Highest Rated Comments


LazyOrCollege1753 karma

This is excellent.

LazyOrCollege224 karma

For what It’s worth, I worked as a landscaper for four years at a cemetery that doubled as a crematorium. I often helped with the preparing and cremating. Myself and the crematorium tech we’re both pretty openly non-believers. I ask often worked with funeral directors who almost exclusively had very dark, sick, and twisted senses of humor. Most of these guys had been in the field all their lives so death and dead bodies were basically excel spreadsheets to them. Many were devout Catholics/Baptist’s, but there were a handful that were openly agnostic or atheistic. Regardless of their belief, however, they were all a different breed of person

LazyOrCollege81 karma

that exists? jesus, America could use all the tall poppy's we can get

LazyOrCollege77 karma

For sure, people need to understand that when you're getting scientifically accepted therapeutic psychostimulants, you are getting drugs that no 20 something lab rat can create. We're talking about million dollar equipment pumping out this MDMA, so while 200mg is an "average" dose for a new user of street MDMA, it certainly isn't of the purity or quality OP was getting.

LazyOrCollege64 karma

So I'm actually going to copy and paste an excerpt from /u/SavanahJeff (original OP of this chain) where he gives a fairly unbiased description of the reality of two cases that (in my opinion) have been completely misconstrued and spun in "Big Corp vs Good guys" fashion by groups opposed to the TPP.

Also please keep in mind that I don't know who /u/SavanahJeff is or whether he has some sort of agenda or not. I just know that he's very well educated on the topic. I happened to stumble upon his post a few months ago while trying to learn more about the TPP and found it extremely informative and well written. It made me rethink my thoughts and opinions that I previously held about ISDS cases and the TPP. It also made me chuckle when opening the comments to see him as the top comment

The first is Ethyl Corp v Canada

"Regardless, in most cases that ISDS is undertaken it's not nearly as egregiously against the public interest as the Philip Morris case. Pretty much all successful ISDS cases are when the government takes political decisions which disproportionately disfavour foreign companies. For example, an early use of ISDS was when Canada banned a fuel additive that was only used by one company (foreign) called Ethyl Corp on the basis of health reasons. Ethyl Corp sued, saying the additive was actually banned for political reasons rather than on any scientific grounds, and the Canadian government chose to settle - paying them some $20 million dollars and withdrawing the law they were implementing. On the face of it, it seems like Ethyl Corp was the bad guy and the Canadian government was pursuing legitimate policy in the public interest, and this is certainly how it was played out in the media. In actual fact, Ethyl Corp presented the Canadian governments own documents (p.4 onwards), coming from the Health and Environmental departments, dating to about a year prior that unequivocally stated that there was absolutely zero danger from using the additive in fuel. In fact, the party that tried to get the law through had had strong historical links with the domestic companies competing with Ethyl Corp. In all the papers, it was portrayed as 'Company sues government over environmental protections/health protections', and that's how all ISDS cases get presented in mainstream newspapers. 'Company screwing with our laws' sells way more papers than 'company disputes unfair government policies', I guess. I don't know about you, but I don't think it's fair that foreign investors should be unfairly discriminated against in this way. ISDS prevents political parties from favouring their contributors over foreigners by enacting biased laws such as these. Why should Joe Public lose out because one of the parties is trying to cozy up to their largest donors, and why is it fair that international investors get screwed just because they're foreigners? In actual fact, ISDS is a great way of keeping governments accountable by limiting the political favours they can hand out whilst in office."

He also discusses the Vattenfall v Hamburg case;

"And if the Ethyl case isn't enough for you, there's also the Hamburg-Vattenfall case. Vattenfall signs contract with the city of Hamburg to build a new coal power plant, the Green party (which was ruling Hamburg at the time in a coalition government) kept arbitrarily creating and raising regulatory standards with the aim of stopping the power plant. There was no empirical/evidence-based backing for most of the regulations that they implemented, it was simply directly targeting the power plant. Vattenfall actually changed their plans multiple times to accommodate these changes, before realising it was an unfair playing field and deciding to take Germany through ISDS. And Germany lost the dispute, because again, this is an instance of unfair and discriminatory regulation. You can read about the stuff they went through here (starts at p.7 of the PDF document). Perhaps most telling is the multiple instances where leaders of the Green Party said they would take every avenue possible to stop the coal power plant (such as exhibit C12), clearly violating the Energy Charter Treaty and abusing their regulatory power for political ends.

So while I don't agree with a lot of the TPP, the shady practices, and the "riders" that could (albeit very unlikely) infringe on my life, I absolutely cannot stand sensationalist groups that feel the need to misrepresent data in order to fit their agenda likeEFF has. It becomes extremely frustrating because then they've reduced themselves to the same dishonesty and shady tactics that theyre trying to get rid of.

As /u/SavanahJeff went on to say:

"So ISDS cases are rarely as simply or one sided as portrayed in the media - I could probably list five examples off the top of my head that are completely reasonable if you read the statement of claim documents rather than media articles which egregiously misreport what's actually going on. Companies can sue and win only when; The government expropriates their assets without fair compensation or; the government acts in a discriminatory fashion to foreign companies (favouring domestic companies over foreign) or; when the government acts 'in bad faith' against a foreign company (laws that disproportionately and with prejudice target foreign companies). Regardless, that only allows them to sue for financial compensation, and not necessarily successfully given companies only win a third of ISDS disputes. It doesn't give them any power over legislation. So as the Ethyl case shows, it's not just for trade deals with countries that don't have functioning legal systems. It's also for when governments abuse their regulatory powers."