You're saying you know how America is going to be duped some time soon?
... and what would you say is the last one?
American's have already been duped into another fake war based on false pretenses, so have a lot of Canadians.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
American's have already been duped into another fake war based on false pretenses, so have a lot of Canadians.
Had a feeling you were going in that direction ... but, look ... I don't see how wars would heighten the possibility of a NAU ... I think they only make the idea HARDER.
(for the record, I threw that "look" in there for you Obama haters ... he does that a lot, I'm sure it annoys many folks)
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Had a feeling you were going in that direction ... but, look ... I don't see how wars would heighten the possibility of a NAU ... I think they only make the idea HARDER.
(for the record, I threw that "look" in there for you Obama haters ... he does that a lot, I'm sure it annoys many folks)
You don't see how the patriot acts work to quell dissent?
one thing leads to another.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You don't see how the patriot acts work to quell dissent?
one thing leads to another.
not sure I'm getting your point, I think it's a backwards argument ...
I feel that as long as the U.S. is at war ... and terrorism threats are high, the idea of becoming a continental union, and freely opening our border to Mexico is beyond remote.
The U.S. has a rough enough time as it is making sure its current borders, ports, etc are safe (and, I can only imagine how unsafe they really are right now), but tack on us having to worry about Mexico's boders and ports?
Well ... really can't see it happening any time soon.
I just don't see loss of sovereignty happening, I really don't.
I read your links ... it appeared people were contemplating a freer North America, a sharing of ideas, making trade easier, etc ... but, seeing as no one is floating this NAU idea around, there are no recent articles or meetings about an NAU, an Amero, or any of this, I think it's just not a possibility at all right now.
Obama is going to be the most watched president in history, there are tons of right wingers that would LOVE to sink their teeth into anything he does that could bury him, this looks to be one of those issues, I don't think he's going to slip this one by us.
Take solace in the fact he does call it blogger created fiction ... should tell you he thinks the idea isn't a good one.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
not sure I'm getting your point, I think it's a backwards argument ...
I feel that as long as the U.S. is at war ... and terrorism threats are high, the idea of becoming a continental union, and freely opening our border to Mexico is beyond remote.
The U.S. has a rough enough time as it is making sure its current borders, ports, etc are safe (and, I can only imagine how unsafe they really are right now), but tack on us having to worry about Mexico's boders and ports?
Well ... really can't see it happening any time soon.
I just don't see loss of sovereignty happening, I really don't.
I read your links ... it appeared people were contemplating a freer North America, a sharing of ideas, making trade easier, etc ... but, seeing as no one is floating this NAU idea around, there are no recent articles or meetings about an NAU, an Amero, or any of this, I think it's just not a possibility at all right now.
Obama is going to be the most watched president in history, there are tons of right wingers that would LOVE to sink their teeth into anything he does that could bury him, this looks to be one of those issues, I don't think he's going to slip this one by us.
Take solace in the fact he does call it blogger created fiction ... should tell you he thinks the idea isn't a good one.
It's already happening between the US and Canada. Why Obama has no idea it actually exists as a reality absolutely defies imagination. I was reading recently there's something like over 20 cross border committees working on deep integration between Canada and the US behind closed doors. Vincente Fox basically said itwas the greatest thing since sliced bread and welcomes it with open arms The intentions are definitely there.
When people can no longer freely dissent without being considered a terrorist, or enemy of state, it's too late at that point. How long ago was it they were threatening martial law over the bail out?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
This is the reason why we are in the situations we are in. Everyone watches TV to get informed.
lou dobbs has mentioned it before
part of it is a highway w/ no border between mexico, us and canada....no checks or anything, a NAFTA superhighway i think they rationalized it
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Maybe overtly it isn't. Stuff like this just doesn't go "boom" and appear. They gradually wear away at the people's attention and let it go unnoticed for periods at a time only to let it slightly resurface as something marginally different in name but almost entirely the same in function. All one needs to do is take a look at how the implementation of the Federal Reserve came to be and one can see some of the very same actions going on here.
and before it was the Terrorist Information Awareness Act ut was the Total Information Awareness Act which had no support until 9/11 and the name change
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Disregarding the sideshow argument over the EU -- given i think it is a large reversion back from true democratic government -- sovereignty is probably THE most important question man has dared to answer.
The United States was founded by men who came to a fundamental disagreement with their own great government over the rights of man to his OWN government.
The enlightenment era of mankind turned around the concept.
The American Revolution and the French Revolution seemingly answered that long argued question forever ... only to watch the fruits of their overwhelming wisdom, courage, and bloodshed slip away 200 years later in an era of profound ignorance and moral bankruptcy.
You need only think back to the history of man before the term "liberty" became popular (and then, pathetically, became a word most often used by "conspiracy theorists") to understand the imperativeness of sovereignty.
Great thinkers like Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke spent the better part of their lives defining and arguing the concept for the world. But you would have to go back to Bodin in the 1500s to get to the suggestion of a divine ultimate authority that the founding fathers of the United States of America believed in.
And that i think is where the story gets good.
The American Founding Fathers understood it to be that mans authority to govern came from the sovereignty of god. Natural law was the only immutable law.
When you understand that, then you understand the American Revolution and you can come to know the importance of "sovereignty".
The disagreements the colonies had with "the mother country" over her sovereignty to impose law by force over them led to one of the greatest revolutions of all time.
Man had a right to decide his own affairs in government. Our forefathers settled that dispute with great bloodshed. This right to self government emanated directly from divine sovereignty itself. It was the providence of god, of natural right, the very birthright of man himself -- it could surely not be the claim of a tyrant king or even an unrepresentative parliament.
Now.
Getting away from the tearjerking history (no kidding that stuff works me up) of the subject, the practical implications of sovereignty in the United States are that the 10th Amendment specifically guarantees this right to the states and the people directly in all cases where the right is not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. The Constitution which, being written by the people, derived its authority directly from the supreme lawmaker of the universe.
If you allow some shit-eating politician to sell your sovereignty off to an international governing body, you have
a. directly and irrevocably violated the United States Constitution.
b. utterly trampled the rights of the people as enumerated in the 10th Amendment. YOU HAVE STRIPPED THEM OF THEIR OWN SOVEREIGN SELF GOVERNMENT.
It means that a law, value, or principle upheld by the people of the land DIRECTLY could be destroyed by an OUTSIDE authority.
THIS IS A RIGHT FOUGHT FOR AND SECURED IN BLOOD AT GREAT COST.
It SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY!
OK, I just have to say that you're totally all over the place on your concept of sovereignty, from a political philosophy standpoint.
But regardless, just some food for thought... who do you think has actual sovereignty in this day and age?
Is it political power as represented by the elected governments and representative of the people? OR is it the global financial markets and supranational corporations?
Not to mention, who finances who? and who's playing catch-up?
As for your prejudiced comment about the EU, I would suggest knowing a little bit about it, both in terms of history, origins and its inner workings, before casting uninformed judgements.
I'm personally all for a global village, and unification beyond borders.
And yet, when my borders -- in Canada -- are to be blurred with a Country -- the US -- that has lower standards in many ways (social programs...food standards), it's understandable that I'm concerned.
Well sure, but I'm from the USA, so on all those counts blurring with Canada brings us up a notch
You want to surrender your infrastructure to foreign interests, and that doesn't even phase you?
Are you even proud of where you live?
It depends on the foreign interests and what they have in mind. Our sovereign interests haven't exactly been doing a bangup job lately.
And no, I don't get a boner thinking about my country. I don't think there's anything particularly special about the fact that I live here because my parents happened to fuck here. If you'd been born in India, you'd be saying how great India was, so why am I supposed to take you seriously when you say the place you live now is something special? National boundaries and identity mean nothing to me. They're arbitrary divisions based on war and negotiation.
Disregarding the sideshow argument over the EU -- given i think it is a large reversion back from true democratic government -- sovereignty is probably THE most important question man has dared to answer.
The United States was founded by men who came to a fundamental disagreement with their own great government over the rights of man to his OWN government.
The enlightenment era of mankind turned around the concept.
The American Revolution and the French Revolution seemingly answered that long argued question forever ... only to watch the fruits of their overwhelming wisdom, courage, and bloodshed slip away 200 years later in an era of profound ignorance and moral bankruptcy.
You need only think back to the history of man before the term "liberty" became popular (and then, pathetically, became a word most often used by "conspiracy theorists") to understand the imperativeness of sovereignty.
Great thinkers like Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke spent the better part of their lives defining and arguing the concept for the world. But you would have to go back to Bodin in the 1500s to get to the suggestion of a divine ultimate authority that the founding fathers of the United States of America believed in.
And that i think is where the story gets good.
The American Founding Fathers understood it to be that mans authority to govern came from the sovereignty of god. Natural law was the only immutable law.
When you understand that, then you understand the American Revolution and you can come to know the importance of "sovereignty".
The disagreements the colonies had with "the mother country" over her sovereignty to impose law by force over them led to one of the greatest revolutions of all time.
Man had a right to decide his own affairs in government. Our forefathers settled that dispute with great bloodshed. This right to self government emanated directly from divine sovereignty itself. It was the providence of god, of natural right, the very birthright of man himself -- it could surely not be the claim of a tyrant king or even an unrepresentative parliament.
Now.
Getting away from the tearjerking history (no kidding that stuff works me up) of the subject, the practical implications of sovereignty in the United States are that the 10th Amendment specifically guarantees this right to the states and the people directly in all cases where the right is not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. The Constitution which, being written by the people, derived its authority directly from the supreme lawmaker of the universe.
If you allow some shit-eating politician to sell your sovereignty off to an international governing body, you have
a. directly and irrevocably violated the United States Constitution.
b. utterly trampled the rights of the people as enumerated in the 10th Amendment. YOU HAVE STRIPPED THEM OF THEIR OWN SOVEREIGN SELF GOVERNMENT.
It means that a law, value, or principle upheld by the people of the land DIRECTLY could be destroyed by an OUTSIDE authority.
THIS IS A RIGHT FOUGHT FOR AND SECURED IN BLOOD AT GREAT COST.
It SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY!
I have yet to see any indication that the sovereignty of the USA is in jeopardy. There are talks among leaders, let them bring their proposal. If it is the will of the people to give that authority to the government, then so it will be.
And again I say, can't this same argument be used against the United States themselves? Why should I have ceded the sovereignty of my home state to some bureaucracy in Washington? There's a compelling argument that the average citizen doesn't have a damn bit of say as to what goes on in the federal government, so isn't that as bad as any NAU? You're not arguing against ceding sovereignty at all, you're just arguing about what level of sovereignty is acceptable. Continental? National? Regional? State? County? Local? Neighborhood? All you're talking about is where to draw the line, not that giving up sovereignty is inherently wrong, because you do any time you support any sort of government.
When people can no longer freely dissent without being considered a terrorist, or enemy of state, it's too late at that point. How long ago was it they were threatening martial law over the bail out?
I agree that shouting down dissent is a bad thing. It's how we all got steamrolled into war in Iraq. But if this election said anything to me it said that Americans are sick of precisely that kind of bullshit, the finger-pointing between real americans and terrorist sympathizers, the red-blue nonsense, etc. This was not a rejection of generally conservative politics or an embrace of liberal policy. It was a response to the message Obama was sending that we should hear each other out and make informed decisions. Whether or not he'll actually do that remains to be seen.
That is why this does not bother me. Let them talk. If they come up with an idea they think is good, let them present it, let us talk about it, and then we'll vote on it. Voila. Democracy.
That said, to reassure you that I am not some sort of docile sheep, the second they enact martial law, or the second they implement something like this with no vote, or otherwise threaten the fabric of civil law, I'll be the first guy in my neighborhood opening my basement to the resistance. But until that time, pointing fingers and spotting evil in every corner is not part of any solution, it is part of the same judgmental and close-minded thinking that got us into this mess. They refused to hear you say the war was bad, to listen to your arguments, and to consider them. Now you refuse to hear what their plan is, listen to their arguments, and consider them. You both operate the same way... the other side is wrong and evil and you're not going to listen to anything they have to say because of your ideology.
I agree that shouting down dissent is a bad thing. It's how we all got steamrolled into war in Iraq. But if this election said anything to me it said that Americans are sick of precisely that kind of bullshit, the finger-pointing between real americans and terrorist sympathizers, the red-blue nonsense, etc. This was not a rejection of generally conservative politics or an embrace of liberal policy. It was a response to the message Obama was sending that we should hear each other out and make informed decisions. Whether or not he'll actually do that remains to be seen.
That is why this does not bother me. Let them talk. If they come up with an idea they think is good, let them present it, let us talk about it, and then we'll vote on it. Voila. Democracy.
That said, to reassure you that I am not some sort of docile sheep, the second they enact martial law, or the second they implement something like this with no vote, or otherwise threaten the fabric of civil law, I'll be the first guy in my neighborhood opening my basement to the resistance. But until that time, pointing fingers and spotting evil in every corner is not part of any solution, it is part of the same judgmental and close-minded thinking that got us into this mess. They refused to hear you say the war was bad, to listen to your arguments, and to consider them. Now you refuse to hear what their plan is, listen to their arguments, and consider them. You both operate the same way... the other side is wrong and evil and you're not going to listen to anything they have to say because of your ideology.
That's great and all, but this integration thing is not up for discussion. it's just going through regardless. Has been for a while....slowly but surely.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
That's great and all, but this integration thing is not up for discussion. it's just going through regardless. Has been for a while....slowly but surely.
That's the point we've been making. What proof of that do you have? All I've seen anyone say about this is that people are discussing it. Not one word about action or implementation. What has been done?
That's the point we've been making. What proof of that do you have? All I've seen anyone say about this is that people are discussing it. Not one word about action or implementation. What has been done?
It's an evolution that has been slowly introduced since nafta was created. They're not going to come out and declare SPP day. It won't happen ever. Baby steps are being slowly implemented over years. US policies have always bled upwards to Canada. Look at Canada in Afghanistan. From peace keeping to missions of aggression. Police as well have already mixed together on many levels. It's happening.. and it's not up for discussion Don't expect a voting day, or wide coverage in the media discussing anything about it. That's not how these guys play the game. Harper is rubber stamping a lot of US policy these days, and it will continue after him until people look back in 15 years and say....holy fuck....what happened to us eh?
The EU plot took something like 40 years to pull off.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It's an evolution that has been slowly introduced since nafta was created. They're not going to come out and declare SPP day. It won't happen ever. Baby steps are being slowly implemented over years. US policies have always bled upwards to Canada. Look at Canada in Afghanistan. From peace keeping to missions of aggression. Police as well have already mixed together on many levels. It's happening.. and it's not up for discussion Don't expect a voting day, or wide coverage in the media discussing anything about it. That's not how these guys play the game. Harper is rubber stamping a lot of US policy these days, and it will continue after him until people look back in 15 years and say....holy fuck....what happened to us eh?
The EU plot took something like 40 years to pull off.
I love that you call it a plot. Last I checked, the people of Europe had a decent amount of say in that going forward and countries are lining up quite publicly to get in, not sneaking in behind their people's backs. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be hurting them any. The euro is way ahead of the dollar these days.
I love that you call it a plot. Last I checked, the people of Europe had a decent amount of say in that going forward and countries are lining up quite publicly to get in, not sneaking in behind their people's backs. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be hurting them any. The euro is way ahead of the dollar these days.
You think elites don't live across the Atlantic and hold corporate interests over people?
ok...
Ever heard of the Rothchilds?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I love that you call it a plot. Last I checked, the people of Europe had a decent amount of say in that going forward and countries are lining up quite publicly to get in, not sneaking in behind their people's backs. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be hurting them any. The euro is way ahead of the dollar these days.
Let me ask you this: If you watched the video in question...did you buy the part where Obama stammered over the ....'North American........uh......"
Do you think that he was being genuine and honest? and that he didn't know what it was? Granted, there may technically be no 'proof' of a NAU per se..as he said...but do you believe he was being genuine and that he genuinely stumbled over saying the words based on what you observed in this video? Do you think people like Roland and I and Lou Dobbs know about this .....uh.....North American...uh, Union, but that Obama does not, based on your gut sense, watching the video and based on what common sense tells you?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You think elites don't live across the Atlantic and hold corporate interests over people?
ok...
Ever heard of the Rothchilds?
I don't doubt that they do. But that doesn't mean that every action taken by every government anywhere in the world is part of some secret plot of cloaked and hooded men bent on world domination.
The fact is that human society is, always has been, and always will be hierarchical. From tribes rules by leaders to feudal lords to kings and emperors to today, it is inevitable that people with money and power will always have more influence in the affairs of society. But you make it sound like there is some unified group of 10 people hell bent on screwing you no matter what the cost. What it really is is that there are hundreds of thousands of rich people out there and they're all hell bent on getting richer. They're as willing to crush each other as anyone else. And regardless of what "elites" got the EU going, the EU single-handedly turned Ireland from the poorest and most impoverished country in Europe into one of its most successful and greatly benefited its citizens. In every decision made, there will be winners and losers and something isn't automatically evil just because it's good for the wealthy. Trickle down economics may be bullshit, but you can't argue that the EU has been good for a lot of the poorer people in Europe.
Let me ask you this: If you watched the video in question...did you buy the part where Obama stammered over the ....'North American........uh......"
Do you think that he was being genuine and honest? and that he didn't know what it was? Granted, there may technically be no 'proof' of a NAU per se..as he said...but do you believe he was being genuine and that he genuinely stumbled over saying the words based on what you observed in this video? Do you think people like Roland and I and Lou Dobbs know about this .....uh.....North American...uh, Union, but that Obama does not, based on your gut sense, watching the video and based on what common sense tells you?
I didn't watch it. The condescending intro destroyed its credibility instantaneously. I don't pay attention to those trying to manipulate me, even if they want to pretend they're just being "provocative." I also ignore anyone who throws around generalizations like "anyone who supports Obama is a sheep." I don't debate with people like that, they're not worth 7 minutes and 23 seconds of my time.
I don't doubt that they do. But that doesn't mean that every action taken by every government anywhere in the world is part of some secret plot of cloaked and hooded men bent on world domination.
The fact is that human society is, always has been, and always will be hierarchical. From tribes rules by leaders to feudal lords to kings and emperors to today, it is inevitable that people with money and power will always have more influence in the affairs of society. But you make it sound like there is some unified group of 10 people hell bent on screwing you no matter what the cost. What it really is is that there are hundreds of thousands of rich people out there and they're all hell bent on getting richer. They're as willing to crush each other as anyone else. And regardless of what "elites" got the EU going, the EU single-handedly turned Ireland from the poorest and most impoverished country in Europe into one of its most successful and greatly benefited its citizens. In every decision made, there will be winners and losers and something isn't automatically evil just because it's good for the wealthy. Trickle down economics may be bullshit, but you can't argue that the EU has been good for a lot of the poorer people in Europe.
In any event. The stated intentions are there for all to see. Do you honestly think it's going to be all out in the open and transparent, and you will get to vote on all of it?
Security (and Prosperity Partnership...SPP) let's think about the term security, and how "security" has been applied lately.
Who voted on the patriot acts? Did you?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
In any event. The stated intentions are there for all to see. Do you honestly think it's going to be all out in the open and transparent, and you will get to vote on all of it?
Security (and Prosperity Partnership...SPP) let's think about the term security, and how "security" has been applied lately.
Who voted on the patriot acts? Did you?
Then we're back to my argument from earlier. How is the NAU worse than the USA? I don't vote for US policy either, I elect representatives to do so. I didn't vote for the Patriot Act. So what does it matter if I cede my "sovereignty" to the NAU instead of the USA? Either one is going to be composed of representatives making decisions for the whole rather than direct democracy.
I didn't watch it. The condescending intro destroyed its credibility instantaneously. I don't pay attention to those trying to manipulate me, even if they want to pretend they're just being "provocative." I also ignore anyone who throws around generalizations like "anyone who supports Obama is a sheep." I don't debate with people like that, they're not worth 7 minutes and 23 seconds of my time.
What about in terms of discussion with a person who is asking a well-intended question, such as right now?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Then we're back to my argument from earlier. How is the NAU worse than the USA? I don't vote for US policy either, I elect representatives to do so. I didn't vote for the Patriot Act. So what does it matter if I cede my "sovereignty" to the NAU instead of the USA? Either one is going to be composed of representatives making decisions for the whole rather than direct democracy.
If you're in the US not much will change aside from using Mexicans for cheap labor everywhere. If you're living in Canada or Mexico....almost certainly much will change.
It's basically an attempt by the US to take over (eventually) these two countries and get better access to all their resources, and shape policies to better suit elite corporate interests with an agenda. The name itself is a total misnomer.
You have to look at where it's coming from, and when, and why...i.e. by whom. It's Neo-con wet dream program.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Let me ask you this: If you watched the video in question...did you buy the part where Obama stammered over the ....'North American........uh......"
Do you think that he was being genuine and honest? and that he didn't know what it was? Granted, there may technically be no 'proof' of a NAU per se..as he said...but do you believe he was being genuine and that he genuinely stumbled over saying the words based on what you observed in this video? Do you think people like Roland and I and Lou Dobbs know about this .....uh.....North American...uh, Union, but that Obama does not, based on your gut sense, watching the video and based on what common sense tells you?
Yes. Back to the original observation, and topic. If you want to see what Obama looks like when he is lying flat out....watch the vid.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
What about in terms of discussion with a person who is asking a well-intended question, such as right now?
They can provide sources that are not so clearly propaganda or arguments that convince me it is worth my time. This hasn't happened yet. I still fail to see what I should be worried about... the argument seems to be that Obama denies being part of or aware of a group that so far has done nothing other than have a few small secret talks to explore the possibility of forming an NAU like the one that has transformed the European economy very successfully. I'm not losing sleep over this, nor does this convince me that Barack Obama is some sort of sleeper agent of evil not to be trusted. I've seen the man speak publicly for almost a year and he often stumbles and stammers and speaks very carefully and cautiously. That doesn't scare me and I'm not going to get myself into a tizzy about it. Let's be honest here, the OP would not have been happy with any response other than "I know the NAU and all the people involved in it are evil to the core and I will make it my first mission in office to round them all up and throw them in prison regardless of whether or not they have broken the law." The man's entire campaign was run on the idea that he is not omniscient and is willing to hear everyone out and choose the wisest course of action. So he didn't want to put his foot in his mouth by passing judgment on some group he's probably not hugely familiar with... what's the big deal?
If you're in the US not much will change aside from using Mexicans for cheap labor everywhere. If you're living in Canada or Mexico....almost certainly much will change.
It's basically an attempt by the US to take over (eventually) these two countries and get better access to all their resources, and shape policies to better suit elite corporate interests with an agenda.
They can provide sources that are not so clearly propaganda or arguments that convince me it is worth my time. This hasn't happened yet. I still fail to see what I should be worried about... the argument seems to be that Obama denies being part of or aware of a group that so far has done nothing other than have a few small secret talks to explore the possibility of forming an NAU like the one that has transformed the European economy very successfully. I'm not losing sleep over this, nor does this convince me that Barack Obama is some sort of sleeper agent of evil not to be trusted. I've seen the man speak publicly for almost a year and he often stumbles and stammers and speaks very carefully and cautiously. That doesn't scare me.
He didn't even remember the name...he had to get the guy in the audience who asked the question help him complete the term itself.
He revealed himself completely by admitting knowing who exactly was talking about it in particular, and somehow he knows enough to say that it doesn't really exist.
So how exactly does Obama know all this if he can't even remember the term itself?
Can't remember the name, but knows a bunch of stuff about it enough to give a definitive answer. Right. The audience was oblivious.
Quite simply he's a liar, and he consciously lied to people at this town hall meeting.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
American's have already been duped into another fake war based on false pretenses, so have a lot of Canadians.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Had a feeling you were going in that direction ... but, look ... I don't see how wars would heighten the possibility of a NAU ... I think they only make the idea HARDER.
(for the record, I threw that "look" in there for you Obama haters ... he does that a lot, I'm sure it annoys many folks)
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
You don't see how the patriot acts work to quell dissent?
one thing leads to another.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
not sure I'm getting your point, I think it's a backwards argument ...
I feel that as long as the U.S. is at war ... and terrorism threats are high, the idea of becoming a continental union, and freely opening our border to Mexico is beyond remote.
The U.S. has a rough enough time as it is making sure its current borders, ports, etc are safe (and, I can only imagine how unsafe they really are right now), but tack on us having to worry about Mexico's boders and ports?
Well ... really can't see it happening any time soon.
I just don't see loss of sovereignty happening, I really don't.
I read your links ... it appeared people were contemplating a freer North America, a sharing of ideas, making trade easier, etc ... but, seeing as no one is floating this NAU idea around, there are no recent articles or meetings about an NAU, an Amero, or any of this, I think it's just not a possibility at all right now.
Obama is going to be the most watched president in history, there are tons of right wingers that would LOVE to sink their teeth into anything he does that could bury him, this looks to be one of those issues, I don't think he's going to slip this one by us.
Take solace in the fact he does call it blogger created fiction ... should tell you he thinks the idea isn't a good one.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
It's already happening between the US and Canada. Why Obama has no idea it actually exists as a reality absolutely defies imagination. I was reading recently there's something like over 20 cross border committees working on deep integration between Canada and the US behind closed doors. Vincente Fox basically said itwas the greatest thing since sliced bread and welcomes it with open arms The intentions are definitely there.
When people can no longer freely dissent without being considered a terrorist, or enemy of state, it's too late at that point. How long ago was it they were threatening martial law over the bail out?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
lou dobbs has mentioned it before
part of it is a highway w/ no border between mexico, us and canada....no checks or anything, a NAFTA superhighway i think they rationalized it
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
and before it was the Terrorist Information Awareness Act ut was the Total Information Awareness Act which had no support until 9/11 and the name change
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Probably. It's something I'm getting used to.
When does giving benefit of doubt actually become doubt. Good question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWj_3JhxbFs
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
OK, I just have to say that you're totally all over the place on your concept of sovereignty, from a political philosophy standpoint.
But regardless, just some food for thought... who do you think has actual sovereignty in this day and age?
Is it political power as represented by the elected governments and representative of the people? OR is it the global financial markets and supranational corporations?
Not to mention, who finances who? and who's playing catch-up?
As for your prejudiced comment about the EU, I would suggest knowing a little bit about it, both in terms of history, origins and its inner workings, before casting uninformed judgements.
Well sure, but I'm from the USA, so on all those counts blurring with Canada brings us up a notch
It depends on the foreign interests and what they have in mind. Our sovereign interests haven't exactly been doing a bangup job lately.
And no, I don't get a boner thinking about my country. I don't think there's anything particularly special about the fact that I live here because my parents happened to fuck here. If you'd been born in India, you'd be saying how great India was, so why am I supposed to take you seriously when you say the place you live now is something special? National boundaries and identity mean nothing to me. They're arbitrary divisions based on war and negotiation.
I have yet to see any indication that the sovereignty of the USA is in jeopardy. There are talks among leaders, let them bring their proposal. If it is the will of the people to give that authority to the government, then so it will be.
And again I say, can't this same argument be used against the United States themselves? Why should I have ceded the sovereignty of my home state to some bureaucracy in Washington? There's a compelling argument that the average citizen doesn't have a damn bit of say as to what goes on in the federal government, so isn't that as bad as any NAU? You're not arguing against ceding sovereignty at all, you're just arguing about what level of sovereignty is acceptable. Continental? National? Regional? State? County? Local? Neighborhood? All you're talking about is where to draw the line, not that giving up sovereignty is inherently wrong, because you do any time you support any sort of government.
I agree that shouting down dissent is a bad thing. It's how we all got steamrolled into war in Iraq. But if this election said anything to me it said that Americans are sick of precisely that kind of bullshit, the finger-pointing between real americans and terrorist sympathizers, the red-blue nonsense, etc. This was not a rejection of generally conservative politics or an embrace of liberal policy. It was a response to the message Obama was sending that we should hear each other out and make informed decisions. Whether or not he'll actually do that remains to be seen.
That is why this does not bother me. Let them talk. If they come up with an idea they think is good, let them present it, let us talk about it, and then we'll vote on it. Voila. Democracy.
That said, to reassure you that I am not some sort of docile sheep, the second they enact martial law, or the second they implement something like this with no vote, or otherwise threaten the fabric of civil law, I'll be the first guy in my neighborhood opening my basement to the resistance. But until that time, pointing fingers and spotting evil in every corner is not part of any solution, it is part of the same judgmental and close-minded thinking that got us into this mess. They refused to hear you say the war was bad, to listen to your arguments, and to consider them. Now you refuse to hear what their plan is, listen to their arguments, and consider them. You both operate the same way... the other side is wrong and evil and you're not going to listen to anything they have to say because of your ideology.
That's great and all, but this integration thing is not up for discussion. it's just going through regardless. Has been for a while....slowly but surely.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's the point we've been making. What proof of that do you have? All I've seen anyone say about this is that people are discussing it. Not one word about action or implementation. What has been done?
It's an evolution that has been slowly introduced since nafta was created. They're not going to come out and declare SPP day. It won't happen ever. Baby steps are being slowly implemented over years. US policies have always bled upwards to Canada. Look at Canada in Afghanistan. From peace keeping to missions of aggression. Police as well have already mixed together on many levels. It's happening.. and it's not up for discussion Don't expect a voting day, or wide coverage in the media discussing anything about it. That's not how these guys play the game. Harper is rubber stamping a lot of US policy these days, and it will continue after him until people look back in 15 years and say....holy fuck....what happened to us eh?
The EU plot took something like 40 years to pull off.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I love that you call it a plot. Last I checked, the people of Europe had a decent amount of say in that going forward and countries are lining up quite publicly to get in, not sneaking in behind their people's backs. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be hurting them any. The euro is way ahead of the dollar these days.
You think elites don't live across the Atlantic and hold corporate interests over people?
ok...
Ever heard of the Rothchilds?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Do you think that he was being genuine and honest? and that he didn't know what it was? Granted, there may technically be no 'proof' of a NAU per se..as he said...but do you believe he was being genuine and that he genuinely stumbled over saying the words based on what you observed in this video? Do you think people like Roland and I and Lou Dobbs know about this .....uh.....North American...uh, Union, but that Obama does not, based on your gut sense, watching the video and based on what common sense tells you?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I don't doubt that they do. But that doesn't mean that every action taken by every government anywhere in the world is part of some secret plot of cloaked and hooded men bent on world domination.
The fact is that human society is, always has been, and always will be hierarchical. From tribes rules by leaders to feudal lords to kings and emperors to today, it is inevitable that people with money and power will always have more influence in the affairs of society. But you make it sound like there is some unified group of 10 people hell bent on screwing you no matter what the cost. What it really is is that there are hundreds of thousands of rich people out there and they're all hell bent on getting richer. They're as willing to crush each other as anyone else. And regardless of what "elites" got the EU going, the EU single-handedly turned Ireland from the poorest and most impoverished country in Europe into one of its most successful and greatly benefited its citizens. In every decision made, there will be winners and losers and something isn't automatically evil just because it's good for the wealthy. Trickle down economics may be bullshit, but you can't argue that the EU has been good for a lot of the poorer people in Europe.
I didn't watch it. The condescending intro destroyed its credibility instantaneously. I don't pay attention to those trying to manipulate me, even if they want to pretend they're just being "provocative." I also ignore anyone who throws around generalizations like "anyone who supports Obama is a sheep." I don't debate with people like that, they're not worth 7 minutes and 23 seconds of my time.
In any event. The stated intentions are there for all to see. Do you honestly think it's going to be all out in the open and transparent, and you will get to vote on all of it?
Security (and Prosperity Partnership...SPP) let's think about the term security, and how "security" has been applied lately.
Who voted on the patriot acts? Did you?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Then we're back to my argument from earlier. How is the NAU worse than the USA? I don't vote for US policy either, I elect representatives to do so. I didn't vote for the Patriot Act. So what does it matter if I cede my "sovereignty" to the NAU instead of the USA? Either one is going to be composed of representatives making decisions for the whole rather than direct democracy.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
If you're in the US not much will change aside from using Mexicans for cheap labor everywhere. If you're living in Canada or Mexico....almost certainly much will change.
It's basically an attempt by the US to take over (eventually) these two countries and get better access to all their resources, and shape policies to better suit elite corporate interests with an agenda. The name itself is a total misnomer.
You have to look at where it's coming from, and when, and why...i.e. by whom. It's Neo-con wet dream program.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Yes. Back to the original observation, and topic. If you want to see what Obama looks like when he is lying flat out....watch the vid.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
They can provide sources that are not so clearly propaganda or arguments that convince me it is worth my time. This hasn't happened yet. I still fail to see what I should be worried about... the argument seems to be that Obama denies being part of or aware of a group that so far has done nothing other than have a few small secret talks to explore the possibility of forming an NAU like the one that has transformed the European economy very successfully. I'm not losing sleep over this, nor does this convince me that Barack Obama is some sort of sleeper agent of evil not to be trusted. I've seen the man speak publicly for almost a year and he often stumbles and stammers and speaks very carefully and cautiously. That doesn't scare me and I'm not going to get myself into a tizzy about it. Let's be honest here, the OP would not have been happy with any response other than "I know the NAU and all the people involved in it are evil to the core and I will make it my first mission in office to round them all up and throw them in prison regardless of whether or not they have broken the law." The man's entire campaign was run on the idea that he is not omniscient and is willing to hear everyone out and choose the wisest course of action. So he didn't want to put his foot in his mouth by passing judgment on some group he's probably not hugely familiar with... what's the big deal?
What's the agenda?
He didn't even remember the name...he had to get the guy in the audience who asked the question help him complete the term itself.
He revealed himself completely by admitting knowing who exactly was talking about it in particular, and somehow he knows enough to say that it doesn't really exist.
So how exactly does Obama know all this if he can't even remember the term itself?
Can't remember the name, but knows a bunch of stuff about it enough to give a definitive answer. Right. The audience was oblivious.
Quite simply he's a liar, and he consciously lied to people at this town hall meeting.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")