Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway

Human Events ^ | June 12, 2006 | Jerome Corsi

[Dog Gone]

Fine with me, nicmarlo. I never had any illusions that we would ever agree on much anyhow.

We kept the food fight fairly civil, and I thank you for that.

[nicmarlo]

I thank you as well.

[siznartuf]

I wrote:

Welcome to Pan America. Your country is officially no longer your country -- It's been sold!

Can we get it back?

Watched reruns of "brave-heart" the other day. I think William Wallace had it easy compared to what we face. Our modern "Nobles" could care even less about America than the ones in his time.

You wrote: Not only is "BRAVE HEART" a movie; but the vast majority of it is FICTION and completely inaccurate, vis-a-vis historically factual.

My reply: Yes, Brave Heart IS a Movie. Movies often take "liberties" for the sake of dramatic effect. I was employing the movie as a vehicle to draw an analogy between the complacent nobles -- as portrayed in Brave Heart -- and the elites of our own time.

Our American revolution probably would not have succeeded without the help of SOME of the elite(by analogy nobles in Brave Heart).

Whether the movie was historically factual, or a complete fiction; would neither bolster, nor diminish my point.

By the way, fiction is often used, or quoted, to make a point: Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and 1984 by George Orwell ("big brother is watching")come to mind.

Maybe I should have written:

Watched reruns of "Brave Heart" the other day. I think William Wallace{dramatically portrayed as a martyr in the movie Brave Heart} had it easy compared to what we face. Our modern "Nobles"{the elites of our day} could care even less about America than the ones {the complacent nobles dramatically portrayed in the movie Brave heart}in his{Wallace's}time.

I hope I have succeeded in clearing up any misunderstandings.

[nopardons]

I am fully cognizant of what you wrote and what you intentions were, when you wrote your post. It was childish and you are still writing emotional drivel, worthy of a 14 year old, who doesn't yet comprehend reality, but is off in some drowsy/frenetic dream world of his/her own making.

This nation has NOT "been sold"; unless you are referencing the freebies and sellouts of secrets by Clinton and his horde. But that is a different topic................

Orwell wrote 1984 as a condemnation and commentary on COMMUNISM. He had once been a fervent SOCIALST and this book was a refutation of all that, as well as his own past works such as DOWN AND OUT IN PARIS AND LONDON; to name but one such previous work.

BRAVE NEW WORLD was not really a foray into politics. Rather, it was far more just one of Huxley's Sci-FI turns. From his early days of being a rather minor/fringe member of the Bloomsbury Group, until his death, he was more or less a Fabian. And if this is the only book of his, that you've ever read, I suggest that you read AFTER MANY A SUMMER DIES THE SWAN ( anther fantasy/Sci-Fi kind of thing ) as well as THE GENIUS AND THE GODDESS, which is his paean to Ottoline Morrell...one of THE ugliest women who has ever lived, but the virtual head of the Bloomsbury bunch.

Taking cues from works of fiction, as how one should react to reality, is usually NOT a very good idea.

[siznartuf]

You wrote:

"Taking cues from works of fiction, as how one should react to reality, is usually NOT a very good idea."

I write:

Yes, but using a work of fiction to draw an analogy; is not the same as "Taking cues from works of fiction..."

I thought I went over that with you?

You wrote: "I am fully cognizant of what you wrote and what you(R)intentions were, when you wrote your post."

I write:

Then you must be 'psychic' to know what my "intentions" were, when I wrote my post.

You wrote:

"This nation has NOT 'been sold'..."

I write:

Simply disagreeing with my assessment that, in fact, this nation HAS 'been sold' -- without backing up your argument in some fashion -- will not win the day for you.

You further wrote:

"...unless you are referencing the freebies and sellouts of secrets by Clinton and his horde. But that is a different topic..."

I write:

You know very well I was not: 'referencing the freebies and sellouts of secrets by Clinton and his horde'(such as to the Chinese I might add) But -- I agree -- it 'is a different topic...'

So why did you use circumlocution to avoid the main topic?

You wrote:

"when you wrote your post. It was childish and you are still writing emotional drivel..."

I write:

Well, my "emotional drivel" has, apparently, elicited quite an exited response from you -- hasn't it?

Contrary to popular belief: strong emotion, passion, and a temperamental disposition, are indicators -- among others --of Intelligence. The Founding Fathers were certainly passionate, and also highly intelligent. The mentally retarded generally do not enjoy these qualities.

So lets review my post that seems to have rankled you so.

In that post I wrote:

" Welcome to Pan America. Your country is officially no longer your country -- It's been sold!

Can we get it back?

Watched reruns of 'brave-heart' the other day. I think William Wallace had it easy compared to what we face. Our modern 'Nobles' could care even less about America than the ones in his time."

Now the gist of the above post is:
(1)America has been sold.
(2)Our elites have been complacent.
(3)Can we get our Country back?

You disagree with point number one.

You wrote: "This nation has NOT 'been sold'"

Your "argument" is that, well... you disagree!

You can do better, I'm sure.

Please address the three simple points made in my post starting with number one.

If you can explain to me(make a case for)how our Country has NOT been sold; then you need not address points two and three(see above), as those points would then become moot.

I would much welcome -- I would rejoice -- in a refutation of my post.

I don't welcome The United States merger with Mexico and Canada, to become "Pan America" (or whatever it will be called)-- modeled after it's twin sister The European Union.

So go ahead and show me how wrong I am.

Make me a happy man!

[nopardons]

You're being childish; not to mention silly, boring, and apparently extremely NEEDY.

Just go and change your tinfoil body suit and hat, whilst you quake in your boots and delusionally worry about your own flights of fancy, that are even less real than your own puerile nightmares. That should keep you busy for a bit. ;^)

[siznartuf]

Thank you for your posts(see mine).

I hope we are wrong; but I fear we are not.

I agree -- as you quipped -- "There is a problem, Houston"

[siznartuf]

"You're being childish; not to mention silly, boring, and apparently extremely NEEDY."

Dear sir:

I suggest you read the above and apply it to yourself.

Ranting and rambling off topic do not make for Intelligent debate.

You seem incapable of addressing the topic at hand or mounting any sort of coherent argument.

Until you can demonstrate the above, I see no reason for any further discussion between us, nor any reason for me to take you seriously -- as I have heretofore attempted to do.

[nopardons]

Newbie, dear, I am NOT a "sir" and neither am I the one carrying on about some ridiculous tinfoil plot. Nor am I the one who imagines ( I would say "think", but you haven't done any of that ) that fictional books ( which you know nothing at all about! ) and a not only fictional but revisionist pseudo historical movie, are great things to use to not only bolster your delusions, but works to be taken are exemplars for contemporary behavior and reactive measures to something which does not exist!

Prove to me, first, that this country has been "sold out", stating when, by whom, for how much, and why anyone should believe you and then, perhaps I might take you more seriously; though I doubt it.

And my statement is an extremely close approximation of you and your post; most assuredly NOT of me and mine. I'm not the one belaboring the point, nor continually looking for attention..............YOU ARE!

[siznartuf]

You Wrote:

"Newbie, dear, I am NOT a sir"

I write:

You are a woman?

OK, that explains it!

No man has ever -- or ever will -- win an argument with a woman!

However, I think the onus is on you to address MY points.

You engaged me FIRST: with "arguments" that addressed everything BUT the pith of my post. I then asked you (let me count the ways)to please speak to the core of my simple SIX SENTENCE POST. I even condensed it FURTHER as fallows.

Here's what I wrote:

"Now the gist of {MY} post is:
(1)America has been sold.
(2)Our elites have been complacent.
(3)can we get our Country back?"

And further I wrote:

"You disagree with point number one.

You {write} "This nation has NOT 'been sold'"

Your "argument" is that, well... you disagree!

You can do better, I'm sure.

Please address the three simple points made in my post starting with number one.

If you can explain to me(make a case for) how our Country has NOT been sold; then you need not address points two and three(see above), as those points would then become moot.

I would much welcome -- I would rejoice -- in a refutation of my post.


SO HOW DO YOU ANSWER ME?

You answer me by using pejoratives like 'tinfoil plot' et.

This technique does not diminish the the arguments of your opponents -- it is name calling plain and simple.

You further assert:

"I'm not the one belaboring the point, nor continually looking for attention..............YOU ARE!"

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH MY POST!

Please address my post in a coherent manner.

Simply making assertions about your opponents state of mind will not win the argument; nor will making your opponent go over, and over, and over, and over, the same ground again, and again, and again, and again, ad infinitum.

PS: I know what I wrote at the top of the page, but imagine being the first man EVER to win an argument with a woman? It "ain't going to happen" is it?

[nopardons]

Aaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwww...not only are you an addled n00b, but one of those silly men who don't believe women have any brains at all. Pity that................

Until you tell me, in exact detain, who "sold" this country, to whom, for how much, and when, you are the one who is abjectly without any "pith" or credibility.

You have NO argument; all you have are tinfoil and buzzing black helicopters.

And no, you can't possibly "win" against me! :-)

[siznartuf]

You wrote:

"Not only are you an addled n00b, but one of those silly men who don't believe women have any brains at all."

I write:

Actually I have an older sister whom is well into the "gifted" range of IQ. My younger sister is also extremely bright. My favorite philosopher -- Socrates -- was probably mentored by a woman.

You wrote:

"Until you tell me, in exact detail, who "sold" this country, to whom, for how much, and when, you are the one who is abjectly without any 'pith' or credibility."

I write:

I asked you FIRST!

'To explain to me(make a case for) how our Country has NOT been sold.'

Answering MY QUESTION with a question(my question in reverse) is Not a refutation of my post.

You wrote:

And no, you can't possibly 'win' against me!

I write:

I would prefer to pick on someone my own size.

I assure you miss nopardons, I find no glory in your defeat!

[nopardons]

Oh, someone YOUR size? Then you'll have to go debate some other tinfoiler, since you're out of your depth.

My "defeat"? What ever gave you that idea? LOL

And noooooooooooooo, it is incumbent upon YOU to state the facts supporting your position. Then and ONLY then, will I not only refute them, but defeat YOU quite handily. That's how this works; pet.

It's MRS. nopardons to you!

[siznartuf]

You wrote:

"it is incumbent upon YOU to state the facts supporting your position. Then and ONLY then, will I not only refute them,{{{{{{YOU WILL REFUTE THE FACTS}}}}} but defeat YOU quite handily"

I write:

IS THAT A FACT!(LOL)

SOME GOOD DEFINITIONS OF FACT:

Knowledge or information based on real occurrences

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

A real occurrence; an event

Something believed to be true or real

Dear, nopardons, words have meaning.

Your casuistic - and illogical -- posts have long ceased to be amusing.

I can see no reason why further engagement would prove productive.

In parting I will say one thing:

Like the 'Timex watch' in the commercial; you "take a licking, and keep on ticking!"

Have a nice day!

[nopardons]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw...you poor, poor lonely thing, you.

[redgolum]

So there is really no point in building a wall.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

.

[Iscool]

Help me out: who's the driving force behind this whole thing?

The Council on Foreign Relations...

[butternut_squash_bisque]

CFR, Trilateral Commission and Bilderbergs, no doubt.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

ping for future.