I gather it's not "secret".
Only that the public details flow too quickly for the protracted legislative process in negotiations in a treaty between a dozen nations is too much of an obstruction.

To my knowledge, the executive branch of United States federal government is the only elected office the entire U.S. electorate votes for.
The Obama administration has been TWICE approved by the People.

And your position is:

Have you considered the alternative?

If OUR president and his highly professional team doesn't negotiate the terms of Pacific rim trade; then China will do so.

So you'd RATHER China dictates the terms under which the U.S. conducts trade, than our twice elected president's team?

Whose side are you on?
You trust the ChiComm politburo more than your own executive branch of United States federal government?

PS

7:AM

nut
in

You are correct Ld, that making threats against a U.S. president is illegal, a serious crime.

BUT!!

That seems more like protected speech to me; it's political comment, not a threat that the poster intends to do so.

The truth is a defense against both libel & slander.

If Bruce calls a person is a draft-dodging child-molester, and that person really is a draft-dodging child-molester, then Bruce is in the clear.
It's only libel / slander if what is said in NOT true.

True.
The legal definition of treason is Art.3 Sect.3 of the United States Constitution:

That's two definitions. And Presidents Bush and Obama are conspirators to treason by Constitutional definition; as are all the U.S. presidents that have presided since our Drug War began.

And "ba$tards" isn't a word. But treasonous they both most certainly are; subordinate statute to the contrary notwithstanding. Art.6 Sect.2 makes quick work of that argument.

Why would you assume muscular strength was the only issue, when I specifically mentioned proficiency; that's what the:

comment was about.
But even if his muscular strength was tripled, it still wouldn't have enable him to kill as many at his massacre as he was able to with his firearms arsenal.

It might be possible, for a person with athletic build, superior reflexes, quick wit; and years of martial arts training and experience.

But a stranger off the street picking up a sword and hoping to be proficient with it?
I
don't
think
so.

Even the 09/11/01 skyjackers are reported to have drilled with their box-cutters, by slitting the throats of live goats.
Just having one in your pocked doesn't make you Bruce Lee.

That's much too quick.
They're fairly young.
I think a few more decades in prison might be the way to go with it.

On medium banana has ~422mg Potassium.
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?dbid=90&tname=nutrient

I'm just sayin' ...

Excellent.
Another unsubstantiatable conspiracy theory.
- the press is partial to gun stories, not blade stories (despite the fact the attacks of 09/11/01 were about the most over-covered news story of the new Millennium)
- the press is partial to car crash stories
- and fire stories
- train derailments

What a steaming heap of bovine %$#@.

There were 4 skyjackings that day.
Only 3 of four made it to target.

If each of the skyjacker each had an Uzi machine pistol, there would have been one less building in DC that afternoon; I'm guessing the capitol, but perhaps the White House.

Thanks again Todd!

"a misguided notion that being self-righteous is a virtue." IF

Thank you IF for making this important distinction between righteousness (beneficial), and self-righteousness (detrimental).

"as they try to turn careless extremism into a virtue." IF


If I understand your topic IF, the idea of Libertarianism is reduce limits on citizens to a functional (viable) minimum, thus accommodating the liberty of the most.
That in turn is a concept called utilitarianism.

Makes sense to me.

On the subject of term limits for elected public officials:

The topic here is:

So to promote Liberty, we're going to reduce further the choice of the electorate?
- No. You can't vote for the candidate you want. They're term-limited out. -

How absurd.

oh
You mean like the current licensing scheme.

Seriously?!

This talentless pencil-neck?!



If he was a 3rd degree black belt, or samurai, I might agree.
This dork couldn't open a letter with a katana.

You miss the point g8.

Guns do all kinds of awful things.
- They can fire a projectile at an innocent person's head or heart, and kill them instantly.

- Guns can blast wound-channels into vital tissue, inflicting fatal injury, leaving the shooting victim to suffer, enter shock, and die.



BUT !!!

One thing the gun does that broadsword cannot:

The gun empowers the weak against the strong.

Make up your own examples.

And to my knowledge, this is unprecedented. I can't think of any other human invention that accomplishes that.

But as Lord Acton is reported to have warned:

As an NRA life member I'm familiar with the slogan.

An armed society is a polite society.

Whether the NRA's utopia, where most or every man & woman is "packin' heat" would result in fewer firearms murders than our status quo, I don't know.
Stats and indications on that seem to be mixed.

It could be.
Or it could be that the standards of the other signatories chose a different standard, and it's a go / no-go, accept / reject offer.

Does it stink?
OBVIOUSLY!!

Is it at least potentially better than being left out of it entirely, and allowing China to make the rules that our other Pacific rim trade partners will follow?

Potentially.
And potentially not.

?
ct?
This perspective seems to be the product of the mind that believes in one-sided coins.

For the high school civics student, OF COURSE it's a good thing.
Our's is a democratic republic. We elect our representatives, and task them with such matters, where appropriate and or viable.

BUT !!!

There's a reason ships aren't commanded by parliaments.

Uh oh! Quick! There's a huge iceberg dead ahead! Call the parliament into session! Then the speaker can brief us on the situation. Then we can have a floor debate, to consider our options, and insure that the right option is selected.
Then we can have a vote on it.
And if the first vote doesn't produce a majority choice, we have more debate, and then have another vote ...

NEWS FLASH ct !!

Try that, and everyone will have long since drown!

NO !!!

Ships at sea are commanded by one chief executive officer, the "captain". And s/he makes these kinds of decisions.
This is not merely a quaint and somewhat obsolete American tradition that goes all the way back to Melville.

This is the international standard for commerce, for military, and even for most private vessels.

Again.
If this were high school civics, you'd get a B+ here.

But it isn't.

EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU MAKE HERE IS TRUE !!!
What you're blithely overlooking is that the counter-argument trumps, in most cases; in the net.

Obama admin. secrecy would explain it.
But that's not the only explanation.
And the sanity check is, are the legislatures of the other nations (that have them) in the loop?

I gather not.

Why not?

Due to the level of complexity.

And I don't think Obama's the first U.S. president to ask for this.
Didn't Reagan?
Haven't others?

Obviously.
Outlay blades, they'll use clubs and throw stones.
Outlaw them, they'll use fists.
Outlaw them, and we're in prison.

BUT !!

In that circumstance, the massacres at Columbine, & Sandy Hook, would not have happened.

No problemo my arch cyber-chum.
We shouldn't quiver or get strung out about it. No reason to compound our misery. Let's just nock it up to Capitol Hill politics. I think that puts it on target.

We've probably both been fed from the same news sources.
And while they weren't specific, that is what they suggested.

Reports such as:
- Obama handed a stunning ("stinging") defeat by congressional democrats ... -

I hope it all works out OK, I will become cross.

I haven't seen the vote tally yet. I don't read The Congressional Record anymore.
But basically yes.
The Republicans want this deal.
It's good for the United States of America.
And even if congressional Democrats don't like it; they could have sucked it up and done what was right.

Perhaps I'm just way out of line here.
But if I have assessed this properly,

if we don't get this deal; the United States of America will be subordinated to the periphery on trade, for perhaps a generation or more.

Obama gets a 2nd bite of the apple next week.
He KNOWS how important this is.
That's why Obama did something he rarely does.
Obama want to congressional events, to try to solidify support.

Problem is, those signatory to the treaty will be getting richer.
The U.S. will languish and wilt.

A little known Senator from Illinois won in '08.
Lookit how that turned out.

Perhaps the bigger picture is being missed here.

Many candidates have either announced, or are about to.

Yet what do we know of their policy positions.

We know they don't like Hillary.

What else?

Does Scott Walker want Obama to negotiate for the U.S. with Pacific rim nations on trade?

That's a huge deal! It may help, or hobble us for years or decades to come. Wouldn't you like to know where the candidates stand on these important issues, and why?

Congressional Democrats SLAM both Obama, and the nation, by nixing Obama's trade negotiation w/ Pacific rim

Negotiating international trade rules / deals can be very complicated.
Example:
Importing produce: we welcome delicious food from abroad. But what if they contain toxins such as pesticide residues that exceed FDA limits? The exporting country could claim we're just imposing a tariff fiddling with our own rules.
So should we accept imported food with levels of toxins the FDA deems unsafe; just so we can sell Buicks to them?

These negotiations can get quite complicated; "the devil is in the details".
Adding a legislature's approval (which means potential disapproval) adds another substantial level of complexity.

To circumvent that, Obama sought congressional authorization for our executive branch to negotiate trade with without direct congressional oversight.
Today congressional Democrats said no.

Why is this a big deal?

Because one of the Pacific rim nations in these negotiations is China, already a commercial powerhouse.
With the U.S. out of the picture (thanks Democrats!) that means China will be the one making the international trade rules, not the U.S.

What will happen next?

P4,
I think ending the Drug War would be a big help in dialing that back.
The prison industrial complex is gobbling up $tax $money by the $billions.

S2,
Thanks for the scoop.

5:PM/ET
NPR reports the LEO think they may have the pair boxed in on a privately owned 50 acre parcel.
The owner locks his driveway gate, but cooperated in the manhunt and unlocked it for LEO.

I'm impressed these guys are this successful.
Escape was impressive.
But nearly a week of evasion as well? Pretty impressive.

That's subjective.

Let's test your position.
A wealthy Muslim cult in the U.S. devises a doomsday weapon.
It's more fatal than Ebola, it's the most contagious disease known, and if released to the environment there'd be no stopping it.
It is a genuine doomsday weapon. EVERYone dies.

Some in the cult have died and gone to heaven for their 40 virgins and a mule via truck-bomb; BUT technically it's not a terrorist organization.

Does the Second Amendment protect private ownership of such a weapon?
BTW, the government protocol for this type of pathogen is called
"Level IV" containment. But the cult doesn't do that. They just keep it in the refrigerator, next to the baklava.

- or -

Nuclear Weapons?
Do you think Madison wanted mentally unstable people to own explosives measured in "megatons"?

They're weapons.
"Shall not be infringed."
So 2A is not obsolete. Right?

- or -

Might it have been meant to apply to:
- non-lethal weapons like pepper spray
- bow & arrow
- crossbow
- conventional firearms

but not WMD, which didn't exist in the 18th Century?