force.

A workforce that's TERRIFIED is a workforce that HUSTLES.

Regards,

TWM

[SixString]

104. K&R for pissing off the right people.

[Shemp Howard]

107. Well done, Manny. Brilliant post! (nt)

[gregcrawford]

108. I knew there were some trolls on DU...

... but you take the cake, Manny. Your supposed "FACTS" are not facts at all. Just because something is called a "Partnership," doesn't mean it IS a partnership.

Accusation: The TPP will only benefit a few Americans.
Fact: Literally hundreds of thousands of Americans are in the top 0.1%. Hundreds of thousands! That's a lot of people!

Misdirection through the over-use of exclamation points is not a cogent argument. To say that "literally hundreds of thousands of Americans are in the top 0.1%" does not justify anything. 300-odd million Americans are NOT in the top 0.1%, and they are going to get screwed.

Your first "FACT" is so pitifully absurd that I can't believe you wrote it. "Literally hundreds..." of the very weasels conspiring to implement this corporate coup d'etat have access to information about it. Wowie zowie! Sorry, Manny, but that does not constitute "transparency." Not when Congress is to be denied the right to debate the relative merits of this cynically misnamed "Trade Deal," or to amend it in any way, shape or form.

And finally, no, we will NOT stop discussing the obscene treachery of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And I, for one, will not stop demanding REAL transparency by denying Goldman Sachs' pet president the "Fast Track" authority he wants to ram this abortion down our throats.

[Shemp Howard]

111. Greg, take a deep breath.

Manny is using extreme sarcasm to tear the TPP apart. He is not arguing for it, but against it. But don't worry if you initially missed his point. The TPP has me so upset that sometimes I get carried away too.

[gregcrawford]

151. Please see post #141

[annabanana]

132. thou knowest not our Manny. . . . n/t

[Enthusiast]

110. That was good! Way to go, Manny!

[upaloopa]

112. I guess you left out the sarcasm smilie

As I see it there are no proposals coming from any branch of the government that are aimed at the decreasing the wealth disparity.

So why would the TPP be any different?
Why do the wealthiest corporations and individuals need new rules to ease their access to more wealth which is what the TPP does. Haven't we shown that giving more wealth to the top doesn't improve lives at the bottom? If the TPP was good for the working class we would have known years before it would have been put in place. Fast track and no reporting on it is not because it is designed to improve our lives.
Somehow we need to find a way to reverse the trend started 40 years ago.

[ctsnowman]

115. You are

just mad because you didn't get a pony and you NEVER loved him.

[Kermitt Gribble]

118. First time I've seen the negative comments about USPS.

Thanks, for the links, Manny. K&R!

[99Forever]

119. Yup..

... freakin' Professional Lefties and their damn facts.

[whereisjustice]

122. no problem, Washington will make up for the job losses and poverty by demanding

lower wages for teachers and higher test scores from our children.

[abelenkpe]

179. +1000

[Progressive dog]

124. Taking jobs from other countries

will not solve our job problems. We have a high standard of living because of our economic system, not in spite of it. That system has always encouraged and needed trade. Labor is not the only input to production. You cannot mine ore that you do not have.
If you need a raw material which your country does not have, you can try to live without it, you can try to take it by force, or you can try to trade for it. Living without it results in less production, not more-less stuff to buy, not more--lower pay, not more--fewer jobs, not more.

[G_j]

125. well done!

[Owl]

126. Excellent Manny!

K&R

[Oilwellian]

133. This is your best piece yet, Manny

[Not Sure]

134. JFC...

How in the fuck can anyone support this bullshit? Or hide behind some "well, we just don't know, now do we?" argument. We know. There are free-trade precedents. And this is one negotiation where we hold none of the fucking cards. So, how will it turn out? Take a fucking guess.

[imthevicar]

140. Every trade deal for the last 25 years gave just the

Opposite of what it promised. what makes you think the TPP will be any different? Obama? If so I got a bridge for sale.

[gregcrawford]

141. YA GOT ME, MANNY!

And I owe you an apology. I fancy myself a master of dry wit, but this went right over my head! Duh! Good one!

[MannyGoldstein]

213. Nah, it was Poe's fault

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[gregcrawford]

244. Your erudition is inspiring!

Check out GOOD READS for my cartoon, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: The greatest threat we face" for a personification of the TPP. I'll watch for your posts from now on!

[Logical]

237. Don't feel bad, my initial read was the same way. nt

[MindPilot]

142. Well-played, sir!

[Octafish]

143. ''BANKSTER'' in Vietnamese is ''LARRY SUMMERS''

The Confidential Memo at the Heart of the Global Financial Crisis

by Greg Palast
Vice.com, Aug. 22, 2013

EXCERPT...

The year was 1997. US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was pushing hard to de-regulate banks. That required, first, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to dismantle the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. It was like replacing bank vaults with roulette wheels.

Second, the banks wanted the right to play a new high-risk game: “derivatives trading”. JP Morgan alone would soon carry $88 trillion of these pseudo-securities on its books as “assets”.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers (soon to replace Rubin as Secretary) body-blocked any attempt to control derivatives.

But what was the use of turning US banks into derivatives casinos if money would flee to nations with safer banking laws?

The answer conceived by the Big Bank Five: eliminate controls on banks in every nation on the planet -- in one single move. It was as brilliant as it was insanely dangerous.

CONTINUED...

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo

[JEB]

147. Fuck the TPP and

anyone who supports it. Negotiated in secret with no worker input. Total bullshit.

[mmonk]

149. The Colbert of DU strikes again.

😊

[Bobbie Jo]

159. LMAO

Oh hell no. Not on his best day.

You guys have a low bar when it comes to clever satire. Loooow bar.

[Phlem]

153. K&R!

another excellent post Manny.

[L0oniX]

173. All your base are belong to us.

[ucrdem]

174. OP article also praises Darrell Issa for leaking the draft chapter flogged by Jules and others:

Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2015, 04:11 PM - Edit history (1)

In his defense, last month House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., leaked a draft [from 2011] of the "intellectual property" chapter of TPP, just because it's a "secretive agreement" that could “undermine individual privacy rights and stifle innovation."

http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/06/29/insider-list

Darrell Issa. Frankly that explains a lot.


.....
ETA: This 2012 Sojourner's article is cited as the source of the insider access claims made in the article cited in the OP, link here: http://www.flushthetpp.org/tpp-corporate-insiders/

[pbmus]

197. .....

Last edited Sun Jan 4, 2015, 03:32 AM - Edit history (2)

http://www.flushthetpp.org/ http://www.flushthetpp.org/ http://www.flushthetpp.org/

http://www.flushthetpp.org/

http://www.flushthetpp.org/

http://www.flushthetpp.org/

http://www.flushthetpp.org/


http://www.flushthetpp.org/ http://www.flushthetpp.org/

http://www.flushthetpp.org/

http://www.flushthetpp.org/

http://www.flushthetpp.org/

http://www.flushthetpp.org/


http://www.flushthetpp.org/

http://www.flushthetpp.org/

http://www.flushthetpp.org/


http://www.flushthetpp.org/

http://www.flushthetpp.org/

http://www.flushthetpp.org/

http://www.flushthetpp.org/

[MrMickeysMom]

202. Yeah.. and about those CEO's salaries...

Adjusted for where the minimum wage should be, they're not so bad…

When they go to the lavatory, they're very considerate with, "Excuse me now, I have to go trickle down."

[Puglover]

216. Rec because just the right posters are coming

unglued.

Nicely done!

[Autumn]

256. Are you talking about the Perpetually Outraged? I love it

when they come unhinged.

[Puglover]

257. You know.

The "DU sucks so much, I hate it, the posters all suck and are morons, I'm leaving (sadly they don't) I HATE IT HERE!" folks.

Them.

[Autumn]

258. Yes.Them. It's rather sad that they hate DU and DUers so much but yet, here they are.

But they are sometimes amusing when they come out from under their little bridge.

[Puglover]

259. I suspect they are reliving their glory days in High School.

But what do I know?

Hey you! I hope you had wonderful Holidays!

[Autumn]

260. I had a wonderful but tiring holiday. I'm glad that things are

back to normal. I told my Daughters and Grandson from now on holidays are at their homes, they can let me know what time to be there.

[QC]

262. I admire the self-sacrifice of spending 20-22 hours a day in a place one loathes

just to be able to warn everyone else that it's a horrible place full of horrible people.

Greater love hath no man than this....

[Autumn]

263. I never thought of it like that but now I know I must appreciate them and I

too must admire them... thank you for pointing out our pettiness and the error of our ways. Tis a far better love they show us.

[Bobbie Jo]

265. Awwww still here....

Despite the best efforts of the resident Heathers.


Doncha just hate that?

[Number23]

267. Are you sure they're after you?

Although it seems that I have done... something to draw the attention of the Temper Tantrum Tag Team (4T for short) who only show up when a thread's heat is gone to endlessly high five each other and talk shit knowing that no one will see them talking about posters behind their backs, I think Nance is the true target of their ire.

Notice the repeated insistence on talking about "apologizing" for something? You would think that after bringing it up 482 times and no one ONCE asking "what are you guys talking about?" would give them a clue that they are harping on something that's probably not that interesting, but no doubt that's asking for too much contemplation.

Whoever the target is, it's pretty freaking funny that they work SOOOOO hard to be as nasty as they can be and the banes of so many people's DU existences and they really come off far more like this
than like this

[Bobbie Jo]

268. Heh

No, I knew they were circling here after Nance. No doubt they knew that she was locked out and unable to respond, not that she would bother with the petty ankle biting that follows her from thread to thread.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Capt. Obvious]

261. I logged out to have a look

ew

[1step]

218. Good Idea!

Rec

[JDPriestly]

220. Thanks, Manny.

[RoccoR5955]

223. Manny...

You forgot about Benghazi!

[sulphurdunn]

226. +1000

[paleotn]

229. The sarcasm....it stings!...

well done, sir.

[JonLP24]

245. I can't believe he said that about the Post Office

Since the problems can be traced back to brain-dead Republican legislation signed by Bush in 2007.

[Electric Monk]

282. kick

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6086356