This transatlantic trade deal is a full-frontal assault on democracy

[Ichingcarpenter]

Remember that referendum about whether we should create a single market with the United States? You know, the one that asked whether corporations should have the power to strike down our laws? No, I don't either. Mind you, I spent 10 minutes looking for my watch the other day before I realised I was wearing it. Forgetting about the referendum is another sign of ageing. Because there must have been one, mustn't there? After all that agonising over whether or not we should stay in the European Union, the government wouldn't cede our sovereignty to some shadowy, undemocratic body without consulting us. Would it?

The purpose of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is to remove the regulatory differences between the US and European nations. I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago. But I left out the most important issue: the remarkable ability it would grant big business to sue the living daylights out of governments which try to defend their citizens. It would allow a secretive panel of corporate lawyers to overrule the will of parliament and destroy our legal protections. Yet the defenders of our sovereignty say nothing.

The mechanism through which this is achieved is known as investor-state dispute settlement. It's already being used in many parts of the world to kill regulations protecting people and the living planet.

The Australian government, after massive debates in and out of parliament, decided that cigarettes should be sold in plain packets, ....snip

During its financial crisis, and in response to public anger over rocketing charges, Argentina imposed a freeze on people's energy and water bills (does this sound familiar?). It was sued by the international utility companies whose vast bills had prompted the government to act. For this and other such crimes, it has been forced to pay out over a billion dollars in compensation



. In El Salvador, local communities managed at great cost (three campaigners were murdered) to persuade the government to refuse permission for a vast gold mine which threatened to contaminate their water supplies. A victory for democracy? Not for long, perhaps. The Canadian company which sought to dig the mine is now suing El Salvador for $315m – for the loss of its anticipated future profits.

In Canada, the courts revoked two patents owned by the American drugs firm Eli Lilly.....,snip...

These companies (along with hundreds of others) are using the investor-state dispute rules embedded in trade treaties signed by the countries they are suing. The rules are enforced by panels which have none of the safeguards we expect in our own courts. The hearings are held in secret. The judges are corporate lawyers, many of whom work for companies of the kind whose cases they hear. Citizens and communities affected by their decisions have no legal standing. There is no right of appeal on the merits of the case. Yet they can overthrow the sovereignty of parliaments and the rulings of supreme courts.

You don't believe it? Here's what one of the judges on these tribunals says about his work. "When I wake up at night and think about arbitration, it never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all ... Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament."

There are no corresponding rights for citizens. We can't use these tribunals to demand better protections from corporate greed. As the Democracy Centre says, this is "a privatised justice system for global corporations".

Even if these suits don't succeed, they can exert a powerful chilling effect on legislation. One Canadian government official, speaking about the rules introduced by the North American Free Trade Agreement, remarked: "I've seen the letters from the New York and DC law firms coming up to the Canadian government on virtually every new environmental regulation and proposition in the last five years. They involved dry-cleaning chemicals, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, patent law. Virtually all of the new initiatives were targeted and most of them never saw the light of day." Democracy, as a meaningful proposition, is impossible under these circumstances.



.............snip............


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy

[jberryhill]

1. Any treaty at all is an encroachment on sovereignty, btw

There can be lots of objections to a treaty, but the objection that any particular treaty limits national sovereignty is tautological.

For example, if the US were to join the treaty banning land mines, then Congress could not authorize the production and use of land mines. So, sure, to that extent it limits the sovereign power to do that.

Limiting sovereign rights is the POINT of a treaty - any treaty. On September 2, 1945, the US gave up the sovereign right to make war against Japan. That was a limitation on US sovereignty.

We signed a treaty with the USSR, for example, that limits how many nuclear warheads we can have. That is a limitation on US sovereignty.

Again, this is not a commentary on this particular treaty. The same "sovereignty" objection can be made in relation to any treaty at all. That's what treaties do.

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. sorry but this is about corporations' sovereignty

not nuclear weapons.

[jberryhill]

3. The word is used twice in the OP

For example:

"Yet the defenders of our sovereignty say nothing."

Who is the "us" in the "our" of that sentence in context.

The other use of "sovereignty" in the OP is here:

"After all that agonising over whether or not we should stay in the European Union, the government wouldn't cede our sovereignty to some shadowy, undemocratic body without consulting us. Would it?"

The context there, as this is written by a UK author, is in ceding aspects of UK sovereignty to the EU.

As far as ceding it to a "shadowy, undemocratic body", the International Atomic Energy Agency, which performs certain roles in relation to nuclear arms treaties (e.g. the non-proliferation treaty), indeed does (a) maintain secret information, qualifying for "shadowy" and is (b) undemocratic, in that it has a number of appointed positions.

[starroute]

5. Are you really unable to see the difference?

If a government signs a treaty banning land mines, it gives up one specific right under conditions of full transparency.

These treaties would give corporations a black check to overturn any local law or regulation that might impact their anticipated profits. Environmental regulations, health regulations, local zoning laws, intellectual property laws -- you name it.

When a governmental entity completely surrenders the right to make and enforce its own laws, that's loss of sovereignty. The other thing isn't.

[jberryhill]

7. In the abstract, it's the same thing

When a governmental entity completely surrenders the right to make and enforce its own laws, that's loss of sovereignty. The other thing isn't.

What is the "other thing" in this context?

The point being made here, in relation to "loss of sovereignty" under trade treaties, is loss of the sovereign power to make and enforce environmental regulations, labor regulations, etc.

Under, say, a land mine ban treaty, the "loss of sovereignty" is loss of the sovereign power to authorize the production of landmines.

Under a human rights treaty, the "loss of sovereignty" is loss of the sovereign power to treat classes of people in some objectionable way.

Under a peace treaty, the "loss of sovereignty" is the loss of the sovereign power to make war.

A "treaty" is an agreement by a government to cede some sovereign power of some kind. That's what a treaty is.

All I am saying is that objecting to a treaty - for which there may be a lot of good substantive objections - on the ground that it is a "loss of sovereignty" is like saying one objects to the color red because it is red.

The entire treaty game these days is about plutocrats obtaining advantages they could not otherwise obtain by national legislation. That much is apparent. But "loss of sovereignty" in the context of treaties in general is an objection to the definition of a treaty of any sort.

[aspirant]

17. Corporate treaties

All the treaties stated above are govt to govt, no corporate interventions

"plutocrats obtaining advantages" Are you advocating for or against that?

[jberryhill]

23. There are a lot of treaties conferring private rights

For example, the Hague Convention On The Recognition And Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil And Commercial Matters, allows anyone capable of winning a default judgment in one country to obtain enforcement in another country (provided the requirements of the treaty are met). And that one has been around since 1971.

The Patent Cooperation Treaty allows a patent application filed in one member country to be treated as filed on the same date in other member countries.

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction allows family court orders in one member country to be effective in another country.

A treaty conferring private rights of action is not a new or obscure idea.

"plutocrats obtaining advantages" Are you advocating for or against that?

Oh, yeah, that's exactly what I'm advocating. I'm a longtime registered plutocrat.

I guess it is hard for some to understand that it is possible to agree with the objectives of another person, but still recognize a silly argument in support of that objective when one sees one.

Getting wrapped around sovereignty objections to treaties is a great way to obscure what is really wrong with the substance of a treaty.

[starroute]

34. Then you can go live in the abstract while the rest of us live in the real world

Suppose we start with the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

- He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
- He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
- He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

Do you see a pattern here? The Founders assumed that the function of government is to secure the unalienable rights of the people, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that the people have a right to whatever form of government will best effect their safety and happiness, and that tyranny is to be defined first and foremost as refusing to assent to or enforce laws that are "wholesome and necessary for the public good."

Now, I understand that the extreme right can twist the meaning of words like "liberty" and "safety" to object to agreements involving child labor or the production of landmines. But leaving that aside, the clear overall thrust of the Declaration is that governments exist to protect the rights of their people and to enact "wholesome" laws that serve the public good.

By that definition, human rights treaties serve to support the core functions of any government, while these trade agreements would subvert them. And obfuscating the difference appears to be a form of willful blindness.

[aspirant]

8. Corporate Sovereigncy

Your second quotation defines "us" as "The government.....without consulting us", that is "we the people".

Will the IAEA sue a country for billions in lost profits? You're comparing an agency to an immoral corp. who has no concern for the safety of the planet, only short term greed.

This international scam is pathetic. Now all they have to say is that they want to do mining in a country and when the country says no they sue for mega millions in lost profits. Maybe this is what they had in mind all along, they can make the same profits without buying machinery, transporting machinery, hiring laborers, paying for supervision, hiring marketeers, encountering unpredicted delays etc.. All that is needed are in-house lawyers to send menacing letters and filing with these investor-state boards.

Are you advocating that these treaties are the best things that could happen to "We the People"?

[jberryhill]

11. "Are you advocating that these treaties are the best things that could happen to "We the People"?"

I don't see how one could possibly reach that conclusion based on anything I wrote.

Show me where I said this treaty was a good idea.

What do these words mean to you:

"There can be lots of objections to a treaty, but the objection that any particular treaty limits national sovereignty is tautological.


Again, this is not a commentary on this particular treaty. "

Let's say that I were to tell you: "I object to mistreating kittens, because I believe that kittens have magical powers to heal cancer."

And you say back to me: "That's not a valid reason for objecting to mistreating kittens."

What would you think if I then said, "Oh, so you are in favor of mistreating kittens."

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. Obfuscation

you are like a doctor who is using language or jargon to conceal unpleasant facts from a patient
Your analogies don't work for me

[jberryhill]

14. Did I make some personal comment about you?

Just checking.

[jberryhill]

21. Perhaps this might help

1. Climate change deniers object to climate treaties because:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2009/10/27/washington-times-latest-to-claim-climate-change/156166

Washington Times latest to claim climate change treaty "chip[s] away at national sovereignty"

2. Orrin Hatch opposes UN treaty on persons with disabilities because:

http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=ff066599-6295-4618-a70a-679724327a96

Hatch: U.N. Disabilities Treaty a Threat to American Sovereignty and Self-Government

3. Gun lovers object to UN treaty on small arms because:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/arms-trade-treaty-and-the-sovereignty-of-the-united-states

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will be negotiated in July in New York. One reason to be concerned about the ATT is the risks it poses to U.S. sovereignty.

--------------

Saying that a treaty would "violate our sovereignty" is an all-purpose objection to treaties that has NOTHING TO DO with the substance of the treaty or the viewpoint of someone objecting to the treaty.

It is an objection used by conservatives when they oppose a treaty.

It is an objection used by liberals when we oppose a treaty.

It is the rhetorical warhorse of objections to treaties of any kind, by any person.

[Ichingcarpenter]

39. If Ignorance is Blis

Then I'm Blistered.

Still not buying your rhetoric for the sense of even an honest conversation or Hagalian supposition of a logical argument.


We know they won't Win

&index=10&list=RDyQ0r4Zg7h2c


Consciousness is happening.

Don't dream its over my friends.

[aspirant]

27. Are your opinions secret?

After the sentence their is a question mark(?) When one asks a question,IMO, it is to get an answer not my conclusion. If I was stating a conclusion the sentence would be followed by a period(.).

Question, not a conclusion; "objections to a treaty" At what point do objections to a treaty, in your opinion, make that treaty unacceptable?

Let's play the game; I say "I object to the corp. investor-state aspect of treaties because corps shouldn't rule the world".

You say "that's not a valid reason for objecting to investor state clause"

THEN I ASK " oh so you are in favor of the investor-state clause??????"

The OP is about treaties and the investor-state clause.

[jberryhill]

35. This may come as a novel thing to you

But it is possible to discuss a topic in order to reach an opinion or to test one.

[aspirant]

37. Is the investor-state clause

in your opinion, a good/bad thing, a challenging test question or yet an unreachable opinion?

"A novel thing" is this a personal attack, just checking

[newthinking]

22. TPP is BIGGER than "Citizen's United". It actually makes corporations into governments

effectively.

It uses "tribunals" made up of corporate heads instead of judges to arbitrate, elevating their power internationally without any democratic component.

If people are not yet awake to this they better get so soon.

[pampango]

26. Krugman would agree with you. "no, the Obama administration isn’t secretly bargaining away democracy

Meanwhile, opponents portray the T.P.P. as a huge plot, suggesting that it would destroy national sovereignty and transfer all the power to corporations. This, too, is hugely overblown. Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government actions, but, no, the Obama administration isn’t secretly bargaining away democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html?_r=0

Krugman's article was directed at the TPP but would apply equally to the TTIP.

[jberryhill]

32. I disagree with Krugman

A treaty is an exchange of some measure of sovereignty to obtain some benefit.

This treaty gives away too much for too little.

But the way things are here nowadays it is not possible to say "X is an invalid reason for objecting to something" without being assumed to support the thing which is being objected to.

[aspirant]

36. A treaty or trade deal?

[markme88]

40. Why do you posting stuff from Brian Westbury “a Fellow of the George W. Bush Presidential Center?”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5729833

[wandy]

4. Not much of a legal type person so forgive me if I misunderstand this..........

The way it appears to me is that if, oh say, Koch industries wanted to turn your town into a strip mine, if your local government objected the town could then be sued in an international court. The resource buried under the town might in fact be worth more than the actual value of the town so in any case it might be rather expensive for the town to defend itself.
Forgive me again for looking on the dark side.
Were this town in a GOP controlled state could not then the governor disband the town's elected representatives and install a city manager to broker the deal. No recourse! A historical reference for this would be Benton Harbor.

How would this be something a nation would accept/want?
Sheesh, and teapublicans worry about sharia law.

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. I think we need to look at the 'world vision' of this treaty

and who it protects, and who it marginalizes, who it profits, ................... lets take for example this

form JP morgan who are instrumental in the treaty agreement background.


JP Morgan wants Europe to be rid of social rights, democracy, employee rights and the right to protest
OSTED ON JUNE 25 2013

In late May J P Morgan issued a chilling review of what they saw as the state of progress on tackling the Eurozone crisis. As they put it:

The narrative of crisis management in the Euro area has two dimensions: first, designing new institutions for the next steady state (EMU-2); and second, dealing with the national legacy problems, some of which were there at EMU’s launch and some of which arose during the first decade of the monetary union’s life.

Their assessment of progress is:

• Sovereign deleveraging—about halfway there.

• Real exchange rate adjustment—almost there for a number of countries.

• Household deleveraging in Spain—about a quarter of the way there in stock terms, but almost there in flow terms.

• Bank deleveraging—hard to say due to heterogeneity across countries and banks, but large banks have made a lot of progress.

• Structural reform—hard to say but progress is being made.

• Political reform—hardly even begun.
I could comment on the first five issues, but it is the last that is most chilling. They argue of ‘the journey of national political reform’ as they see it:

At the start of the crisis, it was generally assumed that the national legacy problems were economic in nature. But, as the crisis has evolved, it has become apparent that there are deep seated political problems in the periphery, which, in our view, need to change if EMU is going to function properly in the long run. The political systems in the periphery were established in the aftermath of dictatorship, and were defined by that experience. Constitutions tend to show a strong socialist influence, reflecting the political strength that left wing parties gained after the defeat of fascism. Political systems around the periphery typically display several of the following features: weak executives; weak central states relative to regions; constitutional protection of labor rights; consensus building systems which foster political clientalism; and the right to protest if unwelcome changes are made to the political status quo. The shortcomings of this political legacy have been revealed by the crisis. Countries around the periphery have only been partially successful in producing fiscal and economic reform agendas, with governments constrained by constitutions (Portugal), powerful regions (Spain), and the rise of populist parties (Italy and Greece).

There is a growing recognition of the extent of this problem, both in the core and in the periphery. Change is beginning to take place. Spain took steps to address some of the contradictions of the post-Franco settlement with last year’s legislation enabling closer fiscal oversight of the regions. But, outside Spain little has happened thus far. The key test in the coming year will be in Italy, where the new government clearly has an opportunity to engage in meaningful political reform. But, in terms of the idea of a journey, the process of political reform has barely begun

What J P Morgan is making clear is that ‘socialist’ inclinations must be removed from political structures; localism must be replaced with strong, central, authority; labour rights must be removed, consensus (call it democracy if you will) must cease to be of concern and the right to protest must be curtailed. This is an agenda for hard right, corporatist, centrist government. There’s another word for that, and it’s what the bankers seem to want.

You have been warned. Amazingly, they had the nerve to issue the warning.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/06/25/jp-morgan-wants-europe-to-be-rid-of-social-rights-democracy-employee-rights-and-the-right-to-protest/


also more here:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/17/morg-j17.html


Now that's just one example of these players
in this game. JP morgan got it pretty good in the states so the rest of the world is their game.

[FiveGoodMen]

18. This is nothing that any nation wants

It's the feudal lords-to-be who are shoving this down our throats.

And they selected (through money) that either Obama or Hillary to be the Dem candidate in '08 because they knew either one would side with them.

[okaawhatever]

45. No, that couldn't happen. What could happen is if a town willingly sold the mining rights to a piece

of land to company X (assuming they did so legally) then the town couldn't change their mind without compensating the company for breech of contract.

There are a number of things the treaty is trying to address but first and foremost is patent protection. The second is to avoid situations like what happened last summer in China. Fishermen from Oregon and Washington state sold boat loads of fish to China. China decided when the boats got there that the fish didn't meet some requirement and held the boats. (they did meet the requirement but China had all the leverage). That sort of thing is more common than you could imagine.

Putin did that with goods from Ukraine. He all of the sudden decided that candy from Poroshenko's (current President of Ukraine) factories no longer met agricultural standards and banned them. It had nothing to do with the candy and everything to do with Putin trying to bankrupt him or use the ban as a way of trading political favor.

[polichick]

9. I'd like to see someone ask the prez some tough questions about this.

[obxhead]

12. But he's a Democrat, so

We need to stand with him no matter what!

[FiveGoodMen]

19. That is this site's great sin.

Siding with a letter and not giving a hoot about principle.

[obxhead]

20. Those kinds of posts were not here when Bush was pres

And free republic demanded we stand behind Bush right or wrong.

[Odin2005]

42. The DLC ratfuckers took over DU in 2008.

There are several dozen long-term posters who I think are paid operatives. I will not name names because that is against DU rules, but they are quite obvious to those who are clued in.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. K&R

[NorthCarolina]

15. It is undoubtedly Pay Back Time, and Obama is compelled to deliver. nt

[jwirr]

16. Under the sovereignity clause in the plan our borders do not mean anything any more. An

international court can override any of our laws and for that matter it is not just our country but all countries that are no longer in power but have given their power to regulate issues in their own country up to the corporations. If other countries understood what they are signing none of them would want this awful bill.

Please Mr. President protect our country but also all those smaller countries from take over by the corporations.

[sulphurdunn]

24. Abrogation of constiutional obligation

by treaty is and should be considered an act of treason by our so-called elected representatives and dealt with accordingly.

[Don Draper]

25. What hurts the worst is that these horrific trade deals have been supported by

Democratic presidents (remember Clinton gave us nafta). We would expect these shitty trade agreements to have the support of the rethuglicans, but it makes me even more furious when the supporters come from our side.

[DemandsRedPill]

28. not so comlex

The structure of all corporations is for all intents and purposes equivalent to and structured much like any Monarchy or Kingdom

With the interconnected incestuous relationships that are boards of directors who hold at least some sway over them and the power of investors being only a function of the number of shares one holds (more shares equals more power at least as the number becomes quite large), it becomes obvious that as those corporations become a larger and larger percentage of our economy and culture, any attempts at having a democracy is moot at best.

We went from feudalism ( class system of top down tyrannical power held by an elite) to a progressive industrial system that, being a relatively new concept where merit played a roll in leveling out power and wealth, to the current system of 'winner take all' mega corps where machines are rapidly displacing workers and thus generates lower and lower wages (workers piece of the pie) but still any profit accumulates only at the top and the system then becomes self defeating as we are seeing more and more each day.

So it's obvious that the current capitalist system is quickly proving to be simply a return to feudalism.

What. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos ,etc are not the equivalent of Kings or Lords of old?

We need an entire overhaul of our system

We especially need a no growth economy to fit into the fact that you cannot have growth in an economy when the physical elements that make up the entire economy are finite.

That includes population

And of course no growth is the only way the environment will survive intact in spite of so much magic thinking of the techno elites who will lead us to ruin almost as quickly as our current league of neo robber barrens.

[aspirant]

31. A little help.

I'm not familiar with a no growth economy.

Does this mean a tractor company produces exactly x amount of tractors /year or a burger joint sells exactly x amount of hamburgers? When they reach that # do they close shop and lay-off workers?

I'm all for a change because capitalism isn't working!

[DemandsRedPill]

33. lots of information out there

In the late 70's there was quite a bit written and debated over the so called no growth economy

It entails first a recognition that you cannot continue this growth in a finite world

Another way it's been described also as a steady state economy

When let's say you hear that Christmas sales this year were 2% or 3% higher this year than last it does not imply that if it were zero growth no one would have a job and no one bought anything

Allot of what I feel we must do in order to maintain our quality of life, (note I did not say quantity of life as in most cases these two concepts are in conflict), leave a liveable environment for our future generations and also help defeat our slide back to feudalism (it is inevitable if we stay on our current course and must and will lead to all the downsides that feudalism entailed) centers around a little known but in many cases successful use of worker co-ops (see Mondragon in Spain for instance)

Still have factories
Still have workers
Still all private ownership of assets

You just don't have the burdens and downsides of capitalism and the winner take all results that are the inevitable and unavoidable results of capitalism

It's not a utopian vision based on allot of nonsense like Soviet Communism was
No more than the accident of fate that is the current capitalist system was when transitioning from feudalism was a utopian vision.

It just happened
And of course none of what we now call reality would exist if it had not been for the other accident called 'geologic deposits of extremely cheap and at least for a while abundant crude oil deposits' that helped fuel capitalism's fire (no pun intended)

It is my opinion as well as many others far more learned than I that capitalism and democracy are not compatible.
One is freedom for all and the other is simply freedom for those who can best afford it

Kind of like our current so called justice system only worse

[Odin2005]

44. The guy in my avatar is more relevant today than ever before.

The vision Marx gave of Bourgeois Society in The Communist Manifesto was not a vision of his own day, but of a future world that was completely taken over by Capital, that is, our current world.

In 1847 most workers were still farmers, ranchers, and skilled craftspeople, now the majority of the population are wage-laborers, whose only economic asset is their own ability to work for others.

The drive for the Capitalist Class to constantly revolutionize the means of production leads to a drive for eternal growth, a drive for opening up new markets and if that is not possible to simply create markets out of thin air by advertizing to consumers and bribing governments to subsidize their industries. But at the same time this causes an ever decreasing number of workers to be needed to create ever more numerous goods and services, leading to technological unemployment.

We are rapidly reaching the point where most of the work-force throughout the world will be automated out of a job.

[99th_Monkey]

29. yep. TTIP pretty much seals the deal for Mega-Corporate Rule Forever. nt

[ashling]

30. Right you are! ... as usual

Thanks for posting this.

Now that you've found your watch, could you help me find my keys. I'd find them myself, but I don't know where I left my glasses.

[Enthusiast]

38. They know the people do not want it. They will do it anyway.

That in itself is proof of the damage to democracy.

[Odin2005]

41. Democracy is meaningless when it is not allowed a say in the economy.

The Capitalist Class wants to completely neuter democracy by tying it's hands and not allowing it to do anything related to the economy. Why? because that prevents the Working Class from having a say on how the economy runs. For the Capitalist Class the proper role of democratic government is to keep the Working Class distracted with arguments over social issues and partisan cheerleading while they rob us blind.

[Ichingcarpenter]

46. Let's look at their side a moment as a Psychopath

How would you achieve your goals?
Since being a psychopath you don't care about humanity and only about power and control over others.?


As a psychopath, lying is just part of the game of life you play if it gives you realizations of your reality.

I group with other my kind becasue they reaffirm my reality as a psychopath.


The public is too stupid anyway to be able to follow patterns and facts.



HOW MANY ON DU........SPEND
TIME WITH PSYCHOPATHS AS FRIENDS?

ME?..... ONLY IF I CAN HELP HEAL
THAT FRACTURED SOUL.

As Bob Newhart said.......


JUST STOP IT.

[woo me with science]

43. K&R Thank you.

That's exactly what it is.