Larry is coming y'all

[Cayenne]

Those dainty little round glasses

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Rustled? What the heck are you talking about? Why can't you just be like a normal person?

You should really be asking yourself this question.

Wait, so now you're admitting that money and power make up The Establishment? Hallelujah!

I never said differently.

The Establishment generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds power or authority in a nation or organization. The Establishment may be a closed social group which selects its own members (as opposed to selection by merit or election) or specific entrenched elite structures, either in government or in specific institutions.

In fact, any relatively small class or group of people having control can be referred to as The Establishment; and conversely, in the jargon of sociology, anyone who does not belong to The Establishment may be labelled an "outsider".[2][3]

The way people are naturally sorted geographically means that as long as we draw up districts the way we do (even if we weren't deliberately fucking up the process), the House isn't going to represent the country as a whole. Think about it in terms of a hypothetical. Say that 5% of the country supports the Green Party. That could mean 5% in every district and 0% Green Party representation in Congress or 20% Green Representation depending on how they are sorted geographically. As it happens, the natural sorting is highly favorable to Republicans, which leads to more pro-rich policy than the population as a whole favors. That could change over time, but if we really want to have policy reflect the wishes of the public, we should take a look at the way we apportion Congressional seats. I don't see this as a realistic near-term option, but I think it would help the situation.

I think this could help with the integrity of our political system but I don't see it solving the corruption of money in politics.

Of course you do. Anyone who dares disagree with you is an evil monster, and that's how you justify your behavior.

"What the hell are you talking about? Why can't you be like a normal person."

Only in your fucked up world does disagreeing based on content and identification of ones agenda equate to calling somebody an evil monster. And nobody misrepresents somebody's established position as dishonestly as you so as to marginalized their opposing position. Lol at behavior. You lie in 8/10 of your posts and insult every one that doesn't align with your perfectly.

And Its amazing how often you make posts referring to people's mental state. Nobody else does this as consistently as you, even in the Heavies and OT. What if somebody did have a mental issue on this board (I'm sure there are many, tbh)? How irresponsible is it to mock people over and over like that? Sure, one time or another out of passion, but you make it a part of your regular defense to ridicule people. Is that the kind of behavior you represent?.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Money in politics is money in politics.

Was that a yes or no?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Only in your fucked up world does disagreeing based on content and identification of ones agenda equate to calling somebody an evil monster. And nobody misrepresents somebody's established position as dishonestly as you so as to marginalized their opposing position. Lol at behavior. You lie in 8/10 of your posts and insult every one that doesn't align with your perfectly.

This is itself a massive lie. Or show a single example of me ever lying here.

And you didn't "disagree based on content and identification of one's agenda." WTF? You accused me of "I think your grossly, and deliberately overestimating the role "racial animosity" plays here." Again, what the fuck? If you think I'm wrong about the role that racial animosity plays in getting poor whites to vote against the interests of the poor in America, I'm open to arguments, though I have read a lot on the issue and I have a pretty strong conviction. But to just outright say, with no basis, that I'm "grossly and deliberately" wrong? That's just a level of assholery you don't often see. Is that how you talk to people in real life?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

This is itself a massive lie. Or show a single example of me ever lying here.

And you didn't "disagree based on content and identification of one's agenda." WTF? You accused me of "I think your grossly, and deliberately overestimating the role "racial animosity" plays here." Again, what the fuck? If you think I'm wrong about the role that racial animosity plays in getting poor whites to vote against the interests of the poor in America, I'm open to arguments, though I have read a lot on the issue and I have a pretty strong conviction. But to just outright say, with no basis, that I'm "grossly and deliberately" wrong? That's just a level of assholery you don't often see. Is that how you talk to people in real life?

You said "racial animosity" was "top of the list" as to why poor white people align with rich. That is your claim. I believe that is a gross exaggeration, and given you track record of accusing everybody who disagrees with Obama as racist, I believe you are doing so deliberately.

Do you have source for racism being the top reason for poor white people agreeing with the rich. I'm sure you'll be careful to differentiate rich republicans from rich democrats and the poor white people who vote for either party.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

And lol at blanket calling everybody who disagrees with you a liar, essentially lying nearly every time you make that accusation and then expecting a different standard to be applied to you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You said "racial animosity" was "top of the list" as to why poor white people align with rich. That is your claim. I believe that is a gross exaggeration, and given you track record of accusing everybody who disagrees with Obama as racist, I believe you are doing so deliberately.

So now in addition to providing a weak justification for bad behavior, you're adding more lies. I don't have any track record of accusing everybody who disagrees with Obama a racist. Try to back that one up. You keep making these horrible accusations and you always fail to provide any evidence so I could even know what the heck you're talking about.

And lol at blanket calling everybody who disagrees with you a liar, essentially lying nearly every time you make that accusation and then expecting a different standard to be applied to you.

I have never called someone a liar and then refused to provide any evidence of that if asked. You do that shit all the time, including in this thread.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

So now in addition to providing a weak justification for bad behavior, you're adding more lies. I don't have any track record of accusing everybody who disagrees with Obama a racist. Try to back that one up. You keep making these horrible accusations and you always fail to provide any evidence so I could even know what the heck you're talking about.



I have never called someone a liar and then refused to provide any evidence of that if asked. You do that shit all the time, including in this thread.

I made a post and a month later you created an argument about until u resized it was based in a typo. I acknowledged and corrected the typo and then you proceeded to call me a liar. That is you deliberately misrepresenting the facts. That is you lying. That is what you do over and over again.

 

[Forkfoot]

The principle behind keeping the drafts secret for a bit is that you don't want participants to be playing politics in the negotiations.

But 4-5 YEARS after negotiations are complete?? Why?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I made a post and a month later you created an argument about until u resized it was based in a typo. I acknowledged and corrected the typo and then you proceeded to call me a liar.

That is you deliberately misrepresenting the facts. That is you lying. That is what you do over and over again.

Except that what actually happened is not what you're saying happened (further, WTF, even if true that wouldn't be me lying--that would be me thinking that you meant to write what you wrote when you didn't).

You claimed that she has Kagan advising her, and I said "Clinton doesn't have Robert Kagan advising her.

http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintonorg.html

I'm sure realizing that you made a (no doubt, honest) mistake will cause you to re-evaluate your position." That caused you to go apoplectic and rather than say that you made a typo, you changed the subject. Then I asked why you couldn't just acknowledge you made a mistake if it was an honest one and reconsider the position that was based on the mistake. You then just reasserted your position in the thread. And so on. Only much later did you start with the "typo" thing.

But 4-5 YEARS after negotiations are complete?? Why?

What do you think would be an appropriate period, considering the reasoning? 4-5 years is not long but it's long enough to serve the purpose of the delay. I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Forkfoot]

What do you think would be an appropriate period, considering the reasoning? 4-5 years is not long but it's long enough to serve the purpose of the delay. I don't have a problem with it.

I still don't understand the point of having ANY delay after negotiations are over, tbh. Especially when the document has already been made public.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Except that what actually happened is not what you're saying happened (further, WTF, even if true that wouldn't be me lying--that would be me thinking that you meant to write what you wrote when you didn't).

You claimed that she has Kagan advising her, and I said "Clinton doesn't have Robert Kagan advising her.

http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintonorg.html

I'm sure realizing that you made a (no doubt, honest) mistake will cause you to re-evaluate your position." That caused you to go apoplectic and rather than say that you made a typo, you changed the subject. Then I asked why you couldn't just acknowledge you made a mistake if it was an honest one and reconsider the position that was based on the mistake. You then just reasserted your position in the thread. And so on. Only much later did you start with the "typo" thing.



What do you think would be an appropriate period, considering the reasoning? 4-5 years is not long but it's long enough to serve the purpose of the delay. I don't have a problem with it.

We've gone over this.
You quoted my post a month after I made it. I was arguing from my position, not the position you attributed to my typo. When I realized I made a typo I acknowledged it and corrected it. You subsequently called me liar, which, taken in context, is actually the only real lie.

This is a perfect example of me bringing your deliberate dishonesty to your attention, per your request, only for you to deny and/or move the goal posts. You ramble on about people being dishonest, making false accusations about your character/ positions, and accuse others of holding positions they have no history of supporting and then cry foul when equal or higher standards are applied to you. You're a hypocrite and liar.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I still don't understand the point of having ANY delay after negotiations are over, tbh. Especially when the document has already been made public.

Again, the idea is that you don't want negotiators playing politics with the negotiations. While the deal is in progress, they should say what they think and so forth. For example, a Republican who was negotiating a deal on climate wouldn't want to have to worry about being primaried for not being fanatical enough.

We've gone over this.
You quoted my post a month after I made it. I was arguing from my position, not the position you attributed to my typo. When I realized I made a typo I acknowledged it and corrected it. You subsequently called me liar, which, taken in context, is actually the only real lie.

This is a perfect example of me bringing your deliberate dishonesty to your attention, per your request, only for you to deny and/or move the goal posts. You ramble on about people being dishonest, making false accusations about your character/ positions, and accuse others of holding positions they have no history of supporting and then cry foul when equal or higher standards are applied to you. You're a hypocrite and liar.

Not really. A lie would be if I knowingly said something that wasn't true. Just correcting your (much, much later admitted) mistake and making you mad in the process isn't a lie. Do you have any examples of me knowingly making an untrue statement?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Again, the idea is that you don't want negotiators playing politics with the negotiations. While the deal is in progress, they should say what they think and so forth. For example, a Republican who was negotiating a deal on climate wouldn't want to have to worry about being primaried for not being fanatical enough.



Not really. A lie would be if I knowingly said something that wasn't true. Just correcting your (much, much later admitted) mistake and making you mad in the process isn't a lie. Do you have any examples of me knowingly making an untrue statement?

Goal posts moved, right on cue.

I'll play along.

Do you have proof that my typographical error, that I acknowledged and corrected, was my making a deliberate untrue statement? Of course not. So accusing a person who acknowledges a typo, corrects it, and has no history of arguing from the position of the typo a liar is at the very least dishonest. If you fail to agree to that then your argument against being called a liar and dishonest because "I say so" is a double standard.

And you didn't make me mad because I kicked your ass in that thread (everybody kicked your ass in that thread- making it understandable why your ass is so chapped). The only thing you had going for you was my typo, which is probably why you latched onto it so hard. Even then it didn't give you much.

 

[Forkfoot]

Again, the idea is that you don't want negotiators playing politics with the negotiations. While the deal is in progress, they should say what they think and so forth. For example, a Republican who was negotiating a deal on climate wouldn't want to have to worry about being primaried for not being fanatical enough.

I honestly still don't get it. I think I've proven myself open and fluid enough to be worthy of a more thorough explanation. It says that the TPP's draft is to stay secret four years AFTER it goes into effect, no? So then negotiations are over, no? And the document itself goes public, no? So why keep the draft secret four years after negotiations are complete?

 

[emefer]

If money didn't matter then why exactly are the Koch brothers dumping so much in?

If money doesn't matter, then why did Scott walker strip $250,000,000 from the university of Wisconsin and then agree to spend $250,000,000 to build a new basketball stadium for the Bucks whose co owner donated $150,000 to Scott walkers superPAC?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Goal posts moved, right on cue.

I'll play along.

There's no moved goalpost. A lie is a statement that is knowingly false.

Do you have proof that my typographical error, that I acknowledged and corrected, was my making a deliberate untrue statement?

It wasn't a typographical error, *!* corrected you, and you reacted with anger rather than by admitting it and correcting it.

And you didn't make me mad because I kicked your ass in that thread (everybody kicked your ass in that thread- making it understandable why your ass is so chapped). The only thing you had going for you was my typo, which is probably why you latched onto it so hard. Even then it didn't give you much.

Huh? I think most people realize by now that IGIT is a troll.

I honestly still don't get it. I think I've proven myself open and fluid enough to be worthy of a more thorough explanation. It says that the TPP's draft is to stay secret four years AFTER it goes into effect, no? So then negotiations are over, no? And the document itself goes public, no? So why keep the draft secret four years after negotiations are complete?

I don't know what to tell you. I explained the reasoning (and it's very common). If you don't agree with it or something, you don't agree with it.

 

[Forkfoot]

I don't know what to tell you. I explained the reasoning (and it's very common). If you don't agree with it or something, you don't agree with it.

It's not that I don't agree, it's that the way you're explaining it makes it sound like a completely nonsensical thing to do, like if you told me we're giving a hundred billion dollars a year to the ice monster at the bottom of a frozen lake or something. Either you haven't explained it well or it really is as corrupt and secretive thing as I've been saying it is.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's not that I don't agree, it's that the way you're explaining it makes it sound like a completely nonsensical thing to do, like if you told me we're giving a hundred billion dollars a year to the ice monster at the bottom of a frozen lake or something. Either you haven't explained it well or it really is as corrupt and secretive thing as I've been saying it is.

Nah, it's pretty simple. You don't want people playing politics during the negotiating process (or having hardliners block deals while they're in progress). WTF is so hard to understand about that? Seriously, maybe if you say specifically what is confusing you, I can help you.

 

[Forkfoot]

Nah, it's pretty simple. You don't want people playing politics during the negotiating process (or having hardliners block deals while they're in progress). WTF is so hard to understand about that? Seriously, maybe if you say specifically what is confusing you, I can help you.

I've been trying to communicate what's so confusing to me this whole time. It's two things:

(1) I could maybe understand the need to keep it secret during negotiations, but not after. Those deals aren't "in progress" after the agreement has already taken effect.

(2) Why do the drafts need to be kept secret for 4-5 years, but the documents don't? You're saying the documents are to be made public immediately, right? Not just after 4-5 years? So what's the difference and why release one but not the other?