Snopes Resolves the whole NAU Nutjob Theory

JEROME DA GNOME said:
CFR: Building a North American Community
Click to expand...
Sorry Jerome, not a government institution. Just a think tank where all kinds of ideas are written about.

I know you must parrot your cult leader Ron Paul at all costs that there is a huge, secret conspiracy to implement the NAU and that NAFTA is the starting point of all this, but can you name one single elected official (house, senate or executive office) who is advocating a NAU?
 
CHF said:
I'm still waiting for a twoofer to explain to me how exactly the NAU will work.

Will Canadian law simply cease to apply? Will our political system be abolished? Will our currency and flag be changed?
Click to expand...

But of course. Yes, yes and yes. After all we hate their democracy. :jaw-dropp
 
WildCat said:
Sorry Jerome, not a government institution. Just a think tank where all kinds of ideas are written about.

I know you must parrot your cult leader Ron Paul at all costs that there is a huge, secret conspiracy to implement the NAU and that NAFTA is the starting point of all this, but can you name one single elected official (house, senate or executive office) who is advocating a NAU?
Click to expand...

What is the SPP? Was it voted upon by congress? No, yet it exists. They fact that this agreement was not made under the proper authority does not mean that it does not exist.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
What is the SPP? Was it voted upon by congress? No, yet it exists. They fact that this agreement was not made under the proper authority does not mean that it does not exist.
Click to expand...
I've been through the SPP with you before Jerome. It is not a treaty by any stretch of the imagination, nor even a law.
 
WildCat said:
I've been through the SPP with you before Jerome. It is not a treaty by any stretch of the imagination, nor even a law.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is real is it not?

Your argument against a push for a NAU is also based on the fact that there are no treaties or laws in proposal.

By your logic here the SPP also does not exist.
 
Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Yes, but it is real is it not?

Your argument against a push for a NAU is also based on the fact that there are no treaties or laws in proposal.

By your logic here the SPP also does not exist.
Click to expand...
Someone actually equating the NAU with the SPP in terms of scope and legal ramifications has no business using the word "logic" in a sentence. I don't thiunk you know what the word means.
 
Last edited:
Jonnyclueless said:
Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.
Click to expand...

Please explain why establishing common cross national standards and commonly protected borders with sovereign nations should not be defined as a treaty and explain how if the congress of the United States has not voted upon this treaty that there is not a change in the American system.
 
WildCat said:
Someone actually equating the NAU with the SPP in terms of scope and legal ramifications has no business using the word "logic" in a sentence. I don't thiunk you know what the word means.
Click to expand...

I am not equating the NAU with the SPP. I am presenting your logic as it applies to both circumstances.
 
Caught lying again jerome?
Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.
Click to expand...
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
What is an agreement between sovereign nations if not a treaty?
Click to expand...
By your definition the POTUS accepting a cup of tea from the British PM would require the consent of the Senate.

You and Ron Paul aren't even in the ballpark on this one.
 
WildCat said:
By your definition the POTUS accepting a cup of tea from the British PM would require the consent of the Senate.

You and Ron Paul aren't even in the ballpark on this one.
Click to expand...

You can generally construct better straw-men than this. Are you losing your touch?;)
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
What is it if not an agreement?

What is an agreement between sovereign nations if not a treaty?
Click to expand...

Jerome, a treaty is a very specific thing in US law which this does not even begin to be.

Article 2 Section 2 on the nice pocket copy Senator Byrd personally handed me;

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

"He" referring to the Preznit.

Article 3, Section 3;

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

Referring to the Congress.

Finally in Article 3, Section 6;

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, no agreement is a treaty.

An agreement is the equivalent of Bill telling Monica "I won't make a mess of your dress." Though maybe he wishes he had honored that one.
 
BenBurch said:
In other words, no agreement is a treaty.
Click to expand...

You have fallen for the semantics game being played.

treat: to discuss terms of accommodation or settlement

treaty: an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation

The above is courteously of Websters.


Treaty: legal definition

A treaty is a binding agreement under international law, entered by parties who are subject to international law, mainly states and international organizations. It is a pact formed between two nations or communities, each with the right of self-government.
Click to expand...

Which part of these definitions are you stating do not apply?
 
You mean he is fallen for the legal definitions distinguishing the differences. Where as YOU Jerome are trying to play the semantics game.

Any way you slice it, it's a completely BS claim.
 
Elizabeth I said:
There are lots of things - even agreements - that were not voted upon by Congress. Yet they exist.

OMG!
Click to expand...

Thank you. That was exactly the point I was making. The fact that things are agreed upon without being supported or voted upon by congress does not mean that they do not exist which was the argument presented. You have confirmed what I have said. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom