TPP Signing Ceremony To Take Place In February (freezenet.ca) 192
Dangerous_Minds writes: New Zealand officials are hoping that the TPP signing ceremony is to take place in February in Auckland, New Zealand. According to the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, it is expected that all 12 countries are going to sign the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Those 12 countries are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the U.S., and Vietnam. Note: signing doesn't necessarily make the agreement law, but it is one critical step closer to ratification.
Well there Liberal supporters? (Score:4, Insightful)
You believed ol' Justin Trudeau when he said he wouldn't support it, then flipflopped and said he would, then he wouldn't. Thanks for enabling this shit, if it get's signed all we can do is hope that the SCC tells them to shove it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because the world turns on the Canadian PM backing things. Hoohoohaha
Considering that Canada was one of the primary TPP groups in this besides the US, I suppose it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe I'm mistaking that with C51?
Re: (Score:3)
Abbott was a good politician.
Indeed.
But he was a deplorable PM and Minister of [whatever]. A coward, a bully and a thug.
Re: (Score:2)
This. He was/is generally in favor of free trade agreements. About TPP in particular, he wanted to see the details before forming an opinion. You must a Grade A moron if you thought he was against TPP.
Another victory for corporate corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
These American imposed laws that extend the power of corporations are making a total mockery of democracy in the countries that haven't yet become US style corporate dictatorships.
Re:Another victory for corporate corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
These American imposed laws that extend the power of corporations are making a total mockery of democracy in the countries that haven't yet become US style corporate dictatorships.
And people wonder why I want an armed population...
I don't trust government. It can do good, I don't think we could live without any government (that would be equally silly), but I don't trust them either.
Re:Another victory for corporate corruption (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't trust the armed population either. Rebellions ending in a more stable, prosperous and free country have happened - but they are the exception, not the norm.
Re: (Score:3)
Pick your poison, you have to put your faith in something, or you'll end up standing for nothing...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Zealous gun owners filled with the fervor that they are never wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
http://nraontherecord.org/oliver-north/
Re: (Score:2)
It's about aiding an enemy and not abated by what a former enemy is doing decades later.
Re: (Score:2)
The pardon blew due process right out of the water as if at Royal command.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if he really was following orders to sell weapons to two declared enemy groups, one with very recent blood on it's hands, IMHO it's a situation of putting "King" before country and still very much treason while being very much against what the US or any country that values freedom is supposed to be.
Maybe next time I should state outright that it's only my
Re: (Score:2)
Still, I think it's far more valid to accuse North or treason than to accuse Snowden - there's a lot of the latter going on despite no formal finding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't trust the armed population either. Rebellions ending in a more stable, prosperous and free country have happened - but they are the exception, not the norm.
Paradigm shifts have occurred without rebellions, but they are the exception, not the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
Rebellions ending in a more stable, prosperous and free country have happened - but they are the exception, not the norm.
Worked well enough for that English colony in the Americas.
But what is more important is not actually using the weapons, but that the threat of their use suffice to keep one safe -- the same reason most gun owners, or nuclear weapons owners, give for having them in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
But what is more important is not actually using the weapons, but that the threat of their use suffice to keep one safe -- the same reason most gun owners, or nuclear weapons owners, give for having them in the first place.
in the US it's illegal to use these weapons against agents of the government. It's just as illegal there as it is in the rest of the world. Therefore the threat posed by these weapons toward the rule of the government is completely empty, and the government, and everybody else, knows this. There remains a small portion of the populace, who, with childlike imagination, like to pretend otherwise.
Re:Another victory for corporate corruption (Score:4, Insightful)
The armed population thing is a joke.
If you put your armed american population on one side and your US military forced on the other side, which one wins?
If second amendment's spirit was followed, the real life USA would resemble grand theft auto much more closely.
Re: Another victory for corporate corruption (Score:3)
The US military, or at least a sizable number of them, would likely have sympathy for a rebellion against tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, they would likely have sympathy for replacement of tyranny with worse tyranny. Look at some examples in the Far East, in South America, Central America, Africa, Middle East, Caribbean... We have no shortage of them!
Re: (Score:3)
You really think that the military would have sympathy for a leftist socialist rebellion? Because that will be how it will be spun and probably the reality as the rightist at heart have always been pro-government. Just have to look at the history of arms being used against the government, mostly labor movements in the 19th century and the military (often private) won every time.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think that the military would have sympathy for a leftist socialist rebellion?
Not likely, no.
Consider however, cases of popular rebellion. The US already has two major examples of high ranking officers defecting to join rebellions. In fact, George Washington himself was a member of the British militia, and Robert E. Lee was originally a Union officer.
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants welfare?
Large companies such as Walmart so they can pay out lower wages.
Who wants free shit?
Right wing farmers as well as most large businesses
Who wants hate speech laws?
Point, as the left remembers how hate speech has been used to promote violence
Who wants to repeal the first amendment?
Both wings though it is usually the right that takes it to the extreme of executing people for speech.
Who wants to tell everybody else "You can't own that"?
The right has filled the prisons with people convicted of owning stuff
Who wants to fine you for "mis gendering" somebody?
Good point as the right would rather throw people in jail based on their perceived gender rather then a simple fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The US military, or at least a sizable number of them, would likely have sympathy for a rebellion against tyranny.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and obviously never served in the US military. As a former member, allow me to inform you: the vast majority of military officers AND enlisted are very pro-law-and-order, and don't take their oath to carry out orders lightly. You're living in the same delirious world as those idiots in Oregon - the "once the rebellion starts, the masses will join us!" fantasy.
Re: (Score:3)
You have no idea what you're talking about, and obviously never served in the US military
I did actually, US Army. MOS was 19-D, Armored Reconnaissance, also called Cavalry Scout. The classic title for it (in its early early days) is a Dragoon. Notice my nickname per chance?
As a former member, allow me to inform you: the vast majority of military officers AND enlisted are very pro-law-and-order, and don't take their oath to carry out orders lightly.
It's one thing when you're talking about average hooligans being unruly. Yes, completely agree in that respect. However I really don't think things would stay the same if there were legitimate grievances with the US government. There are, for example, such things as unlawful orders, and it is your duty as a soldier to disobey
Re: (Score:2)
If you put your armed american population on one side and your US military forced on the other side, which one wins?
Then both the American population and the US military win, and the politicians lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because, odds are the soldiers would decide to shoot the politicians that asked them to illegally attack the population, rather than shoot their own friends and family.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, odds are the soldiers would decide to shoot the politicians that asked them to illegally attack the population, rather than shoot their own friends and family.
Depends who is shooting at them. If you shoot at them and wound or kill any of their buddies they will have no compunction in putting a bullet through your head.
I'd certainly agree that in the event of an uprising, encouraging the sympathy of the US military is vital to success. With this in mind, one of the first things you should do is identify the people with a tendency to wave their guns around and talk about how they are going to use them in the revolution (i.e. take potshots at the US military). On
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually served in the military, unlike you, so I'll take a stab at this one: because that's the oath that every volunteer takes when they enter. Despite what you think about how they vote, our military is, in fact, for the most part very professional and officers and enlisted alike take their jobs very seriously, including that whole thing about following orders, the chain of command, and that chain ending with the president.
Your fantasy about the military opposing a Democratic president is a product of
Re: (Score:2)
One would hope that if the President ordered our military to, for example, start exterminating all the brown people in the country, there would be some hesitation.
There's always a line somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I, (rockout), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
They are sworn to support and defend the Constitution without exception, and they have a duty to
Re: (Score:2)
The US Military wins, and it's not even any shred of approximation to something that could loosely describe as close.
Send in the drones (Score:2)
And people wonder why I want an armed population...
I don't trust government. It can do good, I don't think we could live without any government (that would be equally silly), but I don't trust them either.
In a few more decades the second amendment will become obsolete. Good luck shooting down your local Autonomous Mobile Crime Enforcer. Better start agitating for 28th amendment, the right to build robots.
Re: (Score:2)
And people wonder why I want an armed population...
I don't trust government. It can do good, I don't think we could live without any government (that would be equally silly), but I don't trust them either.
Franklin warned that the American constituion would not stop it from falling into despotism, what he could not possibly have realised that the nation could have extended it's influence so far into so many nations. I think he would weep at what should have been egalitarian over empire, as empires eventually fail. The corruption of the people that he feared was acheived over time by whittling away at education, media freedom, corporation law, campaign funding laws and so many other things because none of our
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think you can fight the state with violence though, you will never win.
So you don't think the American Revolution can happen again?
You don't think there have been any revolts in the last 50 years that have lead to an overthrow of the existing government?
Re: (Score:2)
More revolutions have happened in the last 50 years with non-violent society uprisings or boycotts than with arms. See how many Middle-East and African countries overthrew their government violently, just to become closed dictatorships. On the other hand, see how many military rulers all over the world have fallen and given way to democratic regimes due to the organized action of society.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and how many non-violent uprisings have been put down violently?
You can't just take the successes and ignore the failures.
Ask yourself another question. WHY is there a civil war in Syria? What started it?
Answer: There were protests against the government, largely non-violent. The government started to use force and started shooting protesters. That is when they responded with violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rabble that was the American Army in 1776 stood up to the most powerful military in the world, and won...
Vietnam vs. US Military
Afghanistan vs. USSR Military
What was your point again?
---
Tanks and bombers are very effective against nations and enemy armies, they are far less effective against civilians.
And the last time an armed population helped was.. (Score:2)
I don't know what are your referents. There have been a couple successful revolutions changing society for the better, I would never contend it, but as other commenters have said, it's (by far) the exception rather than the rule. Most armed millitias just demand more power or money for their particular feud, or if surprisingly successful, end up establishing ruthless dictatorships. Besides, revolting against a central government that has everything from tanks to air bombers to nukes... is just a silly way o
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another victory for corporate corruption (Score:4, Insightful)
And people wonder why I want an armed population...
Yes, and this is why.
If having an armed population is meant to prevent abuses (like this one), and abuses like this one keep happening, you have to conclude that the strategy is not working. But gun-o-philes don't seem to be able to see what's directly in front of them.
The gun-o-philes are complicit in tyranny. Their guns are ineffective against tyranny. But they can't accept that. So they minimise the tyranny constantly and resist/downplay/criticise the efforts of the rest of the populace to halt the slide toward tyranny by other means. By clinging to an idea that doesn't work, they contribute to the outcome they claim so fervently to be against.
Re: (Score:2)
Weapons are useless against the government. Start a firefight and you will lose, although not necessarily immediately. Tell your Senators that you want them to vote against the TPP.
Re: (Score:2)
Weapons are useless against the government.
Almost every government in the history of the world would like to have a word with you...
Re: (Score:2)
It seems likely to me that, if the government pisses enough people off to cause a rebellion that has any chance of success, there will be enough pissed-off people to overthrow the government via the ballot box, or exert enough pressure on elected officials to change things. The current government was created by a peaceful convention that came into effect by a ratification of enough states. The previous government, under the Articles of Confederation, was able to come into being because many US militiamen
Re: (Score:3)
Even more important - don't sign anything that's secret to the public. This means that there can't be any public scrutiny of the implications that such an agreement results in.
Re: (Score:2)
These American imposed laws that extend the power of corporations are making a total mockery of democracy in the countries that haven't yet become US style corporate dictatorships.
No.
The people of those countries are allowing it to happen by not making themselves heard by their governments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only people Governments listen to are lobbyists with deep deep pockets...
Re: (Score:3)
The only people Governments listen to are lobbyists with deep deep pockets...
No lobbying organization has deeper pockets than the populace of the country, together.
The problem is that the population just does not care enough to bother.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the mantra those at the top of power structures repeat to themselves every night before bed to convince themselves they are good people. "If the people really didn't want to get screwed over, they'd be able to stop me."
Let's fix that. (Score:2)
We've dealt with non-compete agreements in IT for decades. Let's impose some [represent.us] on the politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we want share what we have ...
Re: (Score:2)
The Investor-State Dispute Settlement [wikipedia.org] clauses are among the worst provisions with these trade deals. They're a direct assault on national sovereignty. Why should investors be guaranteed profits especially over a nations environmental laws or measures they take for the welfare of their citizens? Corporations exist to serve the people, not the other way around.
Trans-Canada is suing the USA for $15 billion under the ISDS terms of NAFTA because the Keystone XL pipeline was not approved.
Sedition (Score:5, Insightful)
Any American government official who signs the TPP is guilty of sedition as far as I'm concerned. The TPP violates the sovereignty of the US, and has bypassed the will of the people through a quite literal conspiracy.
I loathe conspiracy theories, and don't subscribe to any of them. This single issue though is in fact a conspiracy to defraud the American people among others, and is a violation of our democracy. It's a conspiracy because it is an agreement that will affect all of us, but has intentionally been kept under wraps. Because the negotiators are acutely aware that if the TPP had been public knowledge for the last several years, there'd be at best another Battle in Seattle type of debacle, and that the people governed by the treaty wouldn't stand for it.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, if that was true then a candidates who promised to repeal it would be popular at the next election and I seriously doubt the average voter will care about it as an issue. You have democratic accountability, if they use 'secret' negotiations to come up with so
Re:Sedition (Score:4, Insightful)
I seriously doubt the average voter will care about it as an issue.
Sadly the average voter doesn't care because the average voter is an idiot...
Who neither knows about such things, nor actually wants to learn. Most people are happy to be ignorant and rant at the TV.
Re: (Score:3)
Any American government official who signs the TPP is guilty of sedition as far as I'm concerned. The TPP violates the sovereignty of the US, and has bypassed the will of the people through a quite literal conspiracy.
I loathe conspiracy theories, and don't subscribe to any of them. This single issue though is in fact a conspiracy to defraud the American people among others, and is a violation of our democracy. It's a conspiracy because it is an agreement that will affect all of us, but has intentionally been kept under wraps. Because the negotiators are acutely aware that if the TPP had been public knowledge for the last several years, there'd be at best another Battle in Seattle type of debacle, and that the people governed by the treaty wouldn't stand for it.
Well it's been out in the open now for awhile and hasn't been signed yet and there is no sign of any Battle in Seattle type debacle - or much of anything really.
Ergo people don't give enough of a shit to bother.
Not saying they're right, just saying that appears to be the case.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Any American government official who signs the TPP is guilty of sedition as far as I'm concerned. The TPP violates the sovereignty of the US, and has bypassed the will of the people through a quite literal conspiracy.
I loathe conspiracy theories, and don't subscribe to any of them.
Except you just espoused one. You don't even know what you're saying. Why don't you go away until you do? The truth is that secret criminal conspiracies are as common as breathing. You feel special because you've opened your eyes to just one of them, but you're still denigrating those who believe in others in the same breath. We can do without you, and in fact, we would be better off without you. Crushing WTO protests and refusing to give valid reasons. WMDs. NIH telling us fat makes you fat. Secret conspir
Re: (Score:2)
But was that an error or a lie? Do you know if it was intentional?
We know it was intentional because it was based on "evidence" that clearly did not say what they claimed it said. When they lie to you about their logic, then they are clearly lying to you about their motivations. In this case, they claimed that eating fat made you fat on the basis of a study that actually said that taking drugs to reduce your cholesterol reduced your risk of heart disease, and that the best way to lose weight was to avoid fats and to focus on a diet made out of a whole bunch of carbohydrat
Re: (Score:2)
The provision I object to the most is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement section. It can allow corporations to override national sovereignty.
No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, they're signing it in Mordor. (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to the Corpocracy (Score:3, Interesting)
So will you write to the politicians? There is something on I want to watch - I'll do it later.
Will you discuss it with anyone? No, I'm feeding my face with farce food.
Will you even ring a politician about it? What were we talking about?
Face it, for all of the rage no-one will do *anything* at all, just blah blah blah. We had a chance to stop this and now it is here so just keep pointing fingers at everyone but yourself because that will solve the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Face it, for all of the rage no-one will do *anything* at all, just blah blah blah. We had a chance to stop this
[citation needed]
I suspect that we had no chance to stop this without worldwide armed rebellion. We'll never know, but it's the way to bet. Look around you.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're trolling, but... In 2014, I had the chance to vote in a new US Senator. My then current senator was a big supporter of everything that President Barack Obama advocates. Almost immediately, the new Senator that I voted for declared his support for giving Barack Obama the TPA authority he wanted to shove TPP down our throats. I called his office to express my displeasure.
Why did I even bother voting?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're trolling,
Sorta, but not, more angry sad frustrated. A lot of people tried, a lot more didn't. It's not their fault for being deceived, but it also is. Most people are just trying to get by in life and these fuckers come along and just make it harder for everybody cause they haven't got enough money.
Why did I even bother voting?
Because if we give up we loose everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Senator Klobuchar told me it was probably not coming up for a vote until November. I don't know if she was correct or not, but from what I know of her she wouldn't lie about that. My other two Congressional representatives sent "thank you for getting in contact with us" messages.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to use my letter (Score:3)
Dear Minister
I wish to voice my opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership Bill. I ask that you reject the Trans Pacific Partnership until proper time has been given for our citizens to analyse it's effect.
Considering there are roughly thirty chapters and 6000 pages in this Trade Agreement I would be expecting it to be scrutinised and proper time for the ramifications to be thoughly assessed and not rushed passed the house, considering there is no emergency that it addresses.
As an important part of a functioning democracy, citizens should be allowed to veiw all documents being presented to the parliment so that the impact on our society can be evaluated. The secrecy that has shoulded this bill over the last few years of it's construction followed by the limited time granted, relative to the amount of pages in the Bill, to allow for such analysis subverts the intention of democratic process.
As our representatives you are bound to provide 'Responsible Government' to citizens. Passing a Bill that cannot be evaluated is not a form of responsible government, for this reason alone the Bill should be rejected.
I would like the house to go further and introduce laws, practises or other available legislative instruments that prevent the rushing any legislation into law that has a detremental effect to the country and, that in the event of any emergency legislation passed as law, a mandatory sunset period that has the duration of the government that sponsors the bill.
The other issues rasied by segments of the TPP leaked on the Internet that effectively give away the effective sovreignty of our nation, through Investor State Dispute Settlements, is disturbing. Chilling effects on the Health, intellectual property and many other things that are nation destroying.
For these reasons, and many more, I ask you to defeat the TPP passing into law, and enact structures that prevent these kinds of agreements ever being rushed through the House.
Sincerely
Re:Feel free to use my letter (Score:5, Informative)
Thank you for taking the time to write to my office. I always appreciate engaged subjects taking a role in the democratic process.
Please rest assured that this agreement has been properly scrutinized by those who have the proper need to know. Rest assured that TPP is in the best interests of the people who matter.
We do understand that we have concerns, but we really don't care. Why? Because FUCK YOU, that's why!
Now shut up and go back to sleep.
Sincerely,
The Man
Re: (Score:2)
We do understand that we have concerns, but we really don't care. Why? Because FUCK YOU, that's why!
Now shut up and go back to sleep.
Sincerely,
The Man
Pretty much spot on for some. One response was snarky, others were more like, yeah we don't like it either but it's happening and you can either enjoy being fist fucked or not. That is your democratic right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can write until your hands fall off. It won't matter. It's a done deal already.
There is always hope that a violent man will stop being violent one day, but there is no hope for a coward. - Ghandi.
This will be a disaster (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm extremely glad that one of the first stupid lawsuit comes from Canada against the USA. If the USA being sued by a close friendly neighbour doesn't wake up your elected officials, nothing will.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes a change as it is usually American companies suing the Canadian government for billions in lost profits due to things like banning poisons.
The ACs link, http://www.pressprogress.ca/5_... [pressprogress.ca]
Every piece of tech is now a data cell (Score:2)
which falls in very nicely with corporatocracy and them knowing everything about you. There wont be on thing that is needed for day to day living that won't recoded your every daily action.
A readable intro to some implications of the TPP (Score:2)
http://economixcomix.com/home/... [economixcomix.com]
Re:Get rid of this neoliberal scum! (Score:4, Insightful)
How did humankind get into such a sad state of affairs?
Too many people seem happy to turn over responsibility for their lives to government and just accept being sheep?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it is more along the lines that too many governments allow companies into their ranks and allow them to effectively write their laws for them. It isn't the government that is the problem, it is the corporations who have managed to subvert the will of the people within the government and inserted themselves into it that is the problem.
And getting rid of the government doesn't get rid of the corporations. On the contrary, many times it just leads to the corporations having more direct control with eve
Re: (Score:2)
And getting rid of the government doesn't get rid of the corporations. On the contrary, many times it just leads to the corporations having more direct control with even less recourse for the person.
Seeing that a corporation exists as a legal entity enabled by laws enacted by the government if the government ceases to exist the corporation ceases to exist as a legal entity at the same time. (Which doesn't mean the people running the corporation stop, they just lose the legal protections that incorporation grants them.)
Re: (Score:2)
Why make this about governments? They ceded control to their corporate masters years ago.
It's Corporate America Offshore to whom the sheeple are turning over their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also there is no such thing as a :"Queue" or a "Queue Jumper"
Re: (Score:2)