WikiLeaks Releases Negotiation Positions for Every Country of Trans-Pacific Partnership Last Round
Source: WikiLeaks
@wikileaks: We will shortly release the negotiation positions for every country, on every issue of the 13 #TPP chapters coming out of the last round.
Second release of secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement documents
Monday 9 December 2013, 2:40 GMT
On 13 November 2013, Wikileaks released the draft text of the crucial Trans-Pacific Partnership Agremeent (TPP) intellectual property chapter during the lead up to a TPP chief negotiators meeting in Salt Lake City on 19-24 November 2013. Today, 9 December 2013, Wikileaks has released two more secret TPP documents that show the state of negotiations as the twelve TPP countries began supposedly final negotiations at a trade ministers’ meeting in Singapore this week. One document describes deep divisions between the United States and other nations, and "great pressure" being exerted by the US negotiators to move other nations to their position. The other document lists, country-by-country. the many areas of disagreement remaining. It covers intellectual property and thirteen other chapters of the draft agreement. This suggests that the TPP negotiations can only be concluded if the Asia-Pacific countries back down on key national interest issues and otherwise the treaty will fail altogether.
Read more: http://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
snot
(10,520 posts)Way to bust it open!
Note, however, they're NOT the positions of the countries involved. They're the positions of the 1%'er's ensconced in those countries.
villager
(26,001 posts)
christx30
(6,241 posts)mother earth
(6,002 posts)
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- Miserably for them. Because eventually, bullies get what they deserve. It's karmic.....
K&R
pa28
(6,145 posts)
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)then you are being very foolish.
-Laelth
radiclib
(1,811 posts)If everyone else doesn't give up their national sovereignty to our Global Corporate Overlords, then it's NO DEAL!
Gee, I wonder why everyone hates us…
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)a main source of support for Wikileaks. Since the revelation of this information, much like the info Snowden released, hurts only the US and it's allies I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't true. One thing about Snowden's revelations and those of Wiki with the TPP is that they all benefit Russia and China and harm the US and it's Allies. It's time to start asking questions about that.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)
cprise
(8,445 posts)and spent very little time outside a state of war (which is a racket in itself) would you blame people for focusing special attention on you? Actually, if you were the USA you would indeed blame them and paint them with the label "Anti-Americanism" (automatically implying that you were being persecuted).
I suggest you take a look at a map of US military installations encircling the globe and compare them with Russia's or anyone else's for that matter.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Let's consider Iran, for example:
Talk about surrounded.
-Laelth
dougolat
(716 posts)There's your question, what's your answer?
Pholus
(4,062 posts)"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
-- Hermann Göring via Wikiquote.
2banon
(7,321 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)If had not want to show the world he was in complete control, he could have claimed that WWII was one long drug dream to him (Goring was an massive abuser of drugs in the 1930s and WWII, and thus had lost influence with Hitler).
On the other hand, at the Nuremberg Trial, he had dried out of his drug habit and lost some weight and he was thus back to being the flaming speech maker he had been known for in the 1920s, Second only to Hitler himself.
At Nuremberg, you see Goring in his prime, and you have to think, how good was Hitler when Goring was always considered second level to Hitler when it came to speech making. You may disagree with him, but he makes his point dramatically and to the point.
The Cross examination of Goring:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/goering1.html
His Closing statement:'
http://tj.facinghistory.org/nuremberg-trials%E2%80%94closing-statement-hermann-goering
2banon
(7,321 posts)All I can say is wow. I'm only at the point in the interrogation where Goering is being questioned as regards his fears of losing to Russia being realized. (his opposition in engaging in conflict with Russia has been established) .. ..have to take a break from this but will pick it up later. Thank you!
It's been an amazing read so far.
His description of the kind of government that was deemed necessary (governance apparatus/power structure, etc.) has been astonishingly direct. So far, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to "cover-up" or engage in rhetorical denials with regard to his role, his/their intentions, the business about the "Leadership Principle" governance structure.. just wow.
I learned something else.. didn't realize the differences in functionality between the Gestapo and the SS, until Goering's explanation. Not that it's really relevant in the over all scheme, but just a little factoid which is somewhat illuminating.
These documents should be read by our pro-authoritarian du'ers (and our fellow citizens at large) to aide in their understanding of what is at issue as regards the topic at hand (in this OP) which seems to be woefully lacking. IMHO.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)whole-heartily.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)In other words, Hitler believed that he had to have the support of the People, something he never really forgot. This is a concept some of out present leadership rejects, if it means giving up power. Think about the Tea parters that wanted to revolt against out elected government.
Now, some on the left are just as bad, I remember seeing an elderly African American with an "Impeach Reagan" button on his shirt. I disliked it, for Reagan had been elected, I did not vote for him and opposed most of the things he did, but I understood the concept that we have to leave the people live with their choices.
Side note: This is the concept the Egyptian Military seems to have forgotten, and why that government is doomed. While the ruling elite supports the Military, the majority of the people do NOT. I would say the percentage is about 60-40, split along class lines. The bottom 60% support the Moslem Brotherhood or its near relations, 1% is the ruling elite, another 9% their immediate sycophants and other hanger ons, and 30% middle management. In military terms the 1% are the Generals, the 9% are the Colonels and other field grade officers, the 30% are the Captains and other Company grade officers AND top end of the NCO classes (Sargent majors, First Sergeants, Supply Sergeants, Technical Sergeants(to bring back a WWII term) etc.).
The bottom 60% is more solid, it includes all of the Privates and NCO who are NOT tied in with the company headquarters (i.e. Sergeants, Staff Sergeants, Platoon Sergeants and First Sergeants). Yes First Sergeants are in both camps and in many ways the key people. First Sergeants are the people who actually run Military Companies, the officers are they to interact with higher command (the old joke was a Good Lieutenant in at battalion Headquarters kissing the Colonels ass so he can get promoted). Yes the Captain is in charge and gives the orders to the Company as to what to do, but that is his job, to relate orders from above to the Company. How the company actually runs is set by the First Sargent and the Platoon and other NCOs under him. I bring this up for that class is the key, for they connect the people with the elite. If the elite losses them, the war is over.
Now, I use the military ranks to show how the class systems works. People do not thinks of themselves as "the people" and do not view who are they "leaders". "Leaders" may NOT be elected people, they are people, other people look to when things go bad. I do not mean in terms of Crime when people look to the police, or fire, when they look to the Fire Department, or when they are sick, when they look to their Doctors, but those people, other people end up rallying around in times of crisis (and these can be Policemen, Firemen and Doctors).
In the military the system is set up to make sure everyone knows who is officially the leaders and most times these are the leaders (but even in the Military you can have leaders outside the Command structure).
In Egypt this NCO equivalent leadership was provided by low level supporters of Mubarak but slowly lost them to the Moslem Brotherhood. Control of those NCO equivalents (another name for them is Ward heelers) was the key to the Moslem Brotherhood's victory in the election. We in the West read reports done by the equivalent of Middle management and that was portrayed as the "Leaders" of the revolution but the real leaders were the local ward heelers who acted for the Moslem Brotherhood. Thus people in the West were Shocked when the equivalent of Middle Management came no where near winning that election (and then blame the fact they had not "Organized" well the Moslem Brotherhood had been doing so for years, that brings up the question, if they oppose Mubarak where was their organization of opposition?).
I bring this up for the Rule of the Nazis and the Communists was based on those local NCO equivalent. The support of such people is what Hitler never lost, even as the Red Army took Berlin. Gorbachev retain they support till the coup attempt (and then these ward heelers opposed the Coup but switched to Yeltsin for he was in Moscow when the Coup was attempted and they could rally around him). They stayed with Yeltsin but were defecting when Putin succeed Yeltsin, Putin does his best to keep them happy. It is at the "Company" level that wars are won and lost. Hitler and Stalin both knew this and did they best to control their countries at that level.
Around 1900, the situation in the US was the same, but the ward heelers (precinct captains etc) where the people who could get the vote out. They did so by making sure the people above them in the political hierarchy watched out for those people. The US had a bottom to the top Political control system. split between two parties but very good at getting people above them to understand want the people wanted. This system became stronger in the Great Depression when people demanded action and the Ward heelers told the people above them that people wanted action. FDR received the message and political and economic reform became the rule of the day.
After WWII, and the raise of Television, you saw a decline in the bottom to the top political system in the US. The system became more and more a Top down system, with money going to the top politicians (i.e. the President, Senators, Governors, and member of the Federal House of Representatives) who then used that money to get elected using TV ads AND giving money to lower level politician who needed campaign funds. Thus the US went from a Bottom up to a Top Down political system within a 100 year period.
DU may be a waive of the Future, but it has one big problem, while DU can be a way for NCOs, Ward Heelers, Precinct Captains to talk to each other and relate to each other, it is terrible at getting people who actually live near DU members to listen to the people on DU. DU members have to work local political functions to see what is going on locally, report it to DU, but also try to get other people who are politically active to do progressive politics. DU can be a return to bottom up political system but only if we try. Just a comment on how the Nazis were NOT that far off from when it came to getting the support of the people, and that support was as the NCO level not the Officer or Middle Management level. This means going to local Democratic Meetings, being a poll watcher, helping people get to the polls, if you live in a state with votes by mail, helping people to get those ballots and to make sure they are mailed (Helping someone fill out a Ballot should be avoided UNLESS absolutely necessary and then you have to make sure the vote is what that voter wants, not what you want).
Remember Evil is not the opposite of Good but the Corruption of Good. Nazis and Communist political systems were corruption of democratic systems. Both used the symbols of Democracy (the vote) to appear to be Democratic, but corrupted the system to make it a top down dictatorship. The GOP wants to do that to the US and we have to fight them and that fight is not on the floors of Congress but your local political meeting and polling place.
2banon
(7,321 posts)interesting analogies wrt to Egypt, the Nazi's and the U.S..
I agree with the underpinning points in principle, and I very much appreciate how the symbol of democracy to paraphrase was (and is) essentially corrupted, only to add that corruption of elections (and I submit to you that Reagan's election was deemed suspect by many of us on the Left at the time of his election, with the Hostage Crises and the infamous Paris meeting on the very eve of the election) will be dissolved if confidence in the actual engineering (wrt to the results) of our elections, (campaign funding not withstanding).. then for all intents and purposes, we no longer have a genuine democracy of any form. This only compounds the difficulty in maintaining faith in a governance system that does not respond to the will of the people.
Transparency is vital and a key component to the restoration of the faith in our system and getting back to the subject of this OP, when treaties are being negotiated which impacts the lives of the people (not just what favors the Ruling Elite who represent the 1%) in secret.. well I think that's a subject that needs to be
widely and publicly discussed and debated, ultimately widely agreed to.
We have the devastating impact of NAFTA to look back to, a horrible treaty which John Negroponte boasted of having authored, a few years ago in a speech he gave to the alumni of Hofstra University. Depending on one's point of view, I'd say that alone speaks volumes. He was so proud of his accomplishment. I wonder how many of the middle class in this country think that was a good deal for them?
2banon
(7,321 posts)there was a kind of odd exchange earlier... when Jackson took issue with a remark Goering made regarding secret military strategy, (in reference to mobilization into Austria or the Rhineland I forget which now).. Goering points out that U.S. keeps their military strategies secret too, Jackson is beside himself, is totally flummoxed that Goering was allowed to get away that remark.. It was kind of weird.
The President of the Tribunal responds in a way I can imagine him scratching his head, like huh, what's the big deal? as he counsels Jackson to just leave it alone, ignore it and move on. But Jackson just can't let it go.
But Goering's frankness is jaw dropping, which makes this an interesting read. Not done with it yet, though.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)But his background as to criminal trials was limited. His primary job was to defend Railroads in lawsuits and most of that seems to be doing appeals and up to the trial, as oppose the actual trial work.
One of the famous observations of lawyers is that Prosecutors do a terrible job of Cross Examination, while defense CRIMINAL lawyers do a much better job. In most Railroad defense litigation it is rare to for the defense to do a good cross examination, for in most lawsuit the issue is how much blame to put on the Railroad. i.e. did the Railroad follow the law and the Regulations, did the railroad follow the terms of the contract to ship goods etc. Occasionally railroad negligent came up, but this is the height of the Three evil sisters of the Common law. These were Contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, and the fellow servant rule, since the 1950s these three rules have been on the decline, but in the 1910s and 1920s when Jackson was in private practice these three sisters were at the height of their dominance of the Common Law. When Jackson was a lawyer defending railroads, these three rules were viewed as iron clad defenses in most negligent cases. Given those three defenses effective cross examination was not needed, all the railroad had to show was any one of those three rules applied and they win. For this reason Jackson, in private practice, had little experience in cross examinations.
Worse when Jackson entered Government, it was as Attorney General, where he prosecuted criminals, and again an area with a poor history of cross examinations. Some of his fellow Justices on the US Supreme Court made comments that Jackson was wasting his time at Nuremberg. This is generally regarded as an attack on Nuremberg, but the better view is that at a Supreme Court Judge he was wasting his time as a PROSECUTOR in Nuremberg (i.e. let someone who has been doing it for some time NOT a judge).
His assistant, an English Barrister (who by tradition does both Prosecution AND Defense Work), commented that the cross examination by Jackson was ineffective. Jackson's cross examination is considered one of the poorest example of cross examinations in history. Jackson should have deferred to someone else when it came to the cross examination. some one with experience doing cross examinations.
As to Goring, his attitude was this was a show trial, and he was going to make the most of it. His answered were carefully made to justify his actions and the actions of the Nazis. Goring knew he was playing to the world, and played it as such. Goring was NOT going to deny what he knew the allies had in evidence, instead he often used allied actions to show what he did was what the Western Allies would have done in the same situation (He ignored Russia, he knew Stalin would censor anything he said, so Goring concentrated on a record for the German People AND Western audience).
One thing you must remember, Hitler, Goring and the Nazis were NOT dumb, IQ testing of the surviving top Nazi was between 120 and 143 (with only 3 below 120, two at 138, one at 141 and another at 143). Goring's IQ was 138 (Adm Donitz was the other top German Leader at 138.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#Intelligence_tests_and_psychiatric_assessments
Just a comment that Jackson was in many ways out of his league when it came to cross examine Goring. Jackson should have left it to someone with experience in cross examinations.
2banon
(7,321 posts)It explains a great deal as to his line of questioning... to this lay-person, it's very interesting reading even if I find myself at times perplexed and sometimes frustrated by his line of questioning.. though I haven't finished the entirety (got some ways to go still) that bit I mentioned in my previous response seemed obviously ridiculous in his attempt (it seemed to me) that the U.S. never strategized military operations in secret, and that Goering's remarks required some form of rebuttal in the context of the purpose of the trial.
Rather naive, and I think you clarified quite well why that was the case. His inexperience as a trial lawyer and background did not lend itself to the task.
It's been interesting and quite informative, thank you again!
2banon
(7,321 posts)what do you think?
2banon
(7,321 posts)who'd a thunk it?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)But I am curious to know why Russia (along with a couple other countries) hasn't ever come up in the Greenwald/Snowden document stories...They are the only major European player who hasn't gotten so much as a mention after multiple stories on England, Spain, France, Italy and Germany...
Of course, I'm not allowed to ask these questions in GD without a hurricane of indignant rage from other DUers...So I'll just leave it at this...
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Sweden has been spying on Russian leaders for the NSA, Snowden documents show
by David Meyer
DEC. 5, 2013 - 3:34 AM PST
A A
Sweden’s FRA intelligence agency has been spying on Russian politicians on behalf of the United States, according to documents leaked by Edward Snowden. Swedish TV station Sveriges Television reported on Thursday that Sweden was a key regional partner for the U.S. National Security Agency because major telecommunications cables pass through it (suggesting bulk rather than targeted collection). Investigative journalist Duncan Campbell has previously warned of this situation, which dates back to the Cold War but was still apparently in play as recently as April this year. Diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks in 2011 also pointed to the arrangement.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I didn't see it anywhere on Thursday, Mandela's passing obviously shoved all of the regular stories of the day off the front...
It's a start, but I'm still waiting for all the dirt to get dished on one other nation...
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)other countries? When will something come out about China's massive global spying operation? The Hawaii office (which Snowden requested a transfer to) is the office that handles Chinese intelligence, and yet of all the troves of documents he hasn't released anything that shows the truth about them?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2013, 06:30 AM - Edit history (2)
When someone raises issues with America or Britain, the usual suspects show up and attempt to deflect the discussion away from the issue at hand by asking "But what about [some other bad thing]?"
The reason that Greenwald and Snowden focus on the NSA and its activities (rather than Russia or China) is that Greenwald and Snowden are U.S. citizens and therefore primarily concerned with the acts of their own government. Indeed, as U.S. citizens it is our duty to hold our own government accountable for what it does. There may very well be other countries that use their spy apparati to nefarious ends - but I am not a citizen of those countries and have no say over how those countries behave. I do have a say over how my country behaves, so my efforts are better directed at my government than at the governments of Russia or China.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)This is exactly the point, as succinctly made in your post. And might I add, I love the "whataboutery" euphemism, good enough replacement for "straw man", I think. maybe. hmm.
2banon
(7,321 posts)My recollection was vague on the specifics..
muriel_volestrangler
(101,300 posts)so the NSA internal documents have details of what the intelligence services in those countries do. And the people of those countries, knowing they are close allies of the USA, don't expect to be spied on extensively by an ally, so any proof of the USA spying on them is notable news.
Russia is not a close ally, so there aren't documentary details of their activities in the general NSA information Snowden had access to. And it's not big news to say "the NSA spies on Russians".
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)That's the mindset I still can't ever quite grasp...
If it isn't big news to say 'the NSA spies on Russians', then that must mean people for the most part are OK with it...And if people are OK with that, then they don't have the right to be all shocked and outraged when the spying net expands to the point where everyone falls under it...
If people are truly pissed off about NSA spying, they should be because it is an unconscionable intrusion into peoples' individual liberties and the sovereign right of nations to govern their own people and determine their own destiny without outside interference...Whether or not this or that country is a "close ally" shouldn't even factor in the discussion, because if they can justify spying on "enemies", it is a very short leap to justify spying on everyone else...Just imho...
muriel_volestrangler
(101,300 posts)I'm surprised you think you need to ask about it; I'd say a majority of Americans and Europeans hold it, and I'd expect all people in those countries to realise that. Pretty common throughout the world too, I think.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Here's the thing, we who grew up during the cold war had thoroughly conditioned/softened up to the notion that spying on the Russians was a part of our DEFENSE against their intentions to attack us with their ICBMS at any moment..
We grew up learning to be very afraid of them who are the evil doers, while learning to be very accepting of certain comprises to our basic rights and our Constitution with policy apparatus such as the National Security Act of 1947.
Among other things, (though it would be vehemently denied at the time, The NSA Act gave legal cover for domestic spying . They didn't use lame logos like "freedom isn't free" to justify these actions, but they certainly had all the other Red scare devices in our faces ad nauseum as justification.
The Church committee in the 70's attempted to address this "problem" but with a great deal of push back, the fact that the NSA Act wasn't repealed then speaks volumes given what was exposed wrt domestic spying.
What the PTB needed was another Pearl Harbor in order to roll back any obstacles the Church Committee put into place. Along came 9/11 and voila! The Patriot Act and it's evil variants that followed.
Some of us really battled hard against this, and we had ONE lone voice in the Senate at the time, Russ Feingold. Well, we lost and the rest is history.
erronis
(15,234 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)when the spying net expands to the point where everyone falls under it... "
Um, what?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/nobel-writers-nsa-_n_4414951.html
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)There's mention of our spying at G20 but what about Russia spying at the same time, or China for that matter? Face it, this information supposedly to protect individuals from massive Government overreach is really about America and it's allies. Sorry, I'm not buying Snowden's "concern for Americans" bullcrap.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,300 posts)on the NSA servers? That they have PowerPoint presentations detailing how Russia sets up its system of grabbing information from the world's communications networks, sitting on the NSA intranet for the whole of the NSA and its contractors to access?
Do you, in fact, assume the NSA has every single bit of information in the world, and that Snowden for some reason only chose to take the parts about the NSA and its allies. If so, you are presumably way more worried the NSA than the rest of us, because this would mean they have successfully spied, on absolutely everyone in the whole world, found out everything, and lets everyoen who works for it know it all.
frylock
(34,825 posts)keep fucking that chicken.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... have gone after other governments.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
2banon
(7,321 posts)pro-authoritarians conveniently overlook this point of fact. eom.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)Nobody makes Flag Rank by bucking the system.
villager
(26,001 posts)Thank you Senator McCarthy.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Otherwise, I would have no use for that thug.
I have even less use for a trade document that is nothing more an end run around the sovereignty of the people to guarantee that the products they buy in the market are safe for their use and as pollution free as possible.
Excuse while I get into an ironic Rush Limbaugh mode: I want the TPP to fail.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)"Since the revelation of this information, much like the info Snowden released, hurts only the US and it's allies"
The revelation helps the American people who are being intentionally kept in the dark. It helps keep us just a bit democratic.
The revelations only hurt the American oligarchy. The rest of us will benefit from the fact that this information is public.
My question is why the American people were not told about the scope and activities of NSA and about the details of the TPP negotiations much, much earlier. This is supposed to be a democracy.
Democracy means nothing if the people voting and participating in the democracy are not informed about what the government does or negotiates in the name of the people.
Better watch out, better not pout,
. . . .
He knows when you are sleeping.
He knows when you're awake.
He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.
http://www.41051.com/xmaslyrics/santatown.html
The NSA is watching you.
How many jobs will the TPP cost ordinary Americans? Those who want agreements like that are hurting Americans, not Wikileaks.
Wikileaks doesn't make this stuff up. It's the people who do make it up, who do all the sneaky, nasty stuff who are hurting our country.
2banon
(7,321 posts)I'm amazed at the number of boot bots defending the authoritarian apparatus.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)... Snowden and Wikileaks have helped the people of the United States far more than they have hurt us.
A matter of perspective, I suppose.
-Laelth
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
mimi85
(1,805 posts)to take out the garbage. Sorry, they are no heroes to me. People that purposely TRY to be heroes or martyrs are psychologically damaged. You can add GG and Snowden to that list.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)The mental instability implication. No one has tried that yet. You are the first.
Got them all lumped together, have you?
"But Tricky Dick Nixon couldn’t leave well enough alone. In August, his thugs broke into the Los Angeles office of a psychiatrist Ellsberg had visited. G. Gordon Libby, Howard Hunt, and three CIA agents were looking for Ellsberg’s psychiatric file, hoping they could leak it to the press and discredit him in the court of public opinion.
- snip -
Nevertheless, it’s a legitimate question to ask given the federal government’s history of launching slanderous attacks on the mental health of leakers and critics. I could cite numerous examples, from former Hatian President Jean Bertrand Aristide to recently deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, all of whom were smeared as “crazy” by U.S. officials and in the press."
You're really stating this as an absolute:? "People that purposely TRY to be heroes or martyrs are psychologically damaged."
Really?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Anyone that has strong convictions, sees massive violations of those convictions, and ACTS on those convictions to do the right thing is psychologically unsound. To be clear, that is such a rare act from within the halls of power these days that anyone that does such a thing WILL be seen as a hero by quite a few, and that fact should be obvious. Ergo, no one should ever do this. That would be a clear sign of psychological damage, and anything they unveil will not be credible.
How very fucking convenient.
We should all return now to not trying to do good ever because that would be a clear sign of being mentally ill. At least it would in a society that is expertly skilled in the arts of psychological manipulation and control.
Seriously though: We should all strive to be heroes in a world and society that is as sick as ours, and we should all know that we CAN be heroes. In fact, many of us around here are heroes to my mind.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)What do you think of people who purposely TRY to control the world? What do you think of people who purposely become leaders of the most powerful countries? If people who want to be heroes are psychologically damaged then those who seek power must be irredeemable.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)and was also used by the Bush Administration to silence opponents of the War with Iraq and others.
so, who do you work for?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Regards,
America's Founders
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)What complete nonsense. Thanks for your bullshit psychological analysis though. If more transparency and reading our own nations documents is so damaging to our country then we've got big problems. The character of Snowden and Assange are irrelevant to the content of our own documents and your type of character assassination is a cowardly attempt to deflect from very real and very important issues.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)to know what the exact positions are that countries are 'accepting', 'rejecting' or having a 'reserved position'.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Our congress that is pushed to voted on this shit can't even see most of it.
Thank you for putting this out there.
Please keep up the important work.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)[center]
[/center]
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)
2banon
(7,321 posts)I see it as NAFTA Redux.. (and even worse)
Apparently there's a Pro-Nafta contingency among us.. as well as pro-authoritarian.. hmmm. weird.
westerebus
(2,976 posts)davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)I sure as hell don't. All I know is what I've read so far - that it is supposed to be some kind of trade arrangement created by Lobbyists. What exactly will it do? What are the terms? How is this going to hurt people? What is Obama's connection to it? Anyone know?
treestar
(82,383 posts)About this. Just get outraged. Any questions means you are a corporatist.
And look at this thread. It's been Godwined and now any questions means you're a Nazi.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth