WND: Take back America Conference

[Corsair 115]

Because there is and has been a lot of legitimate discussion about an issue does not mean that discussion of that issue is automatically the 0.5% wacko fringe conspiracy element...

Except that the NAU, as commonly understood, is a supposed complete amalgamation of the three countries, with the U.S. (somehow) losing its sovereignty, independence, laws, and Constitution in the process. Again, I refer to the pieces Dobbs had about it on his show a few years back. That's what the North American Union was about.

Streamlining and harmonizing certain rules, laws, and procedures between the three countries for trade purposes is hardly the complete amalgamation of the three and the consequent disapperance of all things American. (On a logical basis, it doesn't make much sense. Economically, politically, and culturally, the United States dominates the continent. It seems far more likely it'd be the smaller nations losing their identity to the dominant nation, not the other way around.)

In any event, even now, in spite of its obligations, the U.S. feels free to ignore and violate the terms of NAFTA whenever domestic politics makes it expedient to do so. Canada and Mexico are left to wonder what the point is of signing a trade deal with the U.S.

 

[leftysergeant]

And reality is as I mentioned, the border drug war which is largely a side effect of NAFTA.

Looking at these issues, I do wonder whether the wingnuts are not those in this thread discussing something they know little about, and reading into the title of some talk at a right wing conference, conspiracy theories.

Frankly anyone down here (and they are 83% Democratic) would laugh you guys out of the room.

So, if we give up sovereignty to form the NAU, so do Canada and Mexico, and labor laws and drug laws are the same on both sides of the old borders. We have the oomph to impose our labor laws. and drug enforcement policies.

Two of your concerns successfully addressed. The women factory workers will be better protected and the drug gangs will not be able to corrupt enough law enforecement officials.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Because there is and has been a lot of legitimate discussion about an issue does not mean that discussion of that issue is automatically the 0.5% wacko fringe conspiracy element...

Except that the NAU, as commonly understood, is a supposed complete amalgamation of the three countries, with the U.S. (somehow) losing its sovereignty, independence, laws, and Constitution in the process. Again, I refer to the pieces Dobbs had about it on his show a few years back. That's what the North American Union was about.

Streamlining and harmonizing certain rules, laws, and procedures between the three countries for trade purposes is hardly the complete amalgamation of the three and the consequent disapperance of all things American. (On a logical basis, it doesn't make much sense. Economically, politically, and culturally, the United States dominates the continent. It seems far more likely it'd be the smaller nations losing their identity to the dominant nation, not the other way around.)

In any event, even now, in spite of its obligations, the U.S. feels free to ignore and violate the terms of NAFTA whenever domestic politics makes it expedient to do so. Canada and Mexico are left to wonder what the point is of signing a trade deal with the U.S.

Really, your response indicates the very problem of the post of mine you've responded to. You believe that the conspiracy theory is a large part or the total of the NAU, and it is not. This theoretical concept has existed and been discussed for quite a while. You don't GAIN by hijacking the entirety of the concept for the conspiracy subset, and more likely just show ignorance by the presumption of identicality.

Why not just preface your comments such as "conspiracy theories of NAU" that's much clearer (same for NAFTA superhighway, etc). Avoids misunderstanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union

 

[Spindrift]

You believe that the conspiracy theory is a large part or the total of the NAU, and it is not.

Wrong again. NAU is not discussed seriously much outside of conspiracy theorists.

You do realize that CTers love posting crap on wikipedia, so that it can be quoted by others, which they think somehow legitimizes the crap. It's still crap.

 

[mhaze]

Wrong again. NAU is not discussed seriously much outside of conspiracy theorists.

You do realize that CTers love posting crap on wikipedia, so that it can be quoted by others, which they think somehow legitimizes the crap. It's still crap.

Umm...no.

Your concepts fit within the SECTION on conspiracy in the wikipedia entry, and...only...there.

 

[Zep]

Except that the NAU, as commonly understood, is a supposed complete amalgamation of the three countries, with the U.S. (somehow) losing its sovereignty, independence, laws, and Constitution in the process. Again, I refer to the pieces Dobbs had about it on his show a few years back. That's what the North American Union was about.

Streamlining and harmonizing certain rules, laws, and procedures between the three countries for trade purposes is hardly the complete amalgamation of the three and the consequent disapperance of all things American. (On a logical basis, it doesn't make much sense. Economically, politically, and culturally, the United States dominates the continent. It seems far more likely it'd be the smaller nations losing their identity to the dominant nation, not the other way around.)

In any event, even now, in spite of its obligations, the U.S. feels free to ignore and violate the terms of NAFTA whenever domestic politics makes it expedient to do so. Canada and Mexico are left to wonder what the point is of signing a trade deal with the U.S.

The fear and angst quotient among some of these conferencees is astounding when viewed externally. It smacks of ignorance - extreme ignorance, at that. And also lack of teamwork. Have they not ever played a team sport? Where all players have to bring their skills but learn to work with give-and-take to make the whole strong? Apparently not...

 

[Corsair 115]

You believe that the conspiracy theory is a large part or the total of the NAU, and it is not. This theoretical concept has existed and been discussed for quite a while.

Any discussion of a political amalgamation of the three nations is silly beyond words. It's not going to happen. You can have a discussion involving a flat Earth or Creationism too, it doesn't mean those ideas should be taken seriously.

It seems the NAU as a worry for some Americans reached its peak a few years back (perhaps it's longer ago than it seems to me). Dobbs, for one, went on it quite a bit, and a few in Congress spouted off about worries of American sovereignty being lost to this supposed forthcoming NAU as well.

 

[Spindrift]

Umm...no.

Your concepts fit within the SECTION on conspiracy in the wikipedia entry, and...only...there.

Oh, because some CTer didn't put their screed under the conspiracy section in wikipedia that becomes the determination as to whether or not it's conspiracy theory?

BTW: Who are these people who are currently discussing NAU seriously and are not CTers?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

A non-white was elected President. It wouldn't matter if his urine cured cancer, the bottom line is he's not white. His politics provide excellent cover for the attacks on him, and I have no doubt that the people who want to "take back America" would oppose any President whose views they didn't agree with, but make no mistake: his first shortcoming in their eyes is that he's "one of them."

When you make an incredibly stupid assertion (for example, that opposition to person X is rooted in trait A, even though you admit the opposition to person X would be exactly the same without trait A because of condition Y), don't expect many people to take your "make no mistake" seriously, excepting of course the people who already share your veiled bigotry.