Posted on 06/12/2006 6:23:16 AM PDT by conservativecorner
The world is going to continue to modernize with or without any US assistance.
I realize that you don't want to be a part of that. You want to tax the hell out of imports and you hate American corporations.
You prefer complete isolationism with a complete end to any international cooperation.
Fortress America, hedgetrimmer style.
That train left the station in the late 1800s and you missed it. You were born too late.
Hedge: Roads are the lifeblood of the countryside, towns, cities and the nation.
He knows this, everyone knows this. Establishment of roads was of such critical importance to our nation that it was placed by the Founding Fathers within our Constitution as one of the duties of American government.
I have a better suggestion. Why don't YOU go back to my post #263 and actually read what's there. It's chock full of links to credible sources and websites from which you can actually read articles.
Oh, I forgot, you'd rather rant, etc.
If hedgetrimmer is like me, he is more concerned about the implications of the road (creation of the North American Union and the end of a sovereign US as we know it plus further export of US jobs) rather than the road itself. That said, if this is the only way to get around the stranglehold that the Longshoreman's union has on this nation and its consumers, I'm for it. I hope you'll agree that the other implications I mentioned are quite disturbing.
LOL! Yeah, right.
The point which apparently was not adequately conveyed by me is that a road does not signal some major event in globalization.
It's just a road, but to some on this thread it appears to be the end of American sovereignty and some deep evil conspiracy.
It's not the first nor the last road we're going to build in this country. Roads are good things, not a reason to get one's panties in a knot.
bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union in the process.
__________________________________________________
How can this be bad?
...............................................
It's all good. 100% good.
It's an obvious concern, except for some folks who'd rather a) refuse to see; or b) do see, but are in favor of the end result.
I have NEVER said any of these things. Why don't you talk about the facts? Begin with "trade capacity building" in a "free trade" agreement. Lets get a working definition, shall we?
If the road was the ONLY thing that was going on, imo, there wouldn't be an issue. But, it's not.
At least you now agree with me. :-)
Yeah, right!
GOODY...you are still agreeing with me; how nice. :-)
And this is bad beacauuuuussse....?
The North American Union is a paranoid delusion. It's no threat to sovereignty. If we wish to form some common strategies to address various issues with our neighbors, there's nothing wrong with that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with cooperating with other countries. We have been doing it since the country was formed.
A surrender of sovereignty involves giving permanent authority to non-Americans to dictate to us. We've never done that yet. As long as we reserve the right to say hell no, or back out of any agreement we have entered into, sovereignty is not an issue.
The dire predictions of increasing trade with developing countries throwing Americans out of work have not materialized. After NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, etc., our unemployment rate is now tiny.
The implications you mentioned would be disturbing if they were real, but they're not.
You're spending a lot of time discussing an issue that is supposedly non-existent:-)
It's not non-existent to some people on this thread and certainly not to the moonbat author of the article at the top of the thread.
Besides, I've got nothing else to do at the moment... ;-)
They are, indeed. But I'd like to know from what you base your opinions? What credible sources do you have which refute those implications, as well as the numerous documents concerning the North American Community found at the CFR, the implications of the March 2005 Joint Statement of Presidents Bush and Fox and Prime Minister Marten, the various documents authored by Dr. Robert A. Pastor, the document entitled "the Guanajuato Proposal," endorsed by Presidents Bush and Fox, legislation enacted in the House and the Senate, one of which authorizes border defense of Mexico's southern border (not the U.S. southern border), as well as the perimeter of the entity of the North American Community (i.e., what was once considered the separate and sovereign countries of Canada, the United States, and Mexico), which legislation ensures that sovereign borders merely become migratory passing for "North Americans," and a host of other issues addressed within the aforementioned documents?
If you would please provide something other than opinion which refutes what the aforementioned documents authorize, encourage, and enact, I'd like to read it/them.
You could probably get an extra job doing what you're doing here: -) Imagine getting paid to debate!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.