Posted on 10/05/2007 6:05:05 AM PDT by pissant
#13
btt
I still have not seen anyone attach a dollar amount (by state as well federal money) to those stats. And your stats don’t even touch on education/medical issues (and again, the cost to taxpayers.)
Love the post, did not mean to imply otherwise. I am not smart enough to put the $$ to those numbers. Quality of life can’t be measured in $$ either.
She didn’t change the meaning of the quoted portion, but she’s the bad guy because she didn’t include, “and future arrangements for security against potential terrorist attacks on this continent”?
That’s just silly, BF. Terrorists are ALREADY HERE. And these are the same people who let them in. Sheesh.
And what’s the significance of the report being pre-Montebello? Did these globalists suddenly get religion at Montebello or something? Double sheesh.
No, she wants the table broken up for kindling.
It's worse than that. Ben, you probably searched for NAU in the report. If you search for North American Union in the text per link above, you will find even more direct support for your valid point (your #19 reply) that, in my words here, the article misrepresents a key point of that Hudson report (read it at link above). Specifically, the Hudson report says at the part bridging pages 30 and 31 (pages 31 to 32 in the pdf article):
The SPP was never devised by the three governments as a plot to subvert U.S. sovereignty or lay the foundation for a ―North American Union, which would require an investment of far more thought and political capital than the SPP has ever been given in order to achieve them. The lukewarm response of the wider U.S. business community, bordering on indifference, as the SPP has foundered makes the charge that the SPP is the vanguard for hyper-globalization equally ridiculous. At Cancun, there was the rare coincidence that all three leaders were political conservatives; it might have seemed possible then to recast the SPP as a conservative program of regulatory reform designed to eliminate red tape and promote a free market. That didn't happen, and there is little proof that the SPP qualifies as a neo-conservative stratagem. The rationale of the SPP was always more modest, and its design was modest, too.
Canadians and Mexicans have indulged in reasonable doubts and paranoid fantasies about the SPP no less than their U.S. counterparts. The low public profile design of the SPP has tended to reinforce these misgivings in all three countries. Yet the defensive posture adopted by Canadian and Mexican diplomacy frequently drags citizens in both countries down to wallow in victimhood. North American arrangements, as a consequence, are seen by many Canadians and Americans, as things that the United States will impose on them, not as matters of mutual interest and benefit. The final P in the SPP -Partnership- is one that depends as much on Canadian and Mexican ability to rise to the occasion and to negotiate with agency as it does on the outcome of U.S. efforts to manage asymmetry to foster an atmosphere in which all sides can believe that it is possible to attain a beneficial outcome. [emphasis added]
Some might wonder, are the writers of the Hudson report lying about SPP not being a plot to lay a foundation for a North American Union (NAU)?
[BTW, another Hudson article (different writer than the SPP related report) here was very anti-amnesty, so the think tank itself can NOT be dismissed as all so-called "Bush-bots," which is not to say that none of its people can't be called that. Still, Judge Robert Bork, Richard Miniter, John O'Sullivan, and Norman Podhoretz, all strongly pro-America conservatives, are among the well-known scholars at Hudson. (O'Sullivan, former editor-in-chief of National Review, was or is a British citizen, but he is pro-American even if not yet a U.S. citizen.)]
Well, if the author of the article thought that the report writers were lying or even wrong, why would the article be titled "Scholars explain president's plan for a North American Union?" Why not title it "Scholars mislead about president's plan for a North American Union" if the author of the article believes that the writers are wrong? Maybe the title is given by the newspaper that picked up the article, but the author is promoting the scholars report, a report that expressly contradicts the author.
It's hard to understand why the author of the article writes the following:
The Washington, D.C., think tank is blunt and detailed in describing where the Security and Prosperity Partnership is heading.Here's how Hudson defines the Security and Prosperity Partnership's goal: "The SPP process is the vehicle for the discussion of future arrangements for economic integration to create a single market for goods and services in North America."
The key words are "economic integration," a phrase used again and again, into a North American "single market," another phrase used repeatedly.
"Integration" with Mexico and Canada is exactly what North American union means . . .[emphasis added]
If the Hudson think tank writers are "blunt and detailed" as the author describes, why do the writers deny the very thing that the author claims, i.e., the central contention that the SPP is laying the foundation for the NAU? Probably, the author has a different definition for the NAU than the definition used by the writers. Still, it is disingenuous for the author to quote portions of the report as supporting her view, while ignoring the report's explicit disclaimer of the author's central contention.
Basically, the author claims that the Hudson report supports her "SPP is laying the foundation for the NAU" central contention. However, the report says that SPP is NOT a plot to "lay the foundation for a ―North American Union." And the author never explains the contradiction.
If the author argued that the Hudson report sugar-coated, misrepresented, or covered-up the NAU goal, at least that would make sense. When the author doesn't even mention that the report expressly contradicts her central contention, one wonders if the author was reading the same Hudson report or is being honest with the readers.
The key goal is to protect U.S. sovereignty (secure the borders yesterday!), while also encouraging economic growth. Protecting our sovereignty is much harder if possible threats to it are confused by dubious claims based on misreading or misrepresenting a document as the author has done.
This is easily proven by the fact that the recommendations dealing with economic integration made by Prez Fox in 2000 were ignored by Bush. It was only after 9-11 that these recommendations became imperative from a security standpoint.
It is not just among the three NA countries. Worldwide, the cost of security has cut into economic gains and benefits of trade.
Eventually, after all the ID issues get settled, and the immigration reform issues get settled, Congress will have to spend money on security. Recognize that the security could masquerade as drug interdiction. In the meantime, Bush has the authority to administratively implement and push costs off on the private sector and the states.
The significance of the report being "pre-Montebello" is that the actual events in Montebello were as they were billed. It was about the NACC recommendations and the US's shortcomings in implementing the recommendations.
Be honest about it. Aren't you just a little disappointed that the scholar's report doesn't live up to Phyllis' article title, and as #46 points out, actually contradicts her?
Well I’m glad to see that someone read all 35 pages of the report. Believe it or not, I had intended to do so.
The problem with that is that Schlafly doesn't phrase her lead in exactly as you claim she does. Instead, the phrase she uses is:
Those who seek to understand what's behind the chatter about President George W. Bush's Security and Prosperity Partnership as a possible prelude to a North American Union,,
The chatter. A possible prelude. You see, she's saying that there is chatter about the concept is that the SPP is a POSSIBLE prelude to an NAU. The Hudson report, as quoted by you, agrees that there is chatter about that. The Hudson report seems to agree with Schlafly that people are talking about the SPP as a possible prelude to an NAU.
So, while claiming that Schlafly overstates and misrepresents the Hudson report, you overstate and misrepresent her article, even misquoting her. Funny, ha, ha.
More later.
These same 'bipartisan' worms are in the woodwork every time...
In the real world, as I initially pointed out in #18, Phyllis has a reputation for this. She draws an out of context statement from a credible source and mis-represents to bolster her argument. And she never provides a link so that you can actually read it.
She is a equal opportunity liar. In addition to mis-representing rightwingers like Hudson, she also mis-represents lefwingers like Janet Yellen.
Additionally, she plagiarizes. This article draws many key words and phrases from the Americas Program article.
Phyllis is a senile old coot with a 50 year old world view who tries to make money off of poorly informed people.
Still haven’t forgiven her for helping stop the Equal Rights Amendment, huh?
I’ve wondered a few times what you do for a living, Ben. Now I know - you’re a Character Assassin. Does that pay well? Are there union benefits?
Thanks for your kind reply and for keeping the discussion civil.
You don’t think that the central point of the article is that “SPP is laying the foundation for the NAU” (my words), as opposed to a POSSIBLE prelude for the NAU. (I shouldn’t have put the quotes around that phrase as you have rightly indicated that it’s not a quote from the author. I was indicating that it was my understanding of the central contention.)
Now the article says (paragraphs 2 through 5) that the “think tank is blunt and detailed in describing where the Security and Prosperity Partnership is heading . . . economic integration . . . [a] phrase used repeatedly . . . exactly what North American union means”
IMHO, a fair reading of that is that “SPP is laying the foundation for the NAU” (my words).
But wait, the Hudson think tank report actually says “The SPP was never devised by the three governments as a plot to subvert U.S. sovereignty or lay the foundation for a -North American Union, which would require an investment of far more thought and political capital than the SPP has ever been given in order to achieve them.”
Why does the author approvingly reference the Hudson when the Hudson expressly says the opposite of her relative to the connection between SPP and a possible NAU? She should be arguing with the scholars if she thinks that they are lying or wrong.
I can’t say that I did. I skimmed it, but tried the search on North American and read the final part.
BTW, I’ve long admired Schlafly since she led the fight against ERA starting in the 70s. I remember her struggling against Jimmy Carter, the whole Dem party, all too many of the GOP, and especially the ardent NAG gang. She was great then.
Maybe the Hudson writers are wrong when they say that SPP is not to lay the foundation for NAU. Although Hudson has some strong pro-America conservatives such as Judge Robert Bork, Richard Miniter, John O’Sullivan, and Norman Podhoretz, the writers of the Hudson report are not anyone that I’ve previously heard of. Still, it’s hard to understand why Schlafly did not reference and refute the report’s express language denying the SPP-NAU connection.
I don't know, but if this is the crux of your critique, I'd say it's a small issue. IMO.
Her whole premise is that "he" or "they" is trying to "destroy America". He being Bush and/or NACC being they.
This is the way the far right and far left operate. Full of hate.
And as we engage with our partners in the hemisphere, we're making sure that the agenda is as broad as possible so that the average person in each country understands that when we talk about integration, we're not just talking about markets. We're talking about how people relate to each other and how they help each other solve their daily problems." Tom Shannon, Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs
LOL.
You’re a real piece of work, Ben. Full of wild claims, but no facts to back them up.
I laugh you to scorn.
Phyllis gets caught in a big lie.
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.