Obama not sure if he's CFR member...denies SPP/NAU, says it was cooked up by bloggers

RolandTD20Kdrummer · November 2008

jimed14 wrote:

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.

jimed14 · November 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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)

RolandTD20Kdrummer · November 2008

jimed14 wrote:

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.

jimed14 · November 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · November 2008

jimed14 wrote:

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?

El_Kabong · November 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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

El_Kabong · November 2008

Sludge Factory wrote:

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

RolandTD20Kdrummer · November 2008

El_Kabong wrote:

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

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

lgt · November 2008

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

IS THAT A FUCKING JOKE !?!

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.

unifiedscene · November 2008

angelica wrote:

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

unifiedscene · November 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

unifiedscene · November 2008

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

IS THAT A FUCKING JOKE !?!

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.

unifiedscene · November 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · November 2008

unifiedscene wrote:

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.

angelica · November 2008

unifiedscene wrote:

Well sure, but I'm from the USA, so on all those counts blurring with Canada brings us up a notch

I would probably feel the same way......................;)

unifiedscene · November 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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?

RolandTD20Kdrummer · November 2008

unifiedscene wrote:

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.

unifiedscene · November 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · November 2008

unifiedscene wrote:

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?

angelica · November 2008

unifiedscene wrote:

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?

Obama not sure if he's CFR member...denies SPP/NAU, says it was cooked up by bloggers

Comments

Categories