QUIETLY, QUIETLY BUILDING THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION

Freedom 21 Santa Cruz ^ | October 5, 2006 | Steven Yates

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Forget it. Way over your head."

Your self-description/name is honest. Your argument a logical fallacy.

[1rudeboy]

Your argument a logical fallacy.

Please elaborate. Your declarative statement is meaningless without explanantion.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's see... trade agreements with China have funded the military of a nation that calls us the Main Enemy.

Well, if they call us names we shouldn't trade with them.

NAFTA has increased illegal immigration.

NAFTA reduced tariffs. Were there tariffs on illegals? Raising tariffs now would hurt Mexico's economy. You think that would reduce the flow of illegals? That's funny!

Tell you what, let's keep the trade and build a wall instead.

So, we can't trade with China and Mexico, what about Japan? Is that okay? Maybe India? What about Ireland? Is that okay? Or are they nasty foreigners too?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Expanding it with CAFTA won't help - and in fact will increase the SECURITY problem on the border.

How does lowering tariffs cause a SECURITY problem on the border?

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Well, if they call us names we shouldn't trade with them."

This is a bit more serious than "calling us names".

"NAFTA reduced tariffs. Were there tariffs on illegals? Raising tariffs now would hurt Mexico's economy. You think that would reduce the flow of illegals? That's funny!"

These trade packages are significantly more complex than just tariff reductions. NAFTA brought up from southern Mexico many farm workers looking for the factory jobs that never came to be. They continued north into the US.

"Or are they nasty foreigners too?"

This country and government exists to put Americans first. You'd have us last.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"How does lowering tariffs cause a SECURITY problem on the border?"

Reducing inspections at the border and allowing foreign sealed trucks access to our highway system.

Again, these agreements are NOT JUST TARIFF REDUCTIONS. You clearly don't know what they say. Get back to us when you do.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Please elaborate. Your declarative statement is meaningless without explanantion."

It was a non sequiter.

[1rudeboy]

Oh really? Then you should have no problem illustrating why it is a non-sequitur. Baby steps, my friend, baby steps.

[1rudeboy]

You don't get it, do you? NAFTA caused all of our high-paying jobs to be sent south of the border, causing all those Mexicans to come here seeking high-paying jobs.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"NAFTA caused all of our high-paying jobs to be sent south of the border, causing all those Mexicans to come here seeking high-paying jobs."

That's not what happened. In fact, your post is a confused mess.

[1rudeboy]

Just concentrate on my #108, ok?

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Oh really? Then you should have no problem illustrating why it is a non-sequitur. Baby steps, my friend, baby steps."

Trade agreements and the effects of same are not in the same class as enumerated rights.

"Baby steps, my friend, baby steps."

I'd recommend just surrendering. In a war of wits, you are unarmed. That's why you have to start posting as you do.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Just concentrate on my #108, ok?"

I think you might want to finish school. Then, I'll get back to you.

[1rudeboy]

I'm not arguing that trade is an enumerated right, silly. I'm pointing out that you seek to limit legal trade because illegal activity occurs. What's the difference between that and someone coming to your door and saying, "Hand over your .45, citizen. Handguns are used in crimes."

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"I'm pointing out that you seek to limit legal trade because illegal activity occurs."

I seek to limit trade to an extent to preserve our self-sufficiency, as that's an issue of national security. Specifically, not "trade" but outsourcing of capacity and capability. I pointed out that NAFTA had increased illegal immigration, but it was a side-effect of that agreement. You missed that point because, perhaps, I assumed you knew more about NAFTA than you do.

[1rudeboy]

I didn't miss your point that NAFTA has increased illegal immigration. I've been spending my time explaining to you that your point itself is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy (identification of logical fallacies not being a strong suit of yours, I'm afraid).

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"'ve been spending my time explaining to you that your point itself is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy (identification of logical fallacies not being a strong suit of yours, I'm afraid)."

I'm afraid you're wrong on the subject of NAFTA. There actually is a logical connection between that agreement and the increase, thus invalidating the fallacy.

[1rudeboy]

There actually is a logical connection between that agreement and the increase, thus invalidating the fallacy.

And again, you just can't demonstrate it . . . just something you feel, in the gut perhaps?

[Toddsterpatriot]

NAFTA brought up from southern Mexico many farm workers looking for the factory jobs that never came to be.

Hmmmmm......I don't remember the advertising section of NAFTA. Did it include a section on billboards advertising new jobs in the north?

They continued north into the US.

We should have built a fence. We should build one now. You never explained how CAFTA makes life more dangerous for us.

This country and government exists to put Americans first. You'd have us last.

Wrong, noob. If building a wall to keep out foreign goods would be good for America, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, my understanding of economics is more advanced than yours, so I'm afraid we'll always disagree about trade.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's hard to keep up with the shifting, contradictory arguments. Maybe if they used facts? But then, that would show them the error of their ways. They prefer to go the Oprah route.