Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on November 29, 2007, 04:50:50 AM
-
Interesting video................
http://ianschwartz.com/2007/11/29/video-ron-paul-answers-question-about-north-american-union/
-
it's in the best interest of big business and we will foot the bill for them (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965) I feel poorly for our offspring. it is supported by both parties and we have allowed our political system to fail us.
-
It's all a big myth tho isn't it?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It's all a big myth tho isn't it?
lazs
(it's early and I'm pissed about last night, not sure if you're being sarcastic or not...)
Tell that to the people in Texas that are losing their land due to imminent domain for the Trans-Texas Corridor.
Tell that to NASCO (http://www.nascocorridor.com/pages/about/about.htm) and the SPP (http://www.spp.gov/)
Ask Gov. Perry or Lou Dobbs (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8843323223087117026&q=NAU+lou&total=212&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1) if it's real or if it's a figment...
Or heck, let's see what the TX DOT has to say... http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/index.php/trans-texas_corridor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3jdQxDC7pA
-
So you are upset about building a highway that will help commerce?
lazs
-
POS (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965)
:mad:
CHECKERS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So you are upset about building a highway that will help commerce?
lazs
I'm not upset about the highway, I'm upset about the "fairness" of the debate last night.
As to the highway, along with NAFTA, the NAU, the SPP, etc, I don't believe they're in Americas best interest. Mexico loves 'em, though!
-
N.A.U. is real.
:mad:
-
Rudy Giuliani Benefits From Sale Of U.S. Highways To Foreign Companies (http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/07/0615/art2.html)
-
Ron Paul is a idiot
-
Originally posted by sunfan1121
Ron Paul is a idiot
Boy, thats a pot/kettle remark.
T
-
Originally posted by sunfan1121
Ron Paul is a idiot
Really....................... .....
I would say Ron Paul is not one of your typical Main stream NEO Con professionals.
But certainly Dr. Paul is no idiot. Big Government means big problems.
This has been going on since 1913 and it will not stop until our sovergine nation is gone and we are totally assimilated into the one world government. Ponder that as you sit in your Gulag bro, when all of your freedoms and civil liberties are gone.
Of course that is an extreme representation of the potential future. But just the same how can you call someone an Idiot who wants to save our nation from globalization.
-
Originally posted by uberhun
Really............................
I would say Ron Paul is not one of your typical Main stream NEO Con professionals.
But certainly Dr. Paul is no idiot. Big Government means big problems.
This has been going on since 1913 and it will not stop until our sovergine nation is gone and we are totally assimilated into the one world government. Ponder that as you sit in your Gulag bro, when all of your freedoms and civil liberties are gone.
Of course that is an extreme representation of the potential future. But just the same how can you call someone an Idiot who wants to save our nation from globalization.
in english plz
-
reminds me of Ross Perot ..."full of as much watermelon as a Christmas Goose ".....:rofl
-
don't have linkage yet, but apparently Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh backed Ron Pauls answer on their shows this morning. will update when I've got links...
-
if that highway goes all the way to canada, i'm for it.
keep them doggies moving, heaah, rawhide.
-
Originally posted by Terror
Boy, thats a pot/kettle remark.
T
hahhahahahhaha, burned FTW!
GO RON PAUL!
-
I thought Ron Paul came off as a deluded fool in the debates.
-
You think?
I believe all the other candidates were simply following the status quo of events where he is proposing a completely different approach and basing his reasoning on facts.. not hopeful promises or assumptions like the other candidates.
-
If he's deluded, it's in the sense that he's actually trying to change things in the interests of personal freedom and financial security. I can understand why some might call that a crazy idea in this day and age when a successful politician is bought and paid for.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Rudy Giuliani Benefits From Sale Of U.S. Highways To Foreign Companies (http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/07/0615/art2.html)
"...Bracewell & Giuliani who was paid very handsome amounts to put together the finance and legal work. In March, Macquarie Bank from Australia bought [Presidential hopeful Rudy] Giuliani's investment division, which had less than 100 people and lost $1.65 million last year. Macquarie paid $100 million for it. Giuliani personally gets $70 million."
...lol... corrupt mf'ers
-
Originally posted by GovtFlu
...lol... corrupt mf'ers
that about sums (most of) 'em up...
how 'bout a little internet to the rescue? Let's see, is Toobin a liar or an idiot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzjSX2kO07Y)?
and here's Glenn Beck on the NAFTA superhighway and the NAU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCnT7k5aeGY)
-
Are we talking about a "union" like the your-0-peeans have or...
are we talking about some road that would be cool here?
lazs
-
watch the vids and read the links, then come up with your own conclusions...
-
The conclusion I have come to is that no one has shown that there is any plans for anything but a road. I have not heard one head of state say it is true.
I have not seen any reliable source that was in one of these meetings with heads of state.
I do not trust the links or vids.
This may be happening but at this point.. it is nothing but a paranoid rumor.
If it does happen... I bet we get plenty of real warning.
lazs
-
Lou Dobbs on the NAFTA Superhighway (http://youtube.com/watch?v=MBmFrYWPoG8) and the NAU (http://youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The conclusion I have come to is that no one has shown that there is any plans for anything but a road. I have not heard one head of state say it is true.
I have not seen any reliable source that was in one of these meetings with heads of state.
I do not trust the links or vids.
This may be happening but at this point.. it is nothing but a paranoid rumor.
If it does happen... I bet we get plenty of real warning.
lazs
Here have look/see.....( here is at least part of the grand plan as reported in 2006)....
Regards ,
Bob
Here it is
(http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16407)Kanas City /Mexican Rail Road (http://www.kcsouthern.com/en-us/Pages/default.aspx)
-
FACT: the SPP exists. (see http://www.spp.gov)
FACT: the CFR exists (see http://www.cfr.org)
FACT: the Trans-Texas Corridor exists (see http://www.keeptexasmoving.com)
from http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2007/nov07/psrnov07.html
Those who seek to understand what's behind the chatter about Bush's Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) as a possible prelude to a North American Union (NAU), similar to the European Union (EU), should read the 35-page White Paper (http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=hudson_upcoming_events&id=423) published recently by the prestigious Hudson Institute called "Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership." This Washington, DC think tank is blunt and detailed in describing where SPP is heading.
Here's how Hudson defines SPP's goal: "The SPP process is the vehicle for the discussion of future arrangements for economic integration to create a single market for goods and services in North America." The key words are "economic integration" (a phrase used again and again) into a North American "single market" (another phrase used repeatedly).
"Integration" with Mexico and Canada is exactly what North American Union means, but there's a big problem with this goal. "We the people" of the United States were never asked if we want to be "integrated" with Mexico and Canada, two countries of enormously different laws, culture, concept of government's role, economic system, and standard of living."
Here's how Hudson describes SPP's process: "The most important feature of the SPP design is that it is neither intended to produce a treaty nor an executive agreement like the NAFTA that would require congressional ratification or the passage of implementing legislation in the United States. The SPP was designed to function within existing administrative authority of the executive branch."
Hudson explains further: "The design of the SPP is innovative, eschewing the more traditional diplomatic and trade negotiation models in favor of talks among civil service professionals and subject matter experts with each government. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States."
The Hudson White Paper admits the problem that SPP completely lacks "transparency and accountability." Hudson freely admits "the exclusion of Congress from the process"; constituents who contact their Congressmen discover that Members know practically nothing about SPP. Hudson states that, under SPP, one of the U.S. challenges is "managing Congress." Is Congress now to be "managed," either by executive-branch "authority" or by "dozens of regulators, rule makers, and officials working with their counterparts" from Mexico and Canada?
The Hudson White Paper reminds us that the 2005 Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) document called "Buiding a North American Community (http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8102) " bragged that its recommendations are "explicitly linked" to SPP. The CFR document called for establishing a "common perimeter" around North America by 2010.
[...]
"Among the people who take SPP seriously are Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) who introduced H.Con.Res. 40 opposing a North American Union and a NAFTA Superhighway, similar resolutions introduced into the state legislatures of 14 states, and Rep. Duncan Hunter's (R-CA) amendment to prohibit the use of federal funds for SPP working groups, which passed the House by the remarkable bipartisan vote of 362 to 63 on July 24, 2007."
-
The only thing this highway is going to export from the United States is our money and jobs. Or do you even care about our sovereignty?
-
and apparently there's plenty in Congress who believe this is more than just conspiracy talk... (and aren't bought and paid for...)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.con.res.00040:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc110-40
"H.CON.RES.40
Title: Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
Sponsor: Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] (introduced 1/22/2007) Cosponsors (43)
Latest Major Action: 1/23/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit."
As of today, there are 43 cosponsors:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HC00040:@@@P
Among them are three presidential candidates:
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R-CA]
Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX]
Rep. Thomas Tancredo [R-CO]
Is the Congress wrongly believing in the possibility of "the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System" or the possibility of "a North American Union with Mexico and Canada"?
So, keep your head buried in the sand if that helps you sleep at night... Just know in ten years or so that you could've spoken up when it still mattered.
-
do any of you have a link to the text of this north american union document?
The presidents of all three countries say it is a conspiracy theory with no backing. Bush is out... are you saying that it will happen before he leaves or that all he democrat and republican candidates are privy to it?
Don't give me lou dobbs.. give me a credible source and a link to a document.
lazs
-
do any of you have a link to the text of this north american union document?
The presidents of all three countries say it is a conspiracy theory with no backing. Bush is out... are you saying that it will happen before he leaves or that all he democrat and republican candidates are privy to it?
Don't give me lou dobbs.. give me a credible source and a link to a document.
I would doubt there is anything formal. However, a lot of small, informal things are happening so maybe 10 years down the road it just exists. It started with NAFTA and then CAFTA and frankly it's not a stretch of the imagination to see the bipartisan appeal, among the same crowd that finds illegal alien amnesty to be a swell concept (insourcing cheap labor) and doing business with PRC (regardless of their stance on labor issues, human rights or the environment) to be peachy. Business is business -- nationalism and sovereignty impede business.
Charon
-
Originally posted by lazs2
do any of you have a link to the text of this north american union document?
The presidents of all three countries say it is a conspiracy theory with no backing. Bush is out... are you saying that it will happen before he leaves or that all he democrat and republican candidates are privy to it?
Don't give me lou dobbs.. give me a credible source and a link to a document.
lazs
only links to the pdfs...
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
http://hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/HudsonNegotiatingNorthAmericaadvanceproof2.pdf
also, this page (http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/sept07/07-09-05.html) has a link to a White House transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070821-3.html) of a press conference where Bush was asked (search the page for "superhighway") regarding the SPP, "Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union?". Bush doesn't answer the questioners concern and instead resorted to ridicule and insults. That's not proof, but he could've said "There are no plans for a North American Union." He didn't... :noid :noid
-
the nau sellout... they want to merge the vast energy resources of canada with the cheap mexican labour market.
-
Originally posted by uberhun
Really............................
I would say Ron Paul is not one of your typical Main stream NEO Con professionals.
But certainly Dr. Paul is no idiot. Big Government means big problems.
This has been going on since 1913 and it will not stop until our sovergine nation is gone and we are totally assimilated into the one world government. Ponder that as you sit in your Gulag bro, when all of your freedoms and civil liberties are gone.
Of course that is an extreme representation of the potential future. But just the same how can you call someone an Idiot who wants to save our nation from globalization.
It is extreme, Uberhun, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
-
Ok.. let me come at this another way... this "union".
It is a highway built by the lowest bidder? Can you show me where there is anything else besides some roads and trade agreements?
Is the mint tooling up for the new "union buck"? are we now under the control of the canadian army? is our constitution no longer in effect?
just what does it mean? break it down for me. what exactly is the "union" part? No more borders?
Hell.. we never had passports before and now we do... seems that we are getting away from a "union" to me.
lazs
-
Hmmmmm..........
Well here is another view point on the NAU.............
http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-is-it-too-late.htm
it also talks about several other things and is of course the writers opinion.
BUT some of the links provided by the author SEEM very interesting!
The point several people SEEM to be trying to make is...
someone is trying to create something here and they SEEM to be IGNORING the will of the people, the sovereignty of America, Canada, and Mexico, and the Constitution in the process.
Sort of a "we weren't supposed to do that? OH WE'RE sorry, really we are, BUT it's a done deal sooooo..............."
-
Originally posted by CHECKERS
reminds me of Ross Perot ..."full of as much watermelon as a Christmas Goose ".....:rofl
I have researched Ron Paul and his political record over the last couple of days ....
It has completly changed my opnion Ron Paul .....
I found out that my opnion of him was wrong .
-
more "evidence" from our neighbor to the north...
from: http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFTRA_Content/docType56/Production/pol306.htm
(http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9413/canmexga8.gif)
more info from them: http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFTRA_Content/doctype59/production/pol295.htm
'bout your questions, Lasz... If they're lying about the NAFTA superhighway, what else aren't they telling us?
-
again... you guys are getting all upset about us getting some more roads that will help trade?
lazs
-
First of all, the only "help" free trade needs from the gov't is low tariffs, anything else results in regulatory burdens. Secondly, if this was only about a desire to "help trade", then why the need to deny the plans for the highways? Additionally, some of us see implications regarding moving towards globalization and further compromising our national sovereignty. American trucking companies are worried about competing with the less regulated Mexican trucking companies. Land owners are worried about their land being stolen from them via eminent domain. Some are worried about providing more pores thru our borders for illegal aliens, drug dealers, and terrorists to abuse, rather than securing our borders like we should be.
If you believe that this is just about "helping trade", then I've got a bridge you might be interested in...
-
so you are saying that US highways will have no border guard or checkpoint and that what? that Americans won't be able to use the roads to get to mexico and canada?
As for denial... every city...every one that every one of you guys is in.. has a policy of this very same sinister secrecy for their public works projects and you are quite correct..it is about imminent domain... you don't say what exactly or where exactly the public works project is until a lot of the financial, engineering and environmental studies are done.
Soo... unless ron paul has some political proof of a real north american supercountry.. then he is coming off as a hysterical, irresponsible, woman, panic monger to me.
Name something like a change in the constitution or the money or... something... anything.. that would indicate some kind of super state that was all of north america.
lazs
-
I have no problem with a little paranoia when it comes to defending the Constitution, our rights and our national sovereignty. I want a president who will be on guard against infringments on any of those, not one who looks for ways to skirt them. If you think that's silly, by all means, vote for someone other than Ron Paul. I'm sure you'll be happy with how that turns out.
-
Ameros (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3jdQxDC7pA)
-
so how much amero is thees gasolinea seenore?
-
I believe the constitution should be protected too but.. I see lots of real threats and infringements that are occuring every day that need to be addressed before some phantom one world government.
I would like to see us declare war on the UN first before I worry about paying for goods with ameros because of a highway.
lazs
-
Thinks....
"I should probably get that Rosetta Stone deal.....learn Spanish and how and when to say Eh alot."
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I would like to see us declare war on the UN first before I worry about paying for goods with ameros because of a highway.
The concept behind the "United Nations" just kinda slipped past ya, didn't it? ;) :aok
-
ummm... no. I think that is exactly the point. Nothing worse for us than a pure democracy of a bunch of idiot nations and socialists.
lazs