Snopes Resolves the whole NAU Nutjob Theory

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It's not a treaty of any sort.

Just an agreement between heads of state.

And the POTUS doesn't need Congressional approval to issue directives to the agencies under his control.

My point exactly.

 

[Corsair 115]

Because what he stated that he wanted done was not in reality what he wanted done.

HERE is what he wanted done and did do.

Pay particular attention to the restrictions placed on the commission formed and contrast this to the rhetoric that he presented to the public.

That is beside the point of the President having the power to enforce his decisions regardless of Congress, which is what you've been claiming in regard to the supposed NAU. So does the President have the power to ram through anything he wants or does he not?

If the President does not, then the NAU is dead on delivery. (It'd be dead on delivery in Canada in any case, regardless of what happens in the U.S.)

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That is beside the point of the President having the power to enforce his decisions regardless of Congress, which is what you've been claiming in regard to the supposed NAU. So does the President have the power to ram through anything he wants or does he not?

If the President does not, then the NAU is dead on delivery. (It'd be dead on delivery in Canada in any case, regardless of what happens in the U.S.)

You seem to be under the impression that there is going to be some big public celebration of the NAU initiation date. It is being done incrementally under the public radar.

I still remember when the trade treaties were proposed in Europe that the people who pointed out that this would lead to a European Union were called names.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I am sorry that you attempted to excoriate me and found yourself lost in the simple language of the constitution which contradicts your point.

Please, explain how what the constitution says evidences your point and not mine.

Go back and read now. If you can't understand it, then I can't help you. But this is to be expected from someone who pretends the NAU is for real by pointing out the SPP. And when that gets shot down, uses a strawman argument about how the executive branch can do anything it wants because it can declare war for 30 days. And to be expected from someone who doesn't understand the reasoning for this.

And we'll all pretend that we don't see that you have yet to be able substantiate this NAU and aren't doing a cute little song and dance to skirt the issue here.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Go back and read now. If you can't understand it, then I can't help you. But this is to be expected from someone who pretends the NAU is for real by pointing out the SPP. And when that gets shot down, uses a strawman argument about how the executive branch can do anything it wants because it can declare war for 30 days. And to be expected from someone who doesn't understand the reasoning for this.

And we'll all pretend that we don't see that you have yet to be able substantiate this NAU and aren't doing a cute little song and dance to skirt the issue here.

Please, explain how what the constitution says evidences your point and not mine.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You seem to be under the impression that there is going to be some big public celebration of the NAU initiation date. It is being done incrementally under the public radar.

I still remember when the trade treaties were proposed in Europe that the people who pointed out that this would lead to a European Union were called names.

Ah so its a super secret treaty to merge 3 countries that no one will happen to notice until it happens. No one except for you of course. And thank goodness we have you to help save the world. Of course you have yet to provide a shread of evidence to this nonsense, but as long as you keep dancing around and bringing up strawman arguments maybe we'll all be duped.

And the european union is nothing like the conspiracy claims about the NAU. And no one was called names except for the idiots who tried to claim the EU was some plot to merge all the countries in some dictatorship orwellian scenario. Which of course the EU being created proved them to be idiots.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Please, explain how what the constitution says evidences your point and not mine.

Now read the thread you are responding to as well as the one where I already explained that.

NOW explain how this proves your claim about the NAU.

 

[Horatius]

Because what he stated that he wanted done was not in reality what he wanted done.

HERE is what he wanted done and did do.

Oh my ****ing science....You're trying to use the establishment of a committee to support your allegations that the president can create law by fiat?

Section 1. Establishment. There is established the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security (Commission).

...

Sec. 3. Mission. The mission of the Commission shall be to submit to the President bipartisan recommendations to modernize and restore fiscal soundness to the Social Security system...

And even at that, they aren't intended to work independently of the Congress:

(d) The Commission shall receive input from and provide briefings to the Congress, by procedures determined by the President in consultation with the congressional leadership and the Commission. Public hearings shall be held at the call of the co-chairs, in consultation with the President.

That's it, I really am done now.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And the european union is nothing like the conspiracy claims about the NAU. And no one was called names except for the idiots who tried to claim the EU was some plot to merge all the countries in some dictatorship orwellian scenario. Which of course the EU being created proved them to be idiots.

Ahh, so there were people called names and told that an EU was not being created.

Gotcha'!, because the most extreme views presented did not come true...? Where were you going with this?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Now read the thread you are responding to as well as the one where I already explained that.

I can understand why you are refusing to explain how these words from the constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", mean that the government can do what ever the consitution states it can not do.


Because there is no way to come to that thought!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Oh my ****ing science....You're trying to use the establishment of a committee to support your allegations that the president can create law by fiat?

No, the president can already create laws. These are called executive orders.

You have the support structure of my argument reversed.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Ahh, so there were people called names and told that an EU was not being created.

Gotcha'!, because the most extreme views presented did not come true...? Where were you going with this?

Nice attempt to dodge, but it didn't work. More strawman I see. Is this going to happen with every single post?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I can understand why you are refusing to explain how these words from the constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", mean that the government can do what ever the consitution states it can not do.


Because there is no way to come to that thought!

I can understand why you refuse to read my post where it was explained. I can also understand why you continually change what I said to match what you want as well. but luckily my post is there for everyone to read.

It;s ashame people such as yourself have to be so dishonest in sad attempts to prolong such nonsense conspiracies. It's ashame you have to dodge issues and use strawman arguments and silly posts like this to try and distract everyone from the fact that you cannot back up that NAU claim and have jump from one strawman to another. We go from NAU, to SPP, to absurd claims about the executive branch, to the EU, to changing those claims about the EU, to taking the constitution out of context. Sad, just really sad. Anything you can do to keep up the fantasy I guess.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No, the president can already create laws. These are called executive orders.

You have the support structure of my argument reversed.

And that still does not make them laws. And they can be overturned by the courts. And to do away with this power would cripple the country. An executive order is not a law. But I am sure people such as yourself love to use extreme cases as what is the norm. Much like you do the case for war. And as always ignoring the need for this and the pretending it means the executive branch can just do anything it wants and everyone else is powerless. Of course in your world I am sure they have this power, are run by greedy people who control everything and have not yet taken over the world because....well, there is no because, for some reason they just haven't gotten around to it yet huh?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Nice attempt to dodge, but it didn't work. More strawman I see. Is this going to happen with every single post?

You are a joke right?

Please present any post you have made in this thread which presents anything more than an accusation without any form of supporting evidence.


You make me smile.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And that still does not make them laws. And they can be overturned by the courts. And to do away with this power would cripple the country. An executive order is not a law. But I am sure people such as yourself love to use extreme cases as what is the norm. Much like you do the case for war. And as always ignoring the need for this and the pretending it means the executive branch can just do anything it wants and everyone else is powerless. Of course in your world I am sure they have this power, are run by greedy people who control everything and have not yet taken over the world because....well, there is no because, for some reason they just haven't gotten around to it yet huh?

Delusional rant much?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You are a joke right?

Please present any post you have made in this thread which presents anything more than an accusation without any form of supporting evidence.


You make me smile.

Oh isn't that irony!!!!!

Yes because you would NEVER present an accusation without any form of supporting evidence!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Nice dodge in response to a previous dodge of yours.

Yeah delusional rants..... Nothing delusional coming from you as you jump from one strawman to the next. My favorite strawman being the one about people being laughed at about the EU. Boy does that really prove your littel NAU fantasy.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Nice dodge in response to a previous dodge of yours.

I responded to my own dodge with a dodge?

Yeah delusional rants..... Nothing delusional coming from you as you jump from one strawman to the next. My favorite strawman being the one about people being laughed at about the EU. Boy does that really prove your littel NAU fantasy.

What I presented was an anecdote. This is much different than a straw-man fallacy.



You must be playing a game here.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I responded to my own dodge with a dodge?




What I presented was an anecdote. This is much different than a straw-man fallacy.



You must be playing a game here.

No genius, you responded to me pointing out your dodge with yet another dodge.

What you presented was in no way shape or form an anecdote. You are trying to lead people to believe that the NAU is legitimate by using strawman arguments, such as the SPP, misleading claims about the power of the executive branch, misleading claims about the EU, misleading claims about war, etc etc. And of course you still have never been able to provide any real evidence to substantiate these fantasies about the NAU. And even when discussing the SPP and it's shown to you that your claims were wrong, your response is basically "well that's what they are telling you and since they are part of the diabolical plot they must be lying". Yeah, and *I* am the one playing games? Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure your cute little tricks might impress other people who fall for that NAU nonsense, but to reasonable people it doesn't work.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No genius, you responded to me pointing out your dodge with yet another dodge.

What you presented was in no way shape or form an anecdote. You are trying to lead people to believe that the NAU is legitimate by using strawman arguments, such as the SPP, misleading claims about the power of the executive branch, misleading claims about the EU, misleading claims about war, etc etc. And of course you still have never been able to provide any real evidence to substantiate these fantasies about the NAU. And even when discussing the SPP and it's shown to you that your claims were wrong, your response is basically "well that's what they are telling you and since they are part of the diabolical plot they must be lying". Yeah, and *I* am the one playing games? Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure your cute little tricks might impress other people who fall for that NAU nonsense, but to reasonable people it doesn't work.

Even if everything you said above is correct, none of it is a straw-man fallacy.



Here you go.

The page even has a picture.