General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Can people here have an adult conversation? [View all]TheKentuckian
(24,904 posts)It is bad because we are a free people not subjects to be ruled.
It is bad because we aren't slaves yearning for a collar.
It is bad because it disenfranchises us all.
It is bad because it undoes our government in the shadows and it is bad because it is on you you wants to change to rule to sell it.
This is bad just in concept, you don't even have to drill down on who is setting the agenda and pulling the strings at UNCTAD which we can rest comfortably it is the usual neolibs, robber barons, feudalists, Libertarians, and greed heads wearing the typical "help developing nations" fig leaf.
Your third point isn't grounded, I'm not sure what good the showing to elections did on this one seeing that I always show up and I'm perplexed what options I should have been selecting even if say I had the only vote but the candidates. I can scarcely think of a single vote for Senate or President where this could have been "taken off the table".
It is also funny that you make this point after calling for UNCTAD rule.
I don't think it is clear what your point is on the first response. Are you saying that that case negates our legal system (If so why bring up the BP case?). Are you saying that the one case is indicative of our system being the same as the arbitration set up by this "agreement" so what difference does make (though I will wonder why do it then we can supposedly change ours) or what exactly?