QUIETLY, QUIETLY BUILDING THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION

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

[Toddsterpatriot]

October 20, 2006 makes you a noob. Sorry.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"October 20, 2006 makes you a noob. Sorry."

Thinking that diminishes my argument or makes you superior is still pathetic and - I might add - a logical fallacy.

Sorry.

I'm done with you and your rude friend. Buh bye.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You diminish your argument all by yourself. Your noob status is just the icing on the cake.

I'm done with you and your rude friend. Buh bye.

We miss you already.

[1rudeboy]

The lack of an actual inspection of these foreign vehicles not only enables drug smuggling, but terrorists. Couple this with the lower standards for driver training and health as well as vehicle safety with Mexican vehicles, and we're "less safe."

When the going gets tough, the tough resort to unmitigated BS. Then leave the thread.

[1rudeboy]

Once, just once, I'd like to see a coherent argument. So increasing one's standard of living may not reduce to incentive to illegally emigrate to a wealthier country. I can live with that . . . it's not controversial. NAFTA is implicated how, exactly? Only the most fevered imagination knows.

Love the "logical fallacy" part also. They are seen everywhere, but cannot be described. :)

[1rudeboy]

to=the

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"When the going gets tough, the tough resort to unmitigated BS. Then leave the thread."

This isn't BS, but a serious security issue. One you apparently either just don't understand or don't care about.

The NAFTA-derived tribunal has opened our internal road network to Mexican trucks. The government agreed to that - treating this Agreement as a Treaty.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Once, just once, I'd like to see a coherent argument."

I'd like to see one from you, for once. You think this is just about tariff adjustment.

"NAFTA is implicated how, exactly?"

This didn't take all that long to find:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/nafta_and_illeg.html

Not perfect and not completely correct, but it's a general overview of the problem. Of course, you don't see a problem with any of this. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

"Love the "logical fallacy" part also. They are seen everywhere, but cannot be described. :)"

That particular one - the signup date argument - was a "ad hominem" fallacy. Oh, yes. They can be described.

[1rudeboy]

Didn't take long to find, because it's crap. Below is what didn't take long to find:

But some experts say
Some analysts contend
But ... others contend
But many agree
NAFTA experts say

You should realize that posting a link to an excerpt of an article (from the LA Times, no less) on a blog is less than persuasive. Especially when it appears that the article itself may have been written to flog a book. But since the author was the only economist I can find who is actually named, I checked some of his other work.* God save us from "progressive" economists, and the conservatives on this website who cite to them.

_____
*What is it with True Conservatives™ and E.P.I.? Do they get a discount? It's virtually certain that if you keep one on a thread long enough, both will be seen together.

[1rudeboy]

The NAFTA-derived tribunal has opened our internal road network to Mexican trucks.

Actually, it was the U.S. Supreme Court. There's a difference.

[Toddsterpatriot]

God save us from "progressive" economists, and the conservatives on this website who cite to them.

Good catch. At least the noob has an excuse. The old Freepers who do the same have no excuse. Of course the noob could be a retread.

[1rudeboy]

I'll pass-on a question I've been pondering. Do they cite (indirectly, in the case here) to E.P.I. because there is such a paucity of material provided by their own intellectual comrades? I mean, it's pretty clear that here we are dealing with then Buchanan/Schlafly (let's leave Perot out of this for now) segment of the movement. Where is its analytical guiding-light? Is it Tonelson? But even Tonelson simply repeats what he reads elsewhere.

Is that why some on that side feel they must attack such giants as (Milton) Friedman, and re-write the Reagan legacy? Because they have nothing to offer otherwise?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do they cite (indirectly, in the case here) to E.P.I. because there is such a paucity of material provided by their own intellectual comrades?

I think they know we're doomed. Then they search for people who agree with them. They only find agreement on the far left and the nut-job right.

If they could link to respectable sources, they would. If they held reasonable positions, they could.