If you watch or listen news that isn't right wing (sorry, but Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh aren't on this story at all) or Corporate (MSNBC and CNN aren't on this story either) you'll see this as a major push by trans-national corporations.  The corporations are the ones that are writing this treaty!!!!

 

 

I just Googled Hannity and apparently he just today ripped Paul Ryan for TPP. I'm pretty sure Limbaugh and Beck are also opposed to it. It's the corporatist middle that supports it, not the extremes.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I just Googled Hannity and apparently he just today ripped Paul Ryan for TPP. I'm pretty sure Limbaugh and Beck are also opposed to it. It's the corporatist middle that supports it, not the extremes.

 

I should clarify...  They are not giving it the type of coverage it deserves.  MSNBC rarely speak about it.  Beck hasn't spoke about it in almost 3 weeks.  And when he does, it's for a couple minutes out of his 3 hour show.  I haven't heard Limbaugh speak of it at all, but I don't listen to him as often as I do beck.  I haven't heard any reporting on it from CNN...

 

This TPP thing is a big deal.  It gets no play when compared to other news stories out there...  That's what I meant.

 

You bring up another thing I find interesting...  You call the corporatists, in the middle...  I don't know...  I think that for the most part (especially economically) corporations and their mouth peices are right wing...  Meaning they are supply siders that think that big business should write the rules.  Some corporations may have social beliefs that lean left.  But economically, I would say they are all very conservative concerning free trade, no regulations, etc...  

 

Wouldn't you agree?

---

For the record Anarchy doesn't mean without laws, it means without rulers.............

 

Hmmm...  That's an interesting thought...  Without rulers...  IE a populace has the power?  

---

Hmmm...  That's an interesting thought...  Without rulers...  IE a populace has the power?  

 

It's difference without meaning. Anarchy is the absence of authority, and in our society the "authority" is the law as written with the consent of the people. The "rulers" that Eric is talking about are the offices and officers of the law, there's no real distinction that permits his statement to be accurate.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I should clarify...  They are not giving it the type of coverage it deserves.  MSNBC rarely speak about it.  Beck hasn't spoke about it in almost 3 weeks.  And when he does, it's for a couple minutes out of his 3 hour show.  I haven't heard Limbaugh speak of it at all, but I don't listen to him as often as I do beck.  I haven't heard any reporting on it from CNN...

 

This TPP thing is a big deal.  It gets no play when compared to other news stories out there...  That's what I meant.

 

You bring up another thing I find interesting...  You call the corporatists, in the middle...  I don't know...  I think that for the most part (especially economically) corporations and their mouth peices are right wing...  Meaning they are supply siders that think that big business should write the rules.  Some corporations may have social beliefs that lean left.  But economically, I would say they are all very conservative concerning free trade, no regulations, etc...  

 

Wouldn't you agree?

 

No I don't agree. Most big corporations are supporters of regulations since it prevents competition from starting up. To me, 'right wing' means true conservatives, those who are for individual rights and who believe in a free market, as opposed to the government-corporate market we currently have. Those who are beholden to corporate interests tend to be the centrist politicians of both parties (as opposed to centrist citizens). Even a Marxist like Obama is willing to covey favor with corporations in exchange for campaign donations (GE being a big example).


 

EDIT: Rush Limbaugh mentioned TPP several times in the last few weeks, and that was just during the [about] 1 hour a week I listen to him.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

No I don't agree. Most big corporations are supporters of regulations since it prevents competition from starting up. To me, 'right wing' means true conservatives, those who are for individual rights and who believe in a free market, as opposed to the government-corporate market we currently have. Those who are beholden to corporate interests tend to be the centrist politicians of both parties (as opposed to centrist citizens). Even a Marxist like Obama is willing to covey favor with corporations in exchange for campaign donations (GE being a big example).


EDIT: Rush Limbaugh mentioned TPP several times in the last few weeks, and that was just during the [about] 1 hour a week I listen to him.

I imagine Obama has more in common with Groucho than Karl but don't let the facts get in the way of your smear campaign, you haven't yet.

---

I imagine Obama has more in common with Groucho than Karl but don't let the facts get in the way of your smear campaign, you haven't yet.

 

He listens to Limbaugh 1 hour per week, what would you expect?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Well, it looks like it's been shot down... for now.

 

This is a very confusing and puzzling issue for me.  I can understand the need to establish trade rules with other countries since that's pretty much the way the world is today.  However, a few things bother me regarding this mess.

 

1.  Why the secrecy?  I can understand keeping things classified when it comes to issues of national security, but I would think that an issue such as trade would be "transparent" as was promised to us by the current regime.

 

2.  One of the key issues, as I understand it is what is known as the "Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)" that would give the President the power to negotiate trade deals that Congress could approve or reject, but not amend.  In my mind, that's a whole lot of power given to the Office of President.  It could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you look at it.

 

3.  Why are republicans so eager to give that kind of power to the current President?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

3.  Why are republicans so eager to give that kind of power to the current President?

 

Because Hillary! gonna be the Dem candidate next time.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I imagine Obama has more in common with Groucho than Karl but don't let the facts get in the way of your smear campaign, you haven't yet.

 

Your imagination is wrong. From each, according to ability, to each according to need. That's the essence of Obama's economic philosophy.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Well, it looks like it's been shot down... for now.


This is a very confusing and puzzling issue for me. I can understand the need to establish trade rules with other countries since that's pretty much the way the world is today. However, a few things bother me regarding this mess.


1. Why the secrecy? I can understand keeping things classified when it comes to issues of national security, but I would think that an issue such as trade would be "transparent" as was promised to us by the current regime.


2. One of the key issues, as I understand it is what is known as the "Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)" that would give the President the power to negotiate trade deals that Congress could approve or reject, but not amend. In my mind, that's a whole lot of power given to the Office of President. It could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you look at it.


3. Why are republicans so eager to give that kind of power to the current President?

Because republicans are just as power hungry and government addicted as democrats. They see it as their turn starting in 2016 and are looking to stack the office with power.

---

Well, it looks like it's been shot down... for now.

 

This is a very confusing and puzzling issue for me.  I can understand the need to establish trade rules with other countries since that's pretty much the way the world is today.  However, a few things bother me regarding this mess.

 

1.  Why the secrecy?  I can understand keeping things classified when it comes to issues of national security, but I would think that an issue such as trade would be "transparent" as was promised to us by the current regime.

 

2.  One of the key issues, as I understand it is what is known as the "Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)" that would give the President the power to negotiate trade deals that Congress could approve or reject, but not amend.  In my mind, that's a whole lot of power given to the Office of President.  It could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you look at it.

 

3.  Why are republicans so eager to give that kind of power to the current President?

The secrecy is a big issue.  If it's great for America, why keep the details in a locked room that only those on the list are permitted to see?

 

The inability for congress to amend trade deals negotiated by the president takes the typical congressional add-ons out of the equation.  If they don't like the deal, they can vote it down.  But, they can't add amendments that have nothing to do with the deal, which is how a lot of these types of deals get tainted.  If the president negotiates a trade deal with a nation to lower tariffs on imports of raw material in exchange for a similar agreement for the finished product, it can wind up having all sorts of amendments tacked on for pet projects in order to get congressional support.  So,  you'll see farm subsidies, or highway projects in certain congressional districts added to trade legislation as a way of securing votes.  This takes that out of the equation.  If there's something so objectionable in the deal negotiated by the administration (regardless of party), congress can still shoot it down.  

 

Republicans have always supported free trade.  What's actually surprising here is that they're in agreement with Obama on this one, and it was the democrats who ended up putting the brakes on this process for now.

 

Personally, I find it impossible to have a real opinion on the deal because we're not getting any actual information about the TPA or the other pieces to this.  They're saying that the actual trade deal will have a 60 day window where it will be available for review before congress votes on it.  Those who have read it are, for the most part saying it's pretty much a boilerplate trade deal.  We'll see. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Your imagination is wrong. From each, according to ability, to each according to need. That's the essence of Obama's economic philosophy.

 

Prove it.  Provide a quote that verifies he's a communist.  He's not.  He's more conservative than people even realize.  The ACA was a conservative health care reform policy for crying out loud.

 

It's sad when usually very intelligent people start falling for the non-sense regarding Obama.

 

I guess we all have our blind spots...  Mine is Sara Palin.  To me, she can do no wrong   :teehee:

---

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think this proposed trade agreement got shot down yesterday by his own party correct?

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

To clarify, the trade agreement is still not even finalized. The vote yesterday was to fast track the agreement one the deal would be finalized.


Obama wanted congress to just have an up or down vote with no ability to amend any of the points of the agreement.


Hopefully this kills the agreement all together, but as of now, it still is up in the air... So to speak

---

To clarify, the trade agreement is still not even finalized. The vote yesterday was to fast track the agreement one the deal would be finalized.


Obama wanted congress to just have an up or down vote with no ability to amend any of the points of the agreement.


Hopefully this kills the agreement all together, but as of now, it still is up in the air... So to speak

Got ya. In my opinion, the way the Democrats shot down the agreement. Obama tried to use guilt and attack integrity to garner votes and it backfired.

 

I think this clips his wings, he's a lame duck.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Prove it.  Provide a quote that verifies he's a communist.  He's not.  He's more conservative than people even realize.  The ACA was a conservative health care reform policy for crying out loud.

 

It's sad when usually very intelligent people start falling for the non-sense regarding Obama.

 

I guess we all have our blind spots...  Mine is Sara Palin.  To me, she can do no wrong   :teehee:

 

It's not his quotes, it's his actions. Increasing taxes on those most able to pay (from each according to ability). Doubling food stamp payouts, pandering to illegals, and increasing the number of people eligible for Medicaid (to each according to need).


 

I'm not sure what you consider "conservative" but Obama is nowhere close. If you are talking about Obama's colluding with corporations, that's not conservative. You might make a case for his military action in Libya as being conservative in a general sense, but my "Marxist" statement referred to his economics and general elitist government control over the population. I don't think Karl Marx was into foreign policy.


 

Not a single conservative voted for the ACA. Even the RINOs declined. The ACA had some parts that were proposed by the Heritage foundation, but the final package was far from conservative. Increasing Medicaid and taxing medical equipment were clearly not conservative.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

You know it's bad law when no one wants to claim it.

---

Prove it.  Provide a quote that verifies he's a communist.  He's not.  He's more conservative than people even realize.  The ACA was a conservative health care reform policy for crying out loud.

 

It's sad when usually very intelligent people start falling for the non-sense regarding Obama.

 

I guess we all have our blind spots...  Mine is Sara Palin.  To me, she can do no wrong   :teehee:

 

Perhaps his view that "wealth needs to be redistributed" is a communist point of view.  You know the whole "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need".  The whole idea of "wealth distribution" and "income inequality".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Perhaps his view that "wealth needs to be redistributed" is a communist point of view.  You know the whole "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need".  The whole idea of "wealth distribution" and "income inequality".

That's not communist.  That's part of the democrat platform. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.