Snopes Resolves the whole NAU Nutjob Theory

[Jonnyclueless]

Jerome, I politely asked you for some idea as to how the president would implement a stealth surrender of our sovreignty to Mexico and Canada, and all I've gotten is complete evasion. It is plainly apparent you have no idea what you are talking about.

Honestly, if you can't answer these simple, straightforward questions, why should we believe you?

Because he can't. There's no question about this. Hence the need to constantly dance around the issue and make pure conjecture as an argument as well as constantly using out of context examples that really just show why we have an executive branch. His argument technique is identical to the federal reserve wooers.

Basically in his ideal world, there would be no executive branch and everything would be voted on by Congress. Of course this would be the worst thing that could ever happen as so many decisions need to be made in a realistic time manner and nothing would get done. Just imagine on 9/11 if instead of the vice president needing to make a shoot down order, it had to be voted on by congress.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, I politely asked you for some idea as to how the president would implement a stealth surrender of our sovreignty to Mexico and Canada, and all I've gotten is complete evasion. It is plainly apparent you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have given you straight answers based on the information that is provided to the public. I have given you links to the resources where you can investigate further. I have evaded nothing.

Honestly, if you can't answer these simple, straightforward questions, why should we believe you?

I have no desire for other to believe me, it matters not a bit. I just like conversing about interesting subjects.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It appears that the only way you will see that you are wrong, jerome, is when the NAU doesn't come to pass. I don't have to convince you of anything.

Let's just wait and see what happens. One of us will be right. Let's see who.

Sure, that sounds reasonable. I was certain that this site does not count points for right and wrong. People can honestly disagree about circumstances, and I commend both you and Tomblvd for reasonable respectful disagreement.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because he can't. There's no question about this. Hence the need to constantly dance around the issue and make pure conjecture as an argument as well as constantly using out of context examples that really just show why we have an executive branch. His argument technique is identical to the federal reserve wooers.

Basically in his ideal world, there would be no executive branch and everything would be voted on by Congress. Of course this would be the worst thing that could ever happen as so many decisions need to be made in a realistic time manner and nothing would get done. Just imagine on 9/11 if instead of the vice president needing to make a shoot down order, it had to be voted on by congress.

When are you going to answer that question concerning the constitution?

I guess you are just going to dance around the issue because you can not answer.

 

[Tomblvd]

I have given you straight answers based on the information that is provided to the public. I have given you links to the resources where you can investigate further. I have evaded nothing.

"Look on the SPP website" is not an answer, especially since it says exactly the opposite of what you allege.

You are making extraordinary claims, so it is incumbent on you to support those claims. "Look it up" is not a satisfactory answer. It is, however, a typical evasion.

If you don't have any answers to these questions, how is it you are so sure this NAU will come to pass?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

When are you going to answer that question concerning the constitution?

I guess you are just going to dance around the issue because you can not answer.

what, for the fourth time now? When are you going to stop pretending that I didn't? Kind of ironic that you mention dancing around because now you have once again avoided the actual issue to again ask about the constitution despite 3 times already I reminded you that I already addressed it in this thread, and before you even asked the question.

You should be good at dancing by now. So much so that part of your dance is accusing others of it so you don't have to answer the guys question.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

"Look on the SPP website" is not an answer, especially since it says exactly the opposite of what you allege.

You are making extraordinary claims, so it is incumbent on you to support those claims. "Look it up" is not a satisfactory answer. It is, however, a typical evasion.

If you don't have any answers to these questions, how is it you are so sure this NAU will come to pass?

I explained the process. Do you really need me to pull quotes from the web site which lay out this process?

Now when I pull quotes from the web site, what are you going to say?

This seems like a goose hunt. I have already pulled one quote from the SPP and you ignored it. Why in the world would I present more? So you can ignore that and then proceed to state that I am evading the question?


What is your response to my first quote from SPP?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

what, for the fourth time now? When are you going to stop pretending that I didn't? Kind of ironic that you mention dancing around because now you have once again avoided the actual issue to again ask about the constitution despite 3 times already I reminded you that I already addressed it in this thread, and before you even asked the question.

You should be good at dancing by now. So much so that part of your dance is accusing others of it so you don't have to answer the guys question.

Really, for the fifth time: Where did you address it? LINKY LINK?

 

[Tomblvd]

I explained the process. Do you really need me to pull quotes from the web site which lay out this process?

Is the SPP website to be trusted, or isn't it? But some quotes would be nice.

This seems like a goose hunt. I have already pulled one quote from the SPP and you ignored it. Why in the world would I present more? So you can ignore that and then proceed to state that I am evading the question?


What is your response to my first quote from SPP?

Post 161.

 

[Tomblvd]

Really, for the fifth time: Where did you address it? LINKY LINK?

Really Jerome, you, of all people, should be the LAST person to lecture others on evading questions.

I asked for specifics on how the NAU would be legislated into existence: Nothing.

I asked what candidates running for president would enact the NAU: Nothing.

I asked how the NAU would come into being without support of congress considering they control the money: Evasion

 

[Horatius]

"Look on the SPP website" is not an answer, especially since it says exactly the opposite of what you allege.

Get used to it, it's all he has. It's painfully clear that Jerome has serious comprehension issues when trying to read things. Take his interpretation of events in this thread as an example.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Is the SPP website to be trusted, or isn't it? But some quotes would be nice.

I never implied that it couldn't be trusted. In fact I recommended reading it.

Post 161.

All you said in this post was that you did not understand how the executive has authority over the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security.

Then we had a conversation concerning this.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Really Jerome, you, of all people, should be the LAST person to lecture others on evading questions.

I asked for specifics on how the NAU would be legislated into existence: Nothing.

I asked what candidates running for president would enact the NAU: Nothing.

I asked how the NAU would come into being without support of congress considering they control the money: Evasion

I was wrong about you being reasonable. You had me fooled.

I answered all those questions multiple times and you ignore them to present implied insults.

Good luck with that.

 

[Tomblvd]

I never implied that it couldn't be trusted. In fact I recommended reading it.

I did and read this:

Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.

Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.

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.


And no, I see no inconsistencies in that last statement. You may thing Congress doesn't pay attention to what the Executive Branch does, but I know that if the president (and seeing as how his term is almost over, shouldn't he get going with this already?) tries to give away our sovreignty, there would be a whole lot of pissed off people. And no, this isn't something you can do a bit at a time and have no one notice.

Thus sayeth the SPP website, as worshipped by brother Jerome. Game over.

 

[Tomblvd]

I was wrong about you being reasonable. You had me fooled.

I answered all those questions multiple times and you ignore them to present implied insults.

Good luck with that.

I honestly tried being reasonable, and all I got was evasion.

Trust me jerome, you aren't nearly as smart or clever as you think yourself to be.

 

[LibraryLady]

Please keep the tone civil. It's just starting to veer off into insults.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: librarylady

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I honestly tried being reasonable, and all I got was evasion.

Trust me jerome, you aren't nearly as smart or clever as you think yourself to be.

I'm not the one that did not understand that the executive had authority over the Commerce dept. and the Dept. of Homeland Security.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Keep dancing, keep dancing. No one notice that he has yet to substantiate anything at all. Tap tap tap dance.

 

[Elizabeth I]

This declaration of war stuff is interesting, but what exactly is its connection to the alleged NAU?

Maybe we're going to fight Canada?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Maybe we're going to fight Canada?

Nope, integral partners in both trade and security.