American Union?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BORNGEARHEAD @ Oct 29 2007, 07:10 PM) [snapback]532153[/snapback]</div>

I could not load the youtube thing - but as a new yorker i can tell you that the clear and overwhelming majority of us are AGAINST giving illegals any type of drivers license - and the three tier system is not going to fly either - why would an illegal want to be a documented illegal carrying their own Scarlet letter - on the other hand could be an real easy way to round them up and deport them - at least we will know where they all live. Brilliant!

Spitzer continues to shoot himself in the foot at every turn since his election - a real maniacal egocentric true believer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BORNGEARHEAD @ Oct 29 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]532153[/snapback]</div>

While it may be fun to blame Bush for everything, the Mexican truck drivers are part of NAFTA, which was signed by Clinton.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Oct 30 2007, 08:30 AM) [snapback]532383[/snapback]</div>

C'mon now... Don't go spoiling the anti-Bush orgasm that is FHOP.

 

The "North American Union" talk is from the same lunatic fringe as the "9/11 Truthers", "One World Order" scares and fears of the Tri-Lateral Commission. It is, in a word, bunk, from people who hate America or are seriously in need of psychological counseling.

There are America-haters on the right too, and they are all into this kind of hysteria. They cloak their "concern" in patriotism, but make no mistake, they hate America and our way of life.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ 2007 10 30 21:04) [snapback]532748[/snapback]</div>

Did you watch the video? How do you explain the reporter's statement that it was President Bush who signed the agreement? Did I hear that part correctly?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Oct 30 2007, 08:48 AM) [snapback]532392[/snapback]</div>

Actually NAFTA was signed by President Bush Sr in December 1992.

It was ratified by Congress in 1994.

President Clinton was a major supporter and helped push the ratification through Congress.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Oct 31 2007, 12:11 AM) [snapback]532776[/snapback]</div>

I guess it doesn't matter which president it was, as long as it was a Bush, the FHOP hategasm will proceed..

 

I'd say there's sufficient hate on both sides of the political fence, and among the supporters one will find there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 30 2007, 09:26 PM) [snapback]532756[/snapback]</div>

Absolutely not. And I will not eat a turd no matter how much varnish you put on it.

The "trap" in all of these conspiracy theories is that it takes an inordinate amount of time to research and debate the nut-jobs that believe in them. The 9-11 Truthers (and Rosie O'Donnell) insist that fire cannot melt steel, so the damage on 9-11 had to be from a ray gun from space. Fire weakens steel, and damage to overpasses from truck fires, and car fires, show this damage clearly. As soon as you prove the point, the argument changes. "OK, but what about this: where is the steel? Why did Bush cart it all away? Huh?" They are intellectually dishonest in the way they approach the issue.

The conspiracists talking about the "North American Union", "9-11 Truth", "Creationism" and / or "Intelligent Design", "Clinton's Circle of Death", etc. are in this class.

If you provide, here in your own words, the major fact you think makes the grand conspiracy that the Mexican, Canadian and American governments are conspiring, with the world-wide Jewish lobby, to form a North American Union, we can debate it. But if I show your point to be invalid, you have to state from the beginning whether or not it will change your mind.

The proponents of this idea are making the extraordinary claim: they should be the ones providing the proof.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ 2007 10 31 19:39) [snapback]533225[/snapback]</div>

I'm sorry, fshagan, I regret having said anything at all. My one and only snide, sarcastic question was asking what Bush had to do with the "lunatic fringe." I will admit I'm no big fan of NAFTA the way it's worded, but this 'North American Union' crap is not a 'conspiracy' - and I use the term loosely - for which I hold the slightest belief. You will not hear any supporting arguments from me, and please do not lump me in with the "nut-jobs." Clear?

 

North American Union sounds like a great idea, you need to get behind that and run with it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 31 2007, 09:16 PM) [snapback]533260[/snapback]</div>

My apologies. My rant looked like it was directed at you because I quoted you, and then carelessly addressed the proponents of the theory without making the distinction between you and them. That wasn't my intention, but I completely understand how you (and probably everyone else) thought that I was attacking you personally.

I should have clarified that I was speaking of those that bring those theories to the table, not people who look into them with an honest curiosity and openness, as I think you probably did. I should have toned down my rhetoric to make that clear, but unfortunately, I did not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ 2007 11 01 19:39) [snapback]533706[/snapback]</div>

Thank you. Apology accepted.
I kinda wondered what I'd done to deserve that diatribe.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 30 2007, 09:04 PM) [snapback]532748[/snapback]</div>

Actually, the truly fringe right-wingers do not hate America (as the left does) the righties actually LOVE America and think that the rest of the world is trying to destroy America. (with help from some elected officials)

The left hates the freedoms that America actually has, not what America stands for. With freedom comes the potential of failure, and the left uses those who have failed (for a miryaid of reasosns) as a willing army of slaves to try and gain power by promising to take care of the results of the people's failures. Once the risk of failurehas been removed, then so has the freedom that allowed that risk!