[Rokke]

Oh by the way, since you've falsely accused me of dismissing stuff without "apparently reading it or even acknowledging it", here is my FACTUAL evidence that confirms otherwise.

In post #735 Nic posted a Joint statement by the three North American leaders regarding the SPPNA. Here are all my comments regarding that article...
Post #736 (The very next post mind you) "Nic, what part of that statement do you think is a bad idea?"
Post #739 "I agree. So what are they in this case? You must have posted that article for a reason. Which parts of it do you find disagreeable?
Post #744 "Why not? Both efforts were seeking solutions to the same problem. If you went to several different doctors seeking opinions about a medical condition, would you be concerned if they all agreed with each other. It really doesn't take a Harvard PhD to come up with a list of viable solutions to the problems we are encountering with both trade and security in North America. And none of the initiatives listed in either source are very specific (as you've pointed out). Yet both sources represent the efforts of representatives from all three of the countries involved. It isn't that surprising that there is a broad degree of consensus between the two."

Then Hedgetrimmer posts two links to books on Amazon of all places! Did you click on the links? I did. They were nothing but book ads. Later, in post #748 he posts an entire essay not even published by the CFR. My response...in post 762 "Would you like to debate the document you listed in post 748 instead of the CFR document you originally wanted to discuss? At least you've obviously read the one you posted." His response....nothing.

See, what I've just done there is supported my points with specific evidence. I realize that is a completely foreign concept to many on this thread, but it is a pretty good way of proving your point. And it really isn't that hard. In this case, I have refuted your absolutely false and unsupported claim that I "keep dismissing stuff without apparently reading it or even acknowledging it." Now you try. Back up your claim that I "keep dismissing stuff without apparently reading it or even acknowledging it".

[pollyannaish]

keep dismissing stuff without apparently reading it or even acknowledging it

My suspicion is that if you don't agree with it or ask for evidence to support it, you will get no credit for having read it.

[hedgetrimmer]

Then Hedgetrimmer posts two links to books on Amazon of all places!

Clearly the efforts to merge the US with Mexico isn't a secret conspiracy, as you've suggested.

The text of the books are not online. But your relative at the CFR should be able to get you a copy, maybe even for a discount!

[hedgetrimmer]

See, what I've just done there is supported my points with specific evidence

Post #736 (The very next post mind you) "Nic, what part of that statement do you think is a bad idea?"

What FACT is in this statement?

It really doesn't take a Harvard PhD to come up with a list of viable solutions to the problems we are encountering with both trade and security in North America. And none of the initiatives listed in either source are very specific (as you've pointed out). Yet both sources represent the efforts of representatives from all three of the countries involved.

Another statement by you, but no FACTS.

[hedgetrimmer]

p.1 The security and well-being of its citizens are at the pinnacle of any government’s responsibilities.

The purpose of the government of the United States as defined by our Founders, is for the protection of individual rights and private property. THAT is the pinnacle of OUR governments responsibility.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the futures of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are shared as never before.

That is because the certain individuals in OUR government decided that trade could be used to integrate these countries without the consent of the governed. NAFTA did not originate from the people.

As a result, all three countries face a historic challenge: Do they continue on the path of cooperation in promoting more secure and more prosperous North American societies,

To claim that Americans have prospered from NAFTA is disingenuous. Individual Americans have had to suffer the cost of integration with Mexico and Canada. Not only have Americans lost jobs because their manufacturing facilities were moved out of country, but property owner have suffered from illegals trespassing, taxpayers have suffered mightily to pay for the housing, education, medical care and other expenses for the people who broke our laws and entered our country. This is in direct opposition to the premise established by our founders that INDIVIDUAL rights must be protected by our government. Individuals wages are their property and the government shouldn't extort this money through taxes to pay for lawbreaking aliens to live in this country. Individuals, as stated in the creation of this government, are not tasked to sacrifice their rights and their property for the collective, yet this is what the forgers of the NAFTA plan have forced on us.

or do they pursue divergent and ultimately less secure and less prosperous courses?

Oh, are the authors predicting the future here? Do they claim that if the US doesn't merge with Mexico we will be less prosperous? What facts do they have to make that claim?

Why is America less secure if it doesn't merge with Mexico? Mexico attacked Americans in the 1840s, Pancho Villa ran raids on Americans at the beginning of the 20th century. Their military regularly makes incursions over our border, and it is claimed that they fire their weapons upon Americans. Mexico is monitoring lawful US citizens in our own country,now, with the federal government providing information to them on the whereabouts of the Minutemen patrols.Tell me how it will make America more safe to merge with this country?

Merging with Mexico will make Americans more prosperous? Again, sacrificing the individual is not the purpose of OUR government, and low wage individuals surely will be sacrificed if our country is merged with a country with such a large, low income labor force as defined in this document.

if important decisions are not pursued and implemented, the three countries may well find themselves on divergent paths.

What important decisions? Open borders, integration of transportation systems, creating a customs union, creating the Amero to replace the dollar?

Nowhere in this document was it suggested that the US take the Constitutional course. It would mean that the CITIZENS of Mexico would have to vote to become a territory of the US. IF they agreed, then Congress would have to put a vote to all 50 states to make Mexico a state. Why doesn't this document suggest the Constitutional solution? Can you tell us Rokke?

[calcowgirl]

I made no false accusations. Start here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634942/posts?page=466#466

It is the first one I remembered that you dismissed out of hand. That, after you did not respond to my original post to caught my attention.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634942/posts?page=437#437
I also noticed more instances.

I certainly never said that you didn't respond to any comments. Your 100+? posts were not missed.

As to all of your interchanges with Hedgetrimmer and Nicmarlo, I will let them respond. I'm pinging them since you didn't.