-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trans-Pacific Parnership
- Thread starter Jeremy Mason
- Start date
BlandOatmeal
Active Member
Thou sayest.
Alceste
Vagabond
Er, no. The Nazi Party fused capitalist and government interests. I'm talking about the government acting as a counter-balance to act AGAINST capitalist interests, in order to promote the best interests of the pubic.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Nevertheless, the TPP is not a good deal for most people. it's being fast-tracked with a simple up or down vote. I would like to see a copy of it.
Edit: found one.
Edit: found one.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Wikileaks has released two chapters - I posted a link earlier. Did you get a chance to check it out?
BlandOatmeal
Active Member
My leaders all assure me that they are acting in my interests; and what you've been saying does not assure me any more than they do. You seem to be confident that if a government is properly empowered, it can do no wrong.
In my opinion, it is foolish to think that governments can solve everyday problems. They are only able to take simple problems, add layers of paperwork and bureaucracy to them, and tax us for the added expense.
What any of this has to do with the "Trans-Pacific Partnership is zilch. We already HAVE the type of govenment you are advocating -- the hardcore reality of it, not the utopian theory. Obama is our Ombudsman, looking after our interests.
We interrupt this treatise for a grammar lesson. Yes, I grew up in the days of Benjamin Franklin, when Latin was studied in junior high school. Latin verbs are conjugated, with the major conjugations described by four forms of the verb. The word for "love", for instance, is
amo, amare, amavi, amatus
The verb form of "Obama", on the other hand, is
Obama, Obamacare, Obaminate, Ombudsman
There, you have convincing proof that our leader loves us and can do no wrong. The TPP, on the other hand, is, as I said, about geopolitics. If the East Asian economic giants such as China, South Korea and Japan were to somehow (don't hold your breath for this) get together in an economic union, they would form a trade bloc on the par with NAFTA and the EU. I suspect that the main purpose of the TPP, is to prevent this.
Have fun with your proposed form of government, whatever you decide to call it. My prayer is that God bless and keep the Czar, far away from me.
Shalom shalom
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
i found the 95 page pdf on wikileaks. Ends with Intellectual Property Rights. Is that the one?
Is that you, Rush Limbaugh? Is that you, Rush?
Alceste
Vagabond
Yup, that's part of it. They've also released the environment chapter. There's a lot more to come, I'm sure.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The Nationalist Socialist program was not really socialism but was fascism, which is far more right-wing than left. Also, the NAZI approach was hardly what one would call "compassionate" or "just", so any comparisons to current programs being pushed by the current administration here in the States is bogus. BTW, an ombudsman in Sweden has no real power and is only an adviser, although (s)he can help bring law suits against any business or government entity that is possibly acting corruptly.
BlandOatmeal
Active Member
...and this relates to the OP... how?
BlandOatmeal
Active Member
That is not my name, which is none of your business. How does what you say relate to the OP???
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You should have asked this question posts before mine to the one who brought it up first.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Yeah...It's horrible deal. So far they have bipartisan support on killing this. Max Baucus and Obama want "Fast Track" on this deal. This means No debates and No amendments. They want a straight up or down vote......Although..our congressman tend to add more pocket filling amendments than amendments that strengthen a bill.....I see no reason we should do this. I have seen a trade deal yet that's in our best interest.
Last edited:
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
This is great! Where did you hear this?
National Socialism isnt the same as a big government, you know.
Thats a very simplified view, you know. I happen to have live in a country that until recent years has had rather left wing politics... and I can confirm that we are still a democracy and dont have much love for National Socialism. And to put things in perspective, it should be mentioned that Obama is rather right winged. At least with our standards over here.My leaders all assure me that they are acting in my interests; and what you've been saying does not assure me any more than they do. You seem to be confident that if a government is properly empowered, it can do no wrong.
In my opinion, it is foolish to think that governments can solve everyday problems. They are only able to take simple problems, add layers of paperwork and bureaucracy to them, and tax us for the added expense.
What any of this has to do with the "Trans-Pacific Partnership is zilch. We already HAVE the type of govenment you are advocating -- the hardcore reality of it, not the utopian theory. Obama is our Ombudsman, looking after our interests.
We interrupt this treatise for a grammar lesson. Yes, I grew up in the days of Benjamin Franklin, when Latin was studied in junior high school. Latin verbs are conjugated, with the major conjugations described by four forms of the verb. The word for "love", for instance, is
amo, amare, amavi, amatus
The verb form of "Obama", on the other hand, is
Obama, Obamacare, Obaminate, Ombudsman
There, you have convincing proof that our leader loves us and can do no wrong. The TPP, on the other hand, is, as I said, about geopolitics. If the East Asian economic giants such as China, South Korea and Japan were to somehow (don't hold your breath for this) get together in an economic union, they would form a trade bloc on the par with NAFTA and the EU. I suspect that the main purpose of the TPP, is to prevent this.
Have fun with your proposed form of government, whatever you decide to call it. My prayer is that God bless and keep the Czar, far away from me.
Shalom shalom
BlandOatmeal
Active Member
I don't agree. I imagine your reasoning has to do with semantics -- all rather pointless. In the country where I live (which I actually am not ashamed of, and therefore have not kept it secret), socialism and big government have grown apace -- along with income inequality, the whole works. Call it what you will; but let's put this foolishness aside and get back to the OP.
I remember when Bill Clinton first marketed NAFTA to the American public. He got all the Presidents together to endorse it: Ford, Carter, Bush 41 and Monica's boyfriend, all in a line. Oops -- they forgot Reagan. You don't suppose he declined, do you? He was ill, and keeping out of the public eye; but I think he also had no stomach for the thing.
I voted for Reagan, and I voted for Bush 43; but I never voted for those other two Republicans. Bush 41 was the first to come out and publicly call for a "New World Order". Small wonder, he should come to the Democrat gala over free trade.
I fail to see any point you Obama-worshippers are trying to get to. You gave us this mess, and now you're griping about it. With both parties pushing for this thing (in secret, despite their election-year denials), TPP or something similar will probably happen. That being the case, what I see in the deal is just another US ploy to isolate China -- which I definitely do not like, but don't see how I can change it. That means more to me than all this Socialist gobbledegook.
PS. Correction -- I voted for Bush 41 in '68. Didn't have a choice -- the Dems didn't field a serious candidate. I voted for the "great sucking noise" Texan in '92; and for this, you Obaminites call me Rush Limbaugh.
Last edited:
BlandOatmeal
Active Member
The Trans-Pacific Partnership as a tool to contain China: myth or reality?
8 June 2013
Author: Sanchita Basu Das, ISEAS
"...Keeping in mind the importance of trade and economic cooperation, China has either signed, or is in the process of signing, several bilateral and multilateral FTAs. It has bilateral trade pacts with five of the twelve TPP members (Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore and Peru), and engages with three TPP parties (Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam) through a broader trade deal with ASEAN. China is also currently participating in the ASEAN-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which involves 16 countries, including India, and is negotiating the ChinaJapanKorea trilateral FTA..."
-- The Trans-Pacific Partnership as a tool to contain China: myth or reality? | East Asia Forum
I hope everyone here realizes that the TPP already exists. What is being debated, is whether North America, particularly the US, should join it. Concerning China, it already has free trade agreements with the non-North-American members.
Strategically, the US joining the TPP would integrate the US more with the non-Chinese players in the region. America's NOT joining TPP, on the other hand, would ensure Chinese dominance of the region -- a region that includes not only East Asia and the West Pacific, but western South America as well.
I am simply bewildered by Mr. Obama and his Democrat supporters. He is abandoning the Middle East, in favor of a "Pivot to Asia"; yet while he was very busy transferring military dominance in the former to the Russians and Chinese last fall, he chose to play golf and play hookey on a very important international meeting in Asia. Also, after stationing US marines in Darwin, staging joint exercises off Korea and generally alarming the Chinese militarily, he now has lost support in his own party for putting together the economic partner to these moves in the form of the TPP.
Are we competing with the Chinese? or do we want to withdraw into a cocoon? Which is it? What gives me the jitters, and what gives the market the jitters, is a President who doesn't seem to know what he's doing.
8 June 2013
Author: Sanchita Basu Das, ISEAS
"...Keeping in mind the importance of trade and economic cooperation, China has either signed, or is in the process of signing, several bilateral and multilateral FTAs. It has bilateral trade pacts with five of the twelve TPP members (Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore and Peru), and engages with three TPP parties (Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam) through a broader trade deal with ASEAN. China is also currently participating in the ASEAN-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which involves 16 countries, including India, and is negotiating the ChinaJapanKorea trilateral FTA..."
-- The Trans-Pacific Partnership as a tool to contain China: myth or reality? | East Asia Forum
I hope everyone here realizes that the TPP already exists. What is being debated, is whether North America, particularly the US, should join it. Concerning China, it already has free trade agreements with the non-North-American members.
Strategically, the US joining the TPP would integrate the US more with the non-Chinese players in the region. America's NOT joining TPP, on the other hand, would ensure Chinese dominance of the region -- a region that includes not only East Asia and the West Pacific, but western South America as well.
I am simply bewildered by Mr. Obama and his Democrat supporters. He is abandoning the Middle East, in favor of a "Pivot to Asia"; yet while he was very busy transferring military dominance in the former to the Russians and Chinese last fall, he chose to play golf and play hookey on a very important international meeting in Asia. Also, after stationing US marines in Darwin, staging joint exercises off Korea and generally alarming the Chinese militarily, he now has lost support in his own party for putting together the economic partner to these moves in the form of the TPP.
Are we competing with the Chinese? or do we want to withdraw into a cocoon? Which is it? What gives me the jitters, and what gives the market the jitters, is a President who doesn't seem to know what he's doing.