Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America.

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America Web Page ^ | 27 June 2005 | Unknown

[weps4ret]

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

Report to Leaders

June 2005

On March 23, 2005, you announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. At that time, you instructed Ministers to create an architecture which would further enhance the security of North America while at the same time promote the economic well-being of our citizens and position North America to face and meet future challenges. This effort builds on the excellent, long-standing relations among our three countries. The response to your request is attached.

-snip-

The post is too long for full posting. Do not know if anyone else has seen this.

[mysterio]

What's indefensible about enhancing trade between the three countries with common borders in the Americas?

Pretend a Republican isn't in the White House and think of the argument you'd make to answer that question.

[mysterio]

Amero.

I wonder how many millions of those it will take to buy a loaf of bread. Then we can invent the nuevo Amero that's actually the same as 10,000 old Ameros. Won't that be fun?

[sinkspur]

Pretend a Republican isn't in the White House and think of the argument you'd make to answer that question.

I'd answer it the same way I approved of NAFTA even though Clinton was president at the time.

Is it being labeled a "kook" that bothers you so much?

[Mr. Jeeves]

Why not "The Greater North American Co-Prosperity Sphere" instead? It's got that historic feel. ;)

[Mr. Jeeves]

The citizens of the United States should not be forced into a union of this nature without their expressed consent.

We did consent. We elected the people who are creating the union...and can't be bothered to de-elect them. So I guess that means we approve. ;)

[sinkspur]

Amero? That sounds like a made-up Corsi term.

[1rudeboy]

Actually, I think the credit goes to some egghead in Canada.

[AmericaUnited]

How do "working closely with" and being invaded by differ?

Well, I read the SPP outline and you may have me there. On page 472, par 3, it says Canada and Mexico are both allowed 2 invasions per calendar year.

[1rudeboy]

But only along the NAFTA Supercorridor. And they must pay toll.

[Bikers4Bush]

In that case mexico has grossly exceeded it's quota by allowing 10% of it's population to cross unwelcome into our country.

[mysterio]

I'd answer it the same way I approved of NAFTA even though Clinton was president at the time.

Well, at least you're consistant.

No, I don't mind being called a kook at all. You and I live in the nicest house on the block, and we are currently having an argument about whether to lock the door when we leave or to leave it wide open. And you're calling me a kook because I think the house might get robbed and eventually destroyed.

[MadLibDisease]

Mark

[AmericaUnited]

Speaking of the Supercorridor, did you know that they are planning on extending a spur to Cuba? Yes, The NWO has no use for Castro anymore, and will soon facilitate his demise. After that, they want to provide easy access for Cubans, who will do the work the Mexicans don't want to do.

[Bikers4Bush]

So what do you think of Cornyn's plan to create a tax that would help mexico pay to upgrade it's infrastructure?

[sinkspur]

You and I live in the nicest house on the block, and we are currently having an argument about whether to lock the door when we leave or to leave it wide open. And you're calling me a kook because I think the house might get robbed and eventually destroyed.

The house is going to get all kinds of new furnishings and carpet at even lower prices, more people who live in the house will be working, and houses on either side will be remodeled and upgraded.

The house will be locked. No, what I'm sensing is, you just don't like the looks of your neighbors.

[sinkspur]

So what do you think of Cornyn's plan to create a tax that would help mexico pay to upgrade it's infrastructure?

I haven't read about it yet, but I have a feeling it's not quite that simple.

But hey! Why would you oppose it? It would create construction work in Mexico and keep those brown people off your roof.

[Bikers4Bush]

When all else fails your side always sinks to race baiting sinkspur. It's really sad. Never mind that I have always consistently said that I want all illegals returned home regardless of where they come from.

I would oppose it because I want my tax dollars spent here on Americans, not in a foreign country on it's citizens.

[mysterio]

Ah, an accusation of racism! I always know I'm dealing with a great mind when the name calling starts.

I don't like the undercutting of the American wage by slave labor forces. I live in a manufacturing area, and countless jobs have gone to Mexico since the NAFTA abomination. But it sure is neat that there's more cheap crap to buy at Walmart. We should definitely erase our borders so that a head of lettuce costs 15 cents instead of 25. Sure.

[Bikers4Bush]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3622.IS:

Get to reading sinkspur.

[AmericaUnited]

So what do you think of Cornyn's plan to create a tax that would help mexico pay to upgrade it's infrastructure?

Show me where that is in writing, EXACTLY how you presented it, and then I'll comment on it. I generally don't waste time commenting on fictitious bogeyman.