Posted on 06/19/2006 7:37:30 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
So having this so-called "trade relationship" with basically third world countries is beneficial to us in what way?
Hundreds of millions of dollars in exports, but who's counting?
'Oh what tangled alliances we weave.' Some mess, I'd say.
Not this sh*t again!
Vs. the millions of newly imported amigos of yours that cost us billions of our hard earned tax $ for all their welfare style services?.........are you serious?
okie doakie.
You're going to have a tough time arguing that Boeing needs to sell fewer jets because we have an illegal immigration problem, but be my guest.
"It is happening people, right before your eyes. Our borders are being erased, and thusly, so is our national sovereignty."
You're wasting your breath. Whenever someone posts one of these threads the same crew shows up and starts ridiculing the participants. Same people, every time, just like on the immigration threads. They never present any information about why the premise of the thread isn't true and they never refute the information with facts of their own. They just ridicule.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
-- does it not follow that there can be treaties which are inconsistent with the constitutional terms? Could they by treaty take away our right to gun ownership? To petition against illegal immigration, etc?
"-- in Pursuance thereof --" is the operative phrase.
Any law or treaty that was repugnant to our Constitutions principles would be null & void. [see Marbury]
Boeing is a minor aspect in all this.......the social and economic costs to communities across the southwest and now other parts of the country as a result of these so-called trade deal/scams far outweigh the fortunes of select corporations.
I've been in this discussion before. I agree with you whole heartedly, however, that is only valid if we make the SCOTUS enforce the law. That does not seem to happen much lately. It also hasn't been the case for many years with regard to treatys.
Arguing that we should not sell soybeans to Mexico because illegal aliens come from Mexico just doesn't make much sense.
I'm offended that you didn't ping me to the latest Nau-Nau thread.
It's OK, though -- I was out of work for the morning taking a Spanish class and reading the latest neocon classic: How to Overthrow the United States Constitution, Congress and Supreme Court for Fun and for Profit but Mostly for Profit.
Also, I consulted Mistress Cleo and she advised me that I'd be better off listening to Matthew Lesco than reading these threads.
I've heard that even Bob Dylan is all worked up about the highway that will doom America. He's working on a new classic: Highway I-69 Revisited.
That's why I'm not really concerned about who gets elected in 2008. Bill Clinton will become Sec-Gen of the UN and GWB will be el-Presidente for Life of the NAU, so whoever is POTUS will have about as much say as a sane man at an anti-NAU-NAU convention.
The premise of the thread is so monumentally stupid as not to be believed.
And all of the articles are penned by the same guy: Jerome Corsi.
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.