quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Pure bloviating. You notice he only bloviates, he can't answer your question MJ. He just wants to sound smart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I want to know just how this happened ? The soon-to-be right wing political scientists are scratching their heads over their ponderously analytically doctoral thesis...in strange momentary tatters.
The repubs have a majority last I looked and aren't they the party of maximized profits, the essential and primary goal of these trade agreements and their 'fast-track' (non-negotiable, now apparently negotiable) requirement ?
Did somebody spike the water on capital hill or is this just more...anti-Obama-ism syndrome ?

Yes, it's GOP obstruction at it's worst!

House Party Makeup: 246 R; 188 D

The TAA Bill failed 126-302. According to The Atlantic, 40 D's voted for the bill (and 86 R's). That means that, roughly, 34.9% of R's supported the bill, and 21.3% of D's supported the TAA. Btw, the TAA was described in that same article as:

quote:

...a program designed to help workers displaced by trade and one which Democrats—and organized labor—have overwhelmingly supported in the past.

[Bold mine]

The TPA bill passed 219-211, though I'm having some difficulty finding the party breakdown on that.

Technically, the TAA bill needs 218 votes in favor to pass. With 86 R's in favor, only 132 D's would be needed to vote in favor for the bill to pass. Holding 188 seats in the House, you can't simply blame Republicans for the bill not passing. Article describe the TPA and TAA as being linked together, with the TAA being what the D's get in return for support of the TPA, and the TAA being what Republicans trade for Democrat support of the TPA. So, the part of the Trade Bill that is more Democrat-supported was the part that didn't pass, and that had to do with Democrats not supporting moreso than the GOP not supporting it.

But, do go on with your GOP-blaming...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Probably not, since the idea of dropping this plan is to keep American Jobs. If the rabid rightwing free market communists would have passed this bill. Then you would see those headlines.

I am completely serious when I ask this....

What is a "free market communist"?... It sounds oxymoronic! A free market fascist would make sense, perhaps.... But a free market communist?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Pure bloviating. You notice he only bloviates, he can't answer your question MJ. He just wants to sound smart.

First, I dont need to try to sound smart around most of the forum folks that are dumb as shit on here. You in particular....

You and others behave and sound dumb as boards.

Second, You didnt, nor havent, added anything useful to the topic. So really are quite the hypocrite....

Third, while you talk about people, I talk about the ideas from the topic matter. The reason is simple....the ideas here....are to complicated and complex for you to understand, let alone give a half decent response.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
If what are saying is true. An the information you are presenting does seem that way. Then we may have one of those 'compromises' between parties. Unfortunately there are Democrats and Republicans whom hate the idea of a compromise. That it seems they want a 'all or nothing' deal; meaning they want their bill to pass and not the other. I guess we will have to add 'compromise' to the DNC as well as the GOP/TP dictionaries.....

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

The sad thing is the number of Americans that took sides in a 'debate' they had no knowledge or concept on or of.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I want to know just how this happened ? The soon-to-be right wing political scientists are scratching their heads over their ponderously analytically doctoral thesis...in strange momentary tatters.
The repubs have a majority last I looked and aren't they the party of maximized profits, the essential and primary goal of these trade agreements and their 'fast-track' (non-negotiable, now apparently negotiable) requirement ?
Did somebody spike the water on capital hill or is this just more...anti-Obama-ism syndrome ?

Yes, it's GOP obstruction at it's worst!

House Party Makeup: 246 R; 188 D

The TAA Bill failed 126-302. According to The Atlantic, 40 D's voted for the bill (and 86 R's). That means that, roughly, 34.9% of R's supported the bill, and 21.3% of D's supported the TAA. Btw, the TAA was described in that same article as:

quote:

...a program designed to help workers displaced by trade and one which Democrats—and organized labor—have overwhelmingly supported in the past.

[Bold mine]

The TPA bill passed 219-211, though I'm having some difficulty finding the party breakdown on that.

Technically, the TAA bill needs 218 votes in favor to pass. With 86 R's in favor, only 132 D's would be needed to vote in favor for the bill to pass. Holding 188 seats in the House, you can't simply blame Republicans for the bill not passing. Article describe the TPA and TAA as being linked together, with the TAA being what the D's get in return for support of the TPA, and the TAA being what Republicans trade for Democrat support of the TPA. So, the part of the Trade Bill that is more Democrat-supported was the part that didn't pass, and that had to do with Democrats not supporting moreso than the GOP not supporting it.

But, do go on with your GOP-blaming...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I want to know just how this happened ? The soon-to-be right wing political scientists are scratching their heads over their ponderously analytically doctoral thesis...in strange momentary tatters.
The repubs have a majority last I looked and aren't they the party of maximized profits, the essential and primary goal of these trade agreements and their 'fast-track' (non-negotiable, now apparently negotiable) requirement ?
Did somebody spike the water on capital hill or is this just more...anti-Obama-ism syndrome ?

Yes, it's GOP obstruction at it's worst!
House Party Makeup: 246 R; 188 D
The TAA Bill failed 126-302. According to The Atlantic, 40 D's voted for the bill (and 86 R's). That means that, roughly, 34.9% of R's supported the bill, and 21.3% of D's supported the TAA. Btw, the TAA was described in that same article as:

quote:

...a program designed to help workers displaced by trade and one which Democrats—and organized labor—have overwhelmingly supported in the past.

[Bold mine]

The TPA bill passed 219-211, though I'm having some difficulty finding the party breakdown on that.
Technically, the TAA bill needs 218 votes in favor to pass. With 86 R's in favor, only 132 D's would be needed to vote in favor for the bill to pass. Holding 188 seats in the House, you can't simply blame Republicans for the bill not passing. Article describe the TPA and TAA as being linked together, with the TAA being what the D's get in return for support of the TPA, and the TAA being what Republicans trade for Democrat support of the TPA. So, the part of the Trade Bill that is more Democrat-supported was the part that didn't pass, and that had to do with Democrats not supporting moreso than the GOP not supporting it.
But, do go on with your GOP-blaming...

In one's never-ending search for repub complicity with the dems that I guess there just wasn't enough profit in it.
Now of we could just get rid of those pesky dem ideas, we could get back to fast-tracking this thing, get rid of a few more million over-paid, environmentally over conscientious American workers and environmentalists...we could get back to making some real fucking money here.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Probably not, since the idea of dropping this plan is to keep American Jobs. If the rabid rightwing free market communists would have passed this bill. Then you would see those headlines.

I am completely serious when I ask this....

What is a "free market communist"?... It sounds oxymoronic! A free market fascist would make sense, perhaps.... But a free market communist?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The sad thing is the number of Americans that took sides in a 'debate' they had no knowledge or concept on or of.....

Pencil me in as not understanding this trade deal. I think I know a few things.

(1) The Gory details have not been made public;

(2) Congress is reluctant to give the President authority as it once did with Clinton for the NAFTA deal;

(3) American Drug companies want to secure higher prices for their drugs in foreign markets;

(4) This past week several Republicans wanted huge favors (add-ons) to secure their vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Its two different conceptual ideas put together. Would be like saying we have "The Republic Free Market". Our brains sort of stop 'mid-concept' and say "There should be a coma or something between 'The Republic' (a form of government) and 'Free Market' (a slang reference to Capitalism). I'm going to try to answer your question....

A 'free market communist' would be one that allows for a very unrestricted economic policy. That there could be three companies, each owned by the government that sell three different, but related products to the customer (or sixty or more if you wish to make this understanding even more complicated). Why do they do it, could have any number of reasons. We are often assuming communism = USSR or China. Even though both nations got the concept incorrect. Its like Saddam Hussein 'running' Iraq by saying it was a democracy rather than what it really was; a dictatorship.

A 'free market communist' might be something I find in China right now and for the last ten or twenty years prior. The amount of environmental damage due to unregulated industries have created many hazardous and/or toxic zones that have cost and will continue to cost China many millions if not tens of millions to clean up. That had they regulated those industries, they would have avoided the problems such 'Laize Faire' economic policy initially brought the country in economic growth. They basically were blinded by the sudden influx of great economic wealth and greed, they overlooked their own political principles to garner more such economic growth.

Which is why there is a difference between 'old school' conservatives and 'modern day' conservatives here in America. The old school'ers would discussion a concept intelligently and maturely. They might disagree with me on some points, but would agree on facts present. An they could separate, without having me do so, the facts from the opinions of those facts. Which might help in explaining why many of the 'modern day' conservatives on this forum do not understand your question of 'free market communist'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Its two different conceptual ideas put together. Would be like saying we have "The Republic Free Market". Our brains sort of stop 'mid-concept' and say "There should be a coma or something between 'The Republic' (a form of government) and 'Free Market' (a slang reference to Capitalism). I'm going to try to answer your question....

A 'free market communist' would be one that allows for a very unrestricted economic policy. That there could be three companies, each owned by the government that sell three different, but related products to the customer (or sixty or more if you wish to make this understanding even more complicated). Why do they do it, could have any number of reasons. We are often assuming communism = USSR or China. Even though both nations got the concept incorrect. Its like Saddam Hussein 'running' Iraq by saying it was a democracy rather than what it really was; a dictatorship.

A 'free market communist' might be something I find in China right now and for the last ten or twenty years prior. The amount of environmental damage due to unregulated industries have created many hazardous and/or toxic zones that have cost and will continue to cost China many millions if not tens of millions to clean up. That had they regulated those industries, they would have avoided the problems such 'Laize Faire' economic policy initially brought the country in economic growth. They basically were blinded by the sudden influx of great economic wealth and greed, they overlooked their own political principles to garner more such economic growth.

Which is why there is a difference between 'old school' conservatives and 'modern day' conservatives here in America. The old school'ers would discussion a concept intelligently and maturely. They might disagree with me on some points, but would agree on facts present. An they could separate, without having me do so, the facts from the opinions of those facts. Which might help in explaining why many of the 'modern day' conservatives on this forum do not understand your question of 'free market communist'.

Its a nonsense phrase, joe - like "dry water" or "vicious mercy"

The way you so effortlessly posted that wall of text pretending you are THE authority on something that does not exist is funny sad

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
So a compromise was to help 'those with lots of power and influence' to garner votes from those whom didn't, even though they all had a vote on a bill brought before the House and/or Senate. In 'layman's' terms its like buying something you want from Amazon.com, and clicking 'overnight' rather than '3 to 5 business days for delivery'. Notice you often pay....MORE MONEY....for the overnight? That would be giving Amazon 'incentive' to ship it sooner to your door.

quote:

Republicans/Tea Party were the group that shouted this the loudest over the years. Now, they have conditioned their voters so well, they can not do anything to really push a bill through Congress without automatic opposition from Democrats. Were as before, the Republicans could 'give an incentive' to Democrats in the form of a compromise to vote 'yes' on a bill. So they really 'hosed' themselves without thinking on the long term strategy of 'whether their short term gain will translate into long term gain' (which it has not, as of this date, been successful).

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Oh yes...I'm confused.
Post 142, people get shot every 3 minutes or whatever thread. Joe says:
Your facts are most people's understanding of fantasy. And your an insulting, immature, child about it. Facts, are stuff people can agree on.
I'm confused Yoda. Facts are things people disagree on or facts are facts regardless of what people think?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Oh yes...I'm confused.
Post 142, people get shot every 3 minutes or whatever thread. Joe says:
Your facts are most people's understanding of fantasy. And your an insulting, immature, child about it. Facts, are stuff people can agree on.
I'm confused Yoda. Facts are things people disagree on or facts are facts regardless of what people think?

Facts are facts, regardless of whether people agree or disagree. But, Joe was not saying that facts are what people agree they are. Joe (and trust me, I'm not happy I'm on his side on this) was merely saying that the facts are the facts and that's what people can agree on. The analysis of the facts may vary, and people may not agree on those analyses. But, it's tough to argue with the facts. No matter what you believe, the facts are what the facts are.

Joe, however, does a great job of putting his analysis of the facts out as the facts. Thus, if you disagree with him, he'll accuse you of disagreeing with the facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Oh yes...I'm confused.
Post 142, people get shot every 3 minutes or whatever thread. Joe says:
Your facts are most people's understanding of fantasy. And your an insulting, immature, child about it. Facts, are stuff people can agree on.
I'm confused Yoda. Facts are things people disagree on or facts are facts regardless of what people think?

Facts are facts, regardless of whether people agree or disagree. But, Joe was not saying that facts are what people agree they are. Joe (and trust me, I'm not happy I'm on his side on this) was merely saying that the facts are the facts and that's what people can agree on. The analysis of the facts may vary, and people may not agree on those analyses. But, it's tough to argue with the facts. No matter what you believe, the facts are what the facts are.
Joe, however, does a great job of putting his analysis of the facts out as the facts. Thus, if you disagree with him, he'll accuse you of disagreeing with the facts.

In one post Joe says facts are what people agree upon. In another he says facts are what some people agree with him upon. I say facts are facts. The earth isn't flat and at one time people agreed it was. Joe requires a fact to have his agreement. He twists the definition to his current bloviation.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)