Snopes Resolves the whole NAU Nutjob Theory

[Jonnyclueless]

Wow, I thought you were delusional, but I had no idea how much. I encourage everyone to click the link there and read the thread. Thanks for driving my point home. Good work!!

 

[twinstead]

Jerome are you going to argue the definition of strawman, or are you going to address the substantial rational issues raised concerning your theories?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Wow, I thought you were delusional, but I had no idea how much. I encourage everyone to click the link there and read the thread. Thanks for driving my point home. Good work!!

Please explain what opponents position I misrepresented.



You should quit soon. The size of the hole you are digging is becoming a mockery.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome are you going to argue the definition of strawman, or are you going to address the substantial rational issues raised concerning your theories?

I have been. Have you read the thread up to this silly talk?

 

[twinstead]

I have been. Have you read the thread up to this silly talk?

I have not only read the thread up to this point, but have studied the NAU theories extensively, thank you very much.

 

[Tomblvd]

Jerome, could you clarify some things for me?

What, exactly, would the "laws" that the President would pass to for this NAU look like?

Since this president won't be around for its formation, which candidates will form the union?

Considering the war(s), Congress could end them if they were to vote to defund them. What would prevent Congress from stepping in to prevent this takeover?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I have been. Have you read the thread up to this silly talk?

NO, you haven't and that has been the entire point of this whole absurd argument which serves as one giant dodge by you to avoid addressing the actual issue.

So now you go from NAU, to SPP, the misleading claims about the executive branch, to misleading claims about the constitutions, to misleading claims about EU, to misleading claims about strawman arguments, and many other conspiracy shuffle hops in between there. Yet you never ever present anything to substantiate the NAU claim which IS what the thread is about.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I have not only read the thread up to this point, but have studied the NAU theories extensively, thank you very much.

You should read this thread. My thoughts are brilliant!

 

[twinstead]

I have to agree with jonnyclueless, Jerome. I can't think of ANY way the president of the United States alone could manage to successfully enact what you say he could. And, that doesn't even count Canada and Mexico's assured reservations.

This whole idea is ludicrous. It's just a right wing conspiracy theory, pursued because I suppose you must be jealous of all the left-wing conspiracy theories out there.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I have to agree with jonnyclueless, Jerome. I can't think of ANY way the president of the United States alone could manage to successfully enact what you say he could. And, that doesn't even count Canada and Mexico's assured reservations.

This whole idea is ludicrous. It's just a right wing conspiracy theory, pursued because I suppose you must be jealous of all the left-wing conspiracy theories out there.

Then why does the SPP state that the executive authority will be used to implement the plans?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I have to agree with jonnyclueless, Jerome. I can't think of ANY way the president of the United States alone could manage to successfully enact what you say he could. And, that doesn't even count Canada and Mexico's assured reservations.

Here's one for Jonnyclueless. The above is an argument from personal incredulity.

 

[twinstead]

Then why does the SPP state that the executive authority will be used to implement the plans?

What it states and what is feasible may be two different things, perhaps? Exactly how far do you think executive authority goes?

Do you think that Bush will just call a news conference one day and say, "oh, by the way, Mexico, Canada, and the USA are now one nation"?

 

[twinstead]

Here's one for Jonnyclueless. The above is an argument from personal incredulity.

So explain exactly how this would take place? You can't very well accuse me of this without explaining to me exactly how what I think is incredulous could take place, can you?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So explain exactly how this would take place? You can't very well accuse me of this without explaining to me exactly how what I think is incredulous could take place, can you?

You are right, that was a bit uncivil. Sorry.

The president has authority over executive domain, as such he will have those dominions enact the recommendations of the "non-treaty" that he agreed to with the two other heads of State.

 

[twinstead]

http://www.alternet.org/audits/54184/?page=1

If there were a real movement to create an NAU in the form envisioned by the reactionary oddballs at WorldNetDaily -- there isn't -- it would quickly be rejected not only by most Americans, but also by every member of Congress who likes the idea of serving another term.

 

[Tomblvd]

The president has authority over executive domain, as such he will have those dominions enact the recommendations of the "non-treaty" that he agreed to with the two other heads of State.

Could you please be a little more specific? Like what these "recommedations" would look like?

And I'd appreciate answers to my other questions.

 

[Tomblvd]

Then why does the SPP state that the executive authority will be used to implement the plans?

Link to that please?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

http://www.alternet.org/audits/54184/?page=1

That is motive for not advertising the process.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Link to that please?

This is kind of funny. It is in the link from the SPP website which was used as evidence that I am wrong. I am only laughing at the irony.


SPP.GOV

Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.

Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.

Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.

Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP.If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

 

[twinstead]

That is motive for not advertising the process.

All I ask is exactly how a member of the executive branch would be able to bring about such sweeping, constitution busting change without approval of Congress.

All I ask is how a sitting president would be able, without the support of the American people or Congress, be able to form a North American Union?

Is that so hard?

While you're at it, could you please provide evidence that this is actively being pursued by the Bush administration.