rob2, Your analysis of "the Marxist/Socialist/Big Government Control/Central Planning/Central Distributionist/Wealth Distributionist/ Utopian Dream World model" is completely accurate.

The Liberal/Progressives cannot handle the truth. Their unfamiliarity with truth, leaves them at the disadvantage of barely recognizing this unknown virtue, when confronted with it.

Those who never deal in it, other than to twist or disguise it, are stupefied when presented with the truth you have presented.

Rob, the article you cited did not include sources. The one I posted had an array of cited sources while the other came strait from the source. It is good to lower expectations in general and I hope what I said can be reread as fair in light of the difference between an article with or without sources. I'm not saying an article without sources is wrong rather, that it can be a good quality to be skeptical of one that is without sources. There's nothing you wrote that indicates you are not skeptical about webpage articles. The title of the post is certainly a reflection that you have an instinct about the article but your skepticism about it made you ask others to chime in.

The TPP is proof that the NWO is upon us and endangers our sovereignty.
Read it and weep you nay-sayers. You will wake up one morning and be the first ones to whine "how did it come to this?"
Boehner is ready to pass this atrocity with the "fast-track authority" and makes no bones about it because he is scared of the POTUS.
And those of you who will respond to this with absurd posts might want to go do some research on this matter because from I've read on every page of this topic brings me to the conclusion that some of you are just la-de-da-ing through life as though this couldn't possibly happen to us.
YOU ARE WRONG....IT'S HAPPENING NOW!!!

Leak shows Obama intends to surrender US sovereignty

A leaked copy of the TPP draft makes it abundantly clear that the Obama administration fully intends to surrender US sovereignty to hand over judgment regarding disputes that arise under the TPP to an international tribunal. (Chapter 15, “Dispute Settlement)

Should a dispute involve interpretation and application of the TPP agreement, the articles dictate that it will be adjudicated by an “arbitral tribunal” that consists of three TPP members whose purpose will be “to make an objective assessment of the dispute before it, including an examination of the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with this Agreement, and make such other findings and rulings necessary for the resolution of the dispute referred to it as it thinks fits.”

These arbitral tribunals are not required to render decisions in compliance with the US law—nor are the decisions of such a tribunal invalid should they violate or otherwise contravene US law. The TPP draft agreement does not specify any of these points.

Investment disputes arising under the TPP agreement would be set for resolution by the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes. This Center was created by 158 nations that are signatories to the ICSID Convention that were created under the backing of the World Bank.

Still another portion of the TPP draft agreement specifies that foreign firms from Trans-Pacific signatory countries that are seeking to do business in the United States can apply for relief under the trade pact to the arbitral tribunals to be relieved from complying with onerous US laws and regulations, including environmental regulations and financial disclosures.

Another troublesome consequence of the TPP agreement would place arbitral tribunals above the US law. This means that the Obama administration is already set on creating a judicial authority that is higher than the US Supreme Court. If this agreement were to be passed it would mean the tribunal could overrule the decisions handed down from our federal courts to apply US laws and regulations to foreign corporations doing business within the US.

New World Order is on the agenda. Should Obama succeed, it would continue to weaken America’s stronghold around the world, open America up to NWO control and further relinquish US power to foreign sources.

It is a stretch to qualify what I wrote to someone else and project the opposite of that on yourself. I don't think our instinct to share ideas for the purpose of understanding will work due to sensitive interpretation of text that just happens because text can't communicate well. If there is a predisposition that those opposed to one's opinions are going to be hurtful then this fear will interfere with any dialog. I wish you the best and hope you can take a step back to the posts where you offered mutual respect and then maybe we should stop there. I meant no disrespect toward you rather, I was replying to another and was referring mainly to other posts I've read from him and do see how this was construed as a jab toward you. You had challenged me to offer more dialog to support the brief summary text I posted and I thought I could start a dialog for mutual understanding. But the steps involved with my explanations will not be received well because it will challenge your viewpoints which could be hurtful despite that not being my intent.

That's fair. Is it fair to debate one section at a time or at least place a limit on the number of sections to write about?
Which section(s) catch your eye the most? Due to your style versus mine, maybe we can start agreeing with what to write about from the interesting article? When I wrote 'creative' I was trying to say in a positive way that the plot proposed by the article has supportive information but that I believed it took liberty with creative ideas to make it flow as opposed to practical ideas. I can explain once we agree to a subtopic of the article.