Skip to main content

View Diary: Angry Bear: “Trans-Pacific Partnership: A New Constitution” (56 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seriously? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Don midwest

    Normally, anyone who publishes a comment like this (see below) in one of my posts doesn't deserve the time of day. "Seriously." I asked you to support your belligerent comment with links/quotes. Your response was inadequate.  I learned, many years ago, to not waste my time trying to politely interact with the handful of folks here that come across as disingenuously as you are now. But, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. So far, that was a mistake. Right now, all you are is someone with an ad hom, and follow-up bullshit in a comment thread in my post. Any rational, objective observer would support this assessment. Is that who you are?

        It's basically CT

        The author's trying to make the TPP out to be "the constitution of a new world order", because apparently it has an investment chapter.  Never mind that almost all our other free trade agreements have similar investment chapters and that it's pretty much standard practice in trade agreements between most other countries as well.

        We already have free trade agreements with most of the countries in the TPP negotiations.  If the agreement is passed it'll essentially add investment powerhouses Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and New Zealand to the list of our FTA partners.  That's the new world order??

        There's a lot of hyperbole around the TPP.  Don't get suckered.

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 08:47:16 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Odd (0+ / 0-)

      This really is one of the odder exchanges I've had on this site.  I disagreed with the article (which wasn't even yours), but not belligerently.  The article tries to make it sound like the TPP is this incredible new beast that actually has an investment chapter.  Shock.  It doesn't mention that investment chapters are pretty standard in FTAs, and that the TPP just adds a few more relatively small countries to our list of FTA partners.  That's hardly what one could call "the constitution for a new world order".  Yes, there are other controversial parts of the TPP, but about 90% of the article and links were about the investment chapter.

      I'm seriously befuddled by why you're so put out by that.  There's no links necessary to support any of what I wrote.  Investment chapters are standard in FTAs.  Take a look at USTR's website or any other country's trade website and you can see it.  There's really nothing new in my comment.

      I am curious, however.  Did you not know that almost all our FTAs have investment chapters that include investor-state dispute settlement provisions?  Was that a surprise?  No big deal if you don't, not everybody's a trade expert, but their existence isn't something controversial.  I'm wondering just how much people really understand this, however.

      Cynicism is what passes for insight among the mediocre.

      by Sky Net on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 11:17:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clearly, you do not understand this... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Don midwest

        ...and you have yet to provide a blockquote or link supporting your claim (with the info in that link blockquoted in your response). Here's a link or two; and, for the record, it comprehensively addresses your trollish bullsh*t (totally blows it out of the water, in fact; again), as well: "What You Need to Know About a Worldwide Corporate Power Grab of Enormous Proportions," Laurel Sutherlin at the Rainforest Action Network, via Alternet (9/11/12). And, here's an excellent press brief from the Citizens Trade Campaign (9/5/12).

        I hope you had fun tonight. We're done talkin'.

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 11:33:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Quite an unusual day (0+ / 0-)

          I'm still not sure what claim you're referring to, and since you haven't been able to answer any of my questions about that, I can only conclude a couple things.

          First, you didn't realize before you posted this diary that the U.S. has investment chapters in nearly all its FTAs (and lots of BITs to boot) and thought that the TPP was the first of its kind.

          Second, you didn't realize that the U.S. already has FTAs with most TPP countries.

          This isn't rocket science here.  I don't have to post links to every FTA we've ever done to demonstrate it.  Just spend a few minutes on the USTR website and you can confirm it pretty quickly.  I've hardly said anything outlandish or difficult to verify.  If you really weren't familiar with the investment chapters and our FTAs, well, then you've found an area to improve your knowledge on.

          Lastly, I'm disappointed that you're not able to see through the hyperbole in your links.  You know the game.  If a group is trying to push a particular issue, they make it sound like the world is coming to an end unless you support their position.  That way you're more likely to take action.  It takes a bit of research to find out what the truth is, usually somewhere in between.  Hence my final piece of advice in my first comment, don't get suckered.  You have to question things, even from people and bloggers that you like.

          Cynicism is what passes for insight among the mediocre.

          by Sky Net on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 04:25:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site