General Discussion

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)

50. Good grief...

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 08:47 PM

Feb 2014

...the post I made with links about suits such as the tobacco company suing Australia because of Australia's anti-smoking campaign, the one where a suit is brought due to environmental laws that prohibit companies from running roughshod over the environment -- you don't count that as evidence of forcing standards down? Did you even read any of those articles, which also point out how expensive it is for a government to defend these cases -- therefore ensuring they will be cautious when making new environmental laws, or new campaigns to help their citizens live more healthy lives?

I do understand that in law, hair splitting is where it's at. That includes in the courtroom, and it also includes drafting laws. However, when the laws are drafted with a certain "slant", as in this case -- well then they do not deserve to be enacted into actual laws. I also note you most certainly did NOT address any concerns about process, apart from asserting that you have no problem with it. I am referring both to the process of drafting the TPP and its huge secrecy from both citizens and their elected representatives; as well as the processes encoded in the TPP for dispute resolution.

You are being obdurate and refusing to engage in honest discussion.

TTFN

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Being against TPP because of NAFTA is fighting the last battle again. There are no jobs to lose with [View all] CK_John Feb 2014 OP

More than $2 trillion a year in manufacturing and other US industries MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #1

Cyber-era can not produce enough jobs for at least 30% of the population and CK_John Feb 2014 #2

The usurpation of US laws? That's usually a rightist argument employed against UN mandates msanthrope Feb 2014 #8

A huge attack on IP laws MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #11

Manny--that's an Internet search. Tell me the actual US law you think is usurped? msanthrope Feb 2014 #12

How about increasing copyright duration to up to 120 years? MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #20

I don't have a problem with extending copyright protections for individual authors by 20 msanthrope Feb 2014 #24

First off, you agree that 1. US law would need to be changed to abide by the TPP MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #27

Manny...you are utterly incorrect in point 1. The fallacious point 1 makes points 2&3 moot. msanthrope Feb 2014 #37

So copyright extends to 120 years already? MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #38

Indeed...so why are you blaming Obama for a piece of legislation by a Republican? msanthrope Feb 2014 #40

OK, what are your thoughts on this: MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #39

I don't click on links without a summary. What is your specific question? nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #41

Have a good night. MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #42

Well, pointing out that you are blaming Obama for a law passed 16 years ago is hardly scoring msanthrope Feb 2014 #44

do you even know how the investor state dispute cali Feb 2014 #13

Cali, I am asking a very specific question---what US laws will be usurped? PIL is a complex msanthrope Feb 2014 #14

you don't know until the corporation challenges specific laws cali Feb 2014 #15

Ok.....that's different from usurpation. I can challenge a law, without usurping it. nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #16

When a challenge is made... ljm2002 Feb 2014 #25

Actually, you cannot sue on the basis of lost profits. You can on sue on the basis that investment msanthrope Feb 2014 #36

Are you sure you've been following trade issues at all? ljm2002 Feb 2014 #45

Every case you posted proved my point...you cannot sue merely for.loss of profits... msanthrope Feb 2014 #46

In this country... ljm2002 Feb 2014 #48

I'm really not seeing the problem with UNCTAD, and while you say this forces standards down, msanthrope Feb 2014 #49

Good grief... ljm2002 Feb 2014 #50

I did read what you posted. And I agree that it is expensive for governments to defend these msanthrope Feb 2014 #51

If you replace "foreign government" with "borderless corporation" and Marr Feb 2014 #17

And these are still meaningless terms because no one is being specific. Look, Krugman msanthrope Feb 2014 #18

+1 an entire shit load! Enthusiast Feb 2014 #21

You are sadly mistaken Savannahmann Feb 2014 #3

You're re fighting NAFTA, it was, but it is not today. We are trying to get a treaty with Asia CK_John Feb 2014 #5

Since you concede that NAFTA despite the promise was a job killer Savannahmann Feb 2014 #7

Those countries need us very, very badly MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #22

+1 an entire shit load! Enthusiast Feb 2014 #23

But those 4 billion "customers" have almost no buying power. Motown_Johnny Feb 2014 #4

India and China both have a thriving urban middle class, not all sectors are doing as well, but CK_John Feb 2014 #6

I am comparing earnings of people in manufacturing jobs Motown_Johnny Feb 2014 #10

you appear to have absolutely no idea about the TPP at all. None. cali Feb 2014 #9

See my post below. He's been pimping TPP from one angle or another for 6 months+. n/t X_Digger Feb 2014 #32

NAFTA is a colossal failure for American workers. Brigid Feb 2014 #19

TPP is not mainly about jobs. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #26

This is indeed the core of the issue. Maedhros Feb 2014 #28

Is that you, Bill? Go tell Hillary that you fell off the wagon again. X_Digger Feb 2014 #29

Boring... CK_John Feb 2014 #30

You endlessly regurgitating the same crap every thread? Yes, it is boring. X_Digger Feb 2014 #31

So you don't believe we have a jobs problem, but why the nasty snark and CK_John Feb 2014 #33

I said.. X_Digger Feb 2014 #34

It's my premise and my solution and I'm sticking with it. When you have a better solution CK_John Feb 2014 #35

Who could argue with logic like that? Motown_Johnny Feb 2014 #47

Lie Down and Take It Union Scribe Feb 2014 #43