(POL) Swift Boat author now says US planning merger with Canada/Mexico..

[Flasch186]

PSU

what is this? an op-ed or something? It reads like fiction. Can you provide a link to it? and is the author the same John Edwards that is running for Pres.?

[PSUColonel]

Here is the link:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...357.shtml?s=us



No, this is not John Edwards, Presidential candidate.

[Flasch186]

Youre right. To the point at hand this solves nothing. BW still lied considering he said that Edwards had this as "official" platform and that he said it. Much like yourself in the other thread (where you still have not apologized or recanted for spewing forth an unsubstantiated lie) he has not substantiated his statement in this one and has, as his track record has shown, run full speed away and not responded or recanted his lie. LYING IS WRONG!!

BTW:

NewsMax.com
From SourceWatch

NewsMax.com (NewsMax Media, Inc.) "serves up the news with a conservative slant. The company publishes alternative news and opinion content through its monthly 300,000-subscriber magazine NewsMax and corresponding Web site. Columnists include Reed Irvine (founder of conservative watchdog group Accuracy In Media) and national broadcasting hosts and analysts Bill O'Reilly, Ed Koch, and Dick Morris. The company generates sales from politically-oriented merchandise (clothing, posters, books) showcasing stars of the Republican Party. It also partners with Random House to publish a series of co-branded books. Former New York Post reporter Christopher Ruddy, the company's CEO, founded NewsMax Media in 1998." --Hoover's Fact Sheet.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NewsMax.com

[Bubba Wheels]

No point in responding to you Flash, you see and hear only what you want to. The socialism thing is plain to anybody that read the article, and if Edwards did not and does not support stemming illegal immigration, then that also speaks for itself.

Just because you want specific words and phrases used, sounds quite frankly, like typical liberal stuff...disregard actions and try to twist words...'depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is...", right?

[JPhillips]

Pat Buchanan is a racist and a fascist.

Don't try looking for quotes, it's just true.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

No point in responding to you Flash, you see and hear only what you want to. The socialism thing is plain to anybody that read the article, and if Edwards did not and does not support stemming illegal immigration, then that also speaks for itself.

Just because you want specific words and phrases used, sounds quite frankly, like typical liberal stuff...disregard actions and try to twist words...'depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is...", right?

um, no

You said Edwards said he supports a merged Mexico/Canada/US and he didnt (or at least you havnt shown it)

I havnt claimed anything other than that. Dont try to accuse me of stating anything other than that of which you lied about. I dont want anything other than you to substantiate the verbiage you used and threw out there like shit on a wall.

Im willing to say I was wrong if you can show any proof that it is a part of his "official" platform and am not bringing up anything about Edward's stances other than your specific point about his platform and it's inclusion of a Mexico/US/Canada merger.

I see and hear only things that have proof attached and am also willing to admit when Im proven wrong....thats not conservative or liberal its just Right.

Until then you're not only a conservative but a LIAR....and a LIAR of any color BLUE or RED is BAD.

[SlapBone]

I think it matters little what Edwards does or does not believe or says because the biggest globalist in the country IS FRIGGIN RUNNING THE COUNTRY!

Only the most myopic can look over the span of history and then say that the NAU isn't possible. At the beginning of the last century every country in Europe was killing each other by the millions and now they all use the same currency. It is both possible and probable that there will be a development of a NAU to "protect" the interests of the countries involved. I also agree that NAFTA and the current push for a guest-worker program as well as across-the-board relaxation of immigration laws pushes us all in the direction of globalization. But let's be clear, the person most responsible for pushing in that direction is the current President of the United States.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SlapBone

I think it matters little what Edwards does or does not believe or says because the biggest globalist in the country IS FRIGGIN RUNNING THE COUNTRY!

Only the most myopic can look over the span of history and then say that the NAU isn't possible. At the beginning of the last century every country in Europe was killing each other by the millions and now they all use the same currency. It is both possible and probable that there will be a development of a NAU to "protect" the interests of the countries involved. I also agree that NAFTA and the current push for a guest-worker program as well as across-the-board relaxation of immigration laws pushes us all in the direction of globalization. But let's be clear, the person most responsible for pushing in that direction is the current President of the United States.

maybe

but BW needs to not lie.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

NewsMax.com
From SourceWatch

NewsMax.com (NewsMax Media, Inc.) "serves up the news with a conservative slant. The company publishes alternative news and opinion content through its monthly 300,000-subscriber magazine NewsMax and corresponding Web site. Columnists include Reed Irvine (founder of conservative watchdog group Accuracy In Media) and national broadcasting hosts and analysts Bill O'Reilly, Ed Koch, and Dick Morris. The company generates sales from politically-oriented merchandise (clothing, posters, books) showcasing stars of the Republican Party. It also partners with Random House to publish a series of co-branded books. Former New York Post reporter Christopher Ruddy, the company's CEO, founded NewsMax Media in 1998." --Hoover's Fact Sheet.

Ed Koch, Dick Morris, conservative?

I'm so far to the right, I must live in Europe...

[Flasch186]

i have no opinion on Newsmax, Im just putting the info. out there.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I see and hear only things that have proof attached and am also willing to admit when Im proven wrong....thats not conservative or liberal its just Right.
.

If this is true, it may explain why you also seem to lack foresight. It appears you only want to deal with scientific facts, in a very unscientific world.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by SlapBone

I think it matters little what Edwards does or does not believe or says because the biggest globalist in the country IS FRIGGIN RUNNING THE COUNTRY!

Only the most myopic can look over the span of history and then say that the NAU isn't possible. At the beginning of the last century every country in Europe was killing each other by the millions and now they all use the same currency. It is both possible and probable that there will be a development of a NAU to "protect" the interests of the countries involved. I also agree that NAFTA and the current push for a guest-worker program as well as across-the-board relaxation of immigration laws pushes us all in the direction of globalization. But let's be clear, the person most responsible for pushing in that direction is the current President of the United States.

Now this statement is true. Bush is a huge globalist...no question about it, and so are many of the Presidential candidates coming from the left.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It appears you only want to deal with scientific facts

true

I also dont lie unlike you in the other thread and BW here.

and the most disdainful thing about it is even though youre shown that youre lying you still, amazingly, stand by the lie. Ill ask you, where in the article or anywhere in the world Edwards said what BW said he did?

Would you agree that BW lied in this thread? You cant just run around attributing quotes to people that arent true.

[path12]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

If this is true, it may explain why you also seem to lack foresight. It appears you only want to deal with scientific facts, in a very unscientific world.

Which is foolish, because science is obviously bad.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

true

I also dont lie unlike you in the other thread and BW here.

and the most disdainful thing about it is even though youre shown that youre lying you still, amazingly, stand by the lie. Ill ask you, where in the article or anywhere in the world Edwards said what BW said he did?

Would you agree that BW lied in this thread? You cant just run around attributing quotes to people that arent true.

Forget the Edwards thing. He may have been wrong about it. My point is that you (like most liberals) wil sit there and hammer one point you think may play in your favor, and simply disregard the large scope of an argument because it doesn't fit your template for liberalism.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Forget the Edwards thing. He may have been wrong about it. My point is that you (like most liberals) wil sit there and hammer one point you think may play in your favor, and simply disregard the large scope of an argument because it doesn't fit your template for liberalism.

As opposed to making up facts to fit a template?

[JPhillips]

My point is that you wil sit there and hammer one point you think may play in your favor, and simply disregard the large scope of an argument

You don't see anything about this that may be ironic?

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by cartman

As opposed to making up facts to fit a template?

I seriously don't think it was his intention to lie...admittedly, I don't know where he got his facts from, but I don't think it was his intention to out and out lie. (or at least I'd hope not) As for your allegations of me lying, I simply said PBS apparently had fired the producers of the documentary due to conservative bias. If you watched the FOX News report in between segments of the documentary, that is exactly what was suggested. How was I lying? I'm not saying what FOX reported is true or false, I simply turned on the program and from what I first gathered from the accounts of the producers, they had APPARENTLY been fired for this reason. I admit I should have used the word allegedly rather than apparently.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I seriously don't think it was his intention to lie...admittedly, I don't know where he got his facts from, but I don't think it was his intention to out and out lie. (or at least I'd hope not) As for your allegations of me lying, I simply said PBS apparently had fired the producers of the documentary due to conservative bias. If you watched the FOX News report in between segments of the documentary, that is exactly what was suggested. How was I lying? I'm not saying what FOX reported is true or false, I simply turned on the program and from what I first gathered from the accounts of the producers, they had APPARENTLY been fired for this reason. I admit I should have used the word allegedly rather than apparently.

1. If you read the thread again I think you'll find that you took the statement made by a "jilted" producer as fact over the statement of the jiltee. Neither should hold more weight, in the beginning, than the other and then when you see that PBS has a history of keeping things off the air, both left and right, than you should see who has the track record you may want to hang your hat on. Your apology or admittance at the end there is about the best we'll get. I'll accept that and move on re: your thread.

2. I HAVE to hammer the one point in this thread because if he is willing to be "wrong" or "lie" and not admit it or recant, than ALL other statements he says, no matter right or wrong, lose their validity. It's about integrity and in a debate if you are willing to lie about one thing how can people know youre not lying about anything else. whats funny, is I havnt once talked about whether or not the argument he makes is true or in the works, I simply wanted to point out that his statement that Edwards said it or that it was "officially" (a word he used first) a part of his platform was "wrong" or a "lie". Hammering that point doesnt help "my side" (I honestly dont have a side in this as I know little to nothing about the topic) because hammering for honesty helps all of our sides.

3. Once BW or yourself can admit to being wrong the breadth of debate will go much much further and your side of any argument will have much more weight or be looked at as more legit. BW or yourself (i dont remember which) stated that people on here wont change their minds about you or that youre not as you would seem....I would say, start by being willing to admit that youre wrong and youll be amazed tghe respect you'll garner. Me and JimGA get along just peachy and we disagree about almost everything and it is the same with other people's "relationships" on here....FOFC is like one big dysfunctional family (with EF having to take those late night phone calls to give out free advice)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Here is an interesting article on the subject. It won't solve the debate raging here, but does at least offer some insight in to what's happening.


Pro-Immigration Forces Back North American Union
John O. Edwards
Monday, July 9, 2007


America is finished.

Mexico and Canada are gone too.

In their place: One massive country, the North American Union (NAU), bordered by the Bering Sea to the north and Guatemala to the south, the Atlantic to the east and the Pacific to the west.

NAU citizens no longer spend dollars or salute Old Glory. They spend "ameros," and the flag that waves over its capitals shows the entire Western Hemisphere.

The national borders of the United States have been forever erased. While that scenario may sound far-fetched, critics of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) warn that future could be here sooner than anyone realizes.

President Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin informally agreed to set up the SPP in 2005.

Not so well known is the fact that supporters of the NAU concept slipped an initiative into the recently defeated immigration reform act. Largely unnoticed amidst the amnesty furor that ultimately sunk the Immigration Bill was the statement, "It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico."

The bill called for measures to boost the economy of Mexico, including:


U.S. support for Mexico, to strengthen its education and training programs.
A call for better health care for "poor and underserved" people in Mexico.
And U.S. assistance to "establish a program with the private sector to cover the health care needs of Mexican nationals temporarily employed in the United States."
The bill also called for U.S. assistance to Mexican businesses and government to eliminate corruption, which it termed, "the single biggest obstacle to development."
"This was the first attempt by the SPP to go public, and it failed," says Dr. Jerome Corsi, author of The Late Great USA. They thought nobody would notice. They were wrong."

Corsi called the sPP "a coup d-etat by bureaucratic means," adding that it works underhandedly like a shadow government.

"It is an attempt to turn North America into something like the European Economic Community," he says, "which began with economic cooperation and expanded eventually to include a common market, and then a full-scale regional government replacing, in many ways, the governing powers of the member nations."

Documents recently obtained by public interest group Judicial Watch reveal that "working groups" of the SPP are developing plans for U.S. taxpayer-funded initiatives to improve Mexico's infrastructure, within just six to 18 months.

SSP plans include:


Creating a North American Pandemic Influenza Plan;
Facilitating cross-border travel;
Establishing Social Security totalization for Mexican aliens working in the United States;
Creating a Trans-Texas Corridor superhighway with truck, car, and train lanes running from Mexico to Canada.
Following the 2005 tri-lateral summit, the three leaders agreed, "We will establish ministerial-led working groups that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working groups will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals."

The working groups include committees on "Manufactured Goods and Sectoral and Regional Competitiveness, Movement of Goods, Energy, Environment, E-Commerce and Information Communications Technologies, Financial Services, Business Facilitation, Food and Agriculture, Transportation and Health," according to the SPP Web, www.spp.gov.

"Basically, the SPP eliminates borders," Dr. Corsi tells NewsMax. "Just as in Europe, once free-flowing cross-border travel and full economic cooperation are established, the next step will be multi-national regulations and multi-national court systems to resolve disputes, with powers that supercede those of U.S. courts in many cases."

Opponents of the NAU slipping its provisions into a bill sold as way to strengthen the integrity of the nation's borders reflects the determination of those pushing a North American union.

The SPP has struck back with a FAQ section on their U.S. website, www.spp.gov, which attempts to counter "myths" of its ultimate aims, stressing that the SPP "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."

As to charges that the SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the Congress, the FAQs state, "US agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans." SPP confirms that the SPP is a "White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the ‘Prosperity' component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the ‘Security' component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy."

"They deny it – of course they do, but the ultimate direction of all these actions is driven by a one-world view," Dr. Corsi says. Corsi contends that President Bush has a secret agenda to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union.

"However, as more people in the United States are becoming aware of the goals of the SPP, grassroots opposition to the SPP is growing very fast."

One example: 12 states are currently considering resolutions opposing the establishment of the NAU.

There is a federal effort to block the SPP as well.

It is spearheaded by a resolution, HCR 40, which states, "The United States should not allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership to implement further regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and the President should indicate strong opposition to these acts or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States." The resolution also calls for the U.S. to not "engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement Superhighway System."

The resolution notes that "reports issued by the SPP indicate that it has implemented regulatory changes among the three countries that circumvent U.S. trade, transportation, homeland security and border security functions and that the SPP will continue to do so in the future."

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., who tells NewsMax, "I hope that more Americans will become aware of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, which will lead to a North American union and the destruction of the sovereignty of the United States."

Cong. Goode, who opposed the Immigration Bill saying it would be "a disaster to our nation if it were to become law," says his resolution has attracted over two dozen co-sponsors so far.

"Defeat of the Immigration Bill was a setback for the supporters of the SPP, but they won't just give up and go away," Corsi warns. "There is a huge amount of international capital driving this. They will not give up easily."

So let me get this straight...PSU and BW's brand of conservatism calls for a harsh stand against immigration AND mocks efforts to get rid of the source of the immigration problem? Giving support to a poor country in order to increase the stability of a neighbor, keep people in their own country, and create new markets for American goods is a bad idea?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It's quite a common brand of "conservatism" nowadays. It calls for criticism without offering any solutions.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So let me get this straight...PSU and BW's brand of conservatism calls for a harsh stand against immigration AND mocks efforts to get rid of the source of the immigration problem? Giving support to a poor country in order to increase the stability of a neighbor, keep people in their own country, and create new markets for American goods is a bad idea?

Actually this is one part I do agree with. (eg. CAFTA) I think economic stability and a free market society in South America would go a long way in helping to solve the problem, but the problem is many of those nations don't always seem to want this. Many of them seem much happier just letting their citizens come here, and as a result, it seems many South American nation leaders are much more intent on weakening the U.S., rather than strengthening or bolstering their own countries. Some of these leaders are also clearly in bed with Iran and other fundamentalist Islamic states as well. Again I think many of these nations are more interested in weakening us, than bolstering themselves....not that I really think this approach will help them over the long run, but it appears to simply come from the anti-American sentiment sweeping the globe, and I think in many cases it's a case of many just wanting to take down what they see as the "bully on the block". I'll argue we aren't of course, but the "have nots" will always see it that way, because that's what the "haves" in those nations want.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Actually this is one part I do agree with. (eg. CAFTA) I think economic stability and a free market society in South America would go a long way in helping to solve the problem, but the problem is many of those nations don't always seem to want this. Many of them seem much happier just letting their citizens come here, and as a result, it seems many South American nation leaders are much more intent on weakening the U.S., rather than strengthening or bolstering their own countries. Some of these leaders are also clearly in bed with Iran and other fundamentalist Islamic states as well. Again I think many of these nations are more interested in weakening us, than bolstering themselves....not that I really think this approach will help them over the long run, but it appears to simply come from the anti-American sentiment sweeping the globe, and I think in many cases it's a case of many just wanting to take down what they see as the "bully on the block". I'll argue we aren't of course, but the "have nots" will always see it that way, because that's what the "haves" in those nations want.

It's good to know that you are consistent in at least wanting to get rid of the root cause of immigration, but I don't think that you can argue that we aren't the bully on the block. Historically, we've invaded about half of the countries in the Western Hemisphere, and when it comes down to what we want vs. the will of the people, we'll always push for what we want (ie, the Venezuela situation).

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Forget the Edwards thing. He may have been wrong about it. My point is that you (like most liberals) wil sit there and hammer one point you think may play in your favor, and simply disregard the large scope of an argument because it doesn't fit your template for liberalism.

Liberals will do that?

I guess, I mean, its been what, 15 minutes since the republicans announced what the Terror Level was today. What is it? Orange?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

1. If you read the thread again I think you'll find that you took the statement made by a "jilted" producer as fact over the statement of the jiltee. Neither should hold more weight, in the beginning, than the other and then when you see that PBS has a history of keeping things off the air, both left and right, than you should see who has the track record you may want to hang your hat on. Your apology or admittance at the end there is about the best we'll get. I'll accept that and move on re: your thread.

2. I HAVE to hammer the one point in this thread because if he is willing to be "wrong" or "lie" and not admit it or recant, than ALL other statements he says, no matter right or wrong, lose their validity. It's about integrity and in a debate if you are willing to lie about one thing how can people know youre not lying about anything else. whats funny, is I havnt once talked about whether or not the argument he makes is true or in the works, I simply wanted to point out that his statement that Edwards said it or that it was "officially" (a word he used first) a part of his platform was "wrong" or a "lie". Hammering that point doesnt help "my side" (I honestly dont have a side in this as I know little to nothing about the topic) because hammering for honesty helps all of our sides.

3. Once BW or yourself can admit to being wrong the breadth of debate will go much much further and your side of any argument will have much more weight or be looked at as more legit. BW or yourself (i dont remember which) stated that people on here wont change their minds about you or that youre not as you would seem....I would say, start by being willing to admit that youre wrong and youll be amazed tghe respect you'll garner. Me and JimGA get along just peachy and we disagree about almost everything and it is the same with other people's "relationships" on here....FOFC is like one big dysfunctional family (with EF having to take those late night phone calls to give out free advice)

Actually, when I talked about Edwards, I was referring to the socialism thing as opposed to the merger thing. Feel better now?

But to take it a step further, anyone supporting illegal immigration by not supporting border enforcement shows by actions rather than words support for the NAU merger far as me and many others are concerned. Edwards and most if not all of the Dem candidates fall into this category, so the point you endlessly keep trying to make seems moot anyways.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

um, no

You said Edwards said he supports a merged Mexico/Canada/US and he didnt (or at least you havnt shown it)

I havnt claimed anything other than that. Dont try to accuse me of stating anything other than that of which you lied about. I dont want anything other than you to substantiate the verbiage you used and threw out there like shit on a wall.

Im willing to say I was wrong if you can show any proof that it is a part of his "official" platform and am not bringing up anything about Edward's stances other than your specific point about his platform and it's inclusion of a Mexico/US/Canada merger.

I see and hear only things that have proof attached and am also willing to admit when Im proven wrong....thats not conservative or liberal its just Right.

Until then you're not only a conservative but a LIAR....and a LIAR of any color BLUE or RED is BAD.

So, based upon your last statement, you abhor Bill Clinton and have no intention of ever voting for Hillary, right? At least that would make you consistant.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

So, based upon your last statement, you abhor Bill Clinton and have no intention of ever voting for Hillary, right? At least that would make you consistant.

much like I will forgive you for lying when you apologize or correct (if you call the previous post a correction it was quite weak compared to PSU's which was much better but at least you made an attempt), I forgave Bill...

I will vote for who I think will do the best job for our country...

the only point I kept on about was your statement that you could quote him on the NAU thing OR that it was "officially" a part of his platform. I have not touched upon the subject of the merger/immigration thing itself or socialism for that matter.

yes, lying is bad PERIOD....I'd love to hear your argument that it is not.

[WVUFAN]

Can't we all just get along?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Can't we all just get along?

Where's the fun in that?