Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:1/29/2011
Content Thumbs: 103 total,  137 ,  34
Comment Thumbs: 2577 total,  2930 ,  353
Content Level Progress: 30% (3/10)
Level 10 Content: New Here → Level 11 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 36% (36/100)
Level 224 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower
Content Views:12995
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:526
FJ Points:2947

latest user's comments

#3 - The long con. 04/12/2016 on Devious +1
#21 - What is the song from the second one? If its a song.. Dat motivation.  [+] (1 reply) 02/15/2016 on Webm dump +1
User avatar
#28 - nozepicker (02/15/2016) [-]
It's a song about God, I don't think you listened to the lyrics. But yeah, it's good. Worth Dying For  Destroy  Lyrics Video
#3 - Post is kind of one sided. True or not, not knowing how the o…  [+] (19 replies) 10/10/2015 on Fighting for internet privacy +3
User avatar
#55 - thewizsam (10/10/2015) [-]
i like your avatar
#50 - anon (10/10/2015) [-]
That is a fair comment.
#46 - doublepzk (10/10/2015) [-]
I thumb up because in the world of proper arguments and rhetoric, it is proper to address the other side. I have only been told that the other side is bad, with no proof. I am not saying OP is lying, but he hasn't provided proof. I would appreciate him adding links to the bill/policy/whatever.
#13 - draaaaiven (10/10/2015) [-]
The funny thing of this story is that the other side doesn't explain jack shit except that "experts" "assume" it creates alot of jobs.
User avatar
#36 - robinwilliamson (10/10/2015) [-]
Well yeah, based on the actual countries' negotiation objectives, it's to raise standards in other countries which largely involves labor costs, and when that adds to cost of production overseas, corporations won't really have any reason to leave jobs overseas, but rather move jobs back home which also raises spending for their products with a healtheir economy.
#12 - Sevenseas (10/10/2015) [-]
**Sevenseas used "*roll picture*"**
**Sevenseas rolled image**Any censorship is bad dude. You can't justify censorship, things like this would completely ruin the internet.
#15 - anon (10/10/2015) [-]
Sure, but why are we taking it at face value what these people are saying? Where is the source of this information? We need to know what the people behind it are saying as well.

People like you are why there are petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide.
#56 - Sevenseas (10/10/2015) [-]
**Sevenseas used "*roll picture*"**
**Sevenseas rolled image**I've done my own research it's basically just censorship, they're extending copyrights for stuff that should already be public domain (authors of original works are long dead, it's like they found shake-speak and decided no one could read it without paying them a lump sum.) br /> br /> They're making it easier for Hollywood to take down anything online, where you're treated like you broke copyright and you have to prove you didn't if you want your shit to be put back up after they take it down. br /> br /> There's more but I don't feel like writing it all down, but the above is some of the key points of it.
#26 - anonasdaasdasd (10/10/2015) [-]

Findind information about it on the internet is fairly easy
#27 - anonasdaasdasd (10/10/2015) [-]
#10 - thedancingfool (10/10/2015) [-]
Except the political elites have fought tooth-and-nail to keep everything about it as secret as possible, only responding that if we want to see what is in the agreement it will first have to be passed.

I know there are all sorts of nuance to debate and multiple sides to the story. However, when the other side seeks to hide any and all facts, just saying I should trust them...well, I know there is truly going to be a surprise and I am probably going to be the unwilling recipient.
#37 - anon (10/10/2015) [-]
Like every government in the history of international negotiations until agreements have been metand then the public responds and either likes it or pushes for amendments, then those are hashed out no big deal and we get the best we can.
#39 - thedancingfool (10/10/2015) [-]
Yeaaaaahhhh but, this is a negotiation that is going to be signed into international law without any public input. In fact, the only input comes from the large corporations and the politically connected so there is no voice of 'the little people' who might want some say in how we are represented. Other government have done and do this; however, they also are despots, monarchies, military juntas, banana republics, and other corrupt styles of leadership. I mean, the United States does try to hold on to some semblance of a democracy but this type of star chamber activity flies in the face of an open republic.

To borrow from Emerson: what lies behind us and lies before us are small matters compared to what lies right to our faces.
#43 - anon (10/10/2015) [-]
(I'm not the downthumb anon)
#42 - anon (10/10/2015) [-]
No, under Obama's Trade Promotion Authority (Fast Track as it's called) regulation, he literally asked Congress to sign it to require public input for two months and then add another month for Congress to vote on it. They just had to finish negotiations in order to have something to have input on.

It's on the Ways and Means site
#51 - thedancingfool (10/10/2015) [-]
I notice a lot of anonymous people making comments here! It is almost like there are some paid political hacks to try to propagate propaganda using FJ's anon function. It is almost like you are only here to make politically-motivated comments...

But that would just be tin-foil hat time!

What I do know: the star chamber (and I do literally mean it--just Google it!) of business interests and those who they finance, the politicians, have been trying valiantly to get this passed for many years now. Each time with the same degree of secrecy--'trust us! it will be great for trade!'.

Question: how much of a problem are tariffs? That is, how much 'extra' are we paying/spending to get products? Spoilers: just look at the graph (sorry it is in German, but Zoll means tariff or tax).

Finally, we do know what happens when these multi-lateral agreements are pushed into place. True story: Australia wanted to ban the use of any graphics on cigarette boxes in order to truly make them generic (i.e. to stifle the development of brand loyalty). Wellllll, when they made it a law it turns out a trade agreement trumped their country's law! Think about that for a sec: a trade agreement overrode a measure that was enacted into law in a sovereign country and there was nothing they could do about it.

The devil is in the details and the TPP seems to be filled will all sorts of fine-print.
#59 - anon (10/11/2015) [-]
Sorry to put the breaks on your choo choo there but....
We're talking about transparency, not the deal.
#7 - sabanknight (10/10/2015) [-]
I agree, reading up on flat facts I am still not sure if this would be crippling or even bad, there seem to be a lot of mixed thoughts around the internet, although it is most likely a power grab. Main thing that made me uneasy was this post simply has a donate page, nothing of substance to give you facts to learn about the issue yourself.
#6 - anon (10/10/2015) [-]
Stupid libtard

user's friends