Posted on 11/25/2007 4:48:10 AM PST by 1rudeboy
SINCE HE BEGAN his presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney has held more than 125 "Ask Mitt Anything" town hall forums, and the people who have shown up for them have done their best to make the events live up to their name. There have been questions about medical marijuana, about abolishing the income tax, about Romney's Mormonism and his potential vice president.
Of course, certain topics come up more than others. One is healthcare. Another is Iraq. A third is the North American Union.
The North American Union is a supranational organization, modeled on the European Union, that will soon fuse Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a single economic and political unit. The details are still being worked out by the countries' leaders, but the NAU's central governing body will have the power to nullify the laws of its member states. Goods and people will flow among the three countries unimpeded, aided by a network of continent-girdling superhighways. The US and Canadian dollars, along with the peso, will be phased out and replaced by a common North American currency called the amero.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
And the idea is currently being shelved by the elites but only because an informed and outraged public has gotten wind of the project.
////////////
I thought it was already a done deal? Nothing we could do to stop it. Now you’re saying all it took to stop it was the public “getting wind of the project”?
What kinda pansy ass all powerful conspiracy is so easily stopped? LOL!
///////////
Not to worry. A little bit of inattention will bring it back. The elites are still transnational faggots. The borders are still wide open so every day the electorate is weakened. Be patient.
It must be me because nobody read my question as I meant it to be read. I was attempting to highlight the thing about the whole “NAU” back and forth that I find most amusing: Many of those that yell loudest about how absurd the “NAU” conspiracy theory is actually support most every aspect of such a union except a formal political union.
Were these transnational faggots you speak of Kansas City faggots at one time?
Yes I missed that one. Sorry to have given you a tough time over it.
Couldn't prove it by me.
That doesn’t suprise me a bit. Enough said.
>>The US and Canadian dollars, along with the peso, will be phased out and replaced by a common North American currency called the amero.<<
As if the Canadians would want to merge with us as weak as the U.S. dollar is.
Okay, so my logic holds: whether the border is in southern Mexico or souther New Mexico, what difference does it make then?
I miss Slim Pickens- a genius!
Unconstitutional, and the populace is armed.
Next slide.
Hate to tell you, but you made it up. It's (not so) commonly known as a strawman argument. The only reason I know you made it up is because I've been posting trade threads (including FTAA threads) since arriving here in 1999. I would've been the first person to correct your imaginary adversary because I am pro-FTAA.
My guess is that you're so sensitive about being called a "kook" (itself likely a cause of some confusion on your part), that you simply assumed you've been called a "kook" in this specific regard.
But back to the FTAA--when all those heads of state and others periodically get together to discuss the FTAA, and all those black-hooded protestors gather outside, the reason the people inside the barricade call those outside names is because the ones outside are setting garbage cans on fire and throwing molotov cocktails at police. The sign over the door still states "FTAA Ministerial Meeting Conference."
When it all boils down to, is you support the FTAA and I don’t.
If it comforts you to think I’m an anarchist, go ahead and think so. I’m a constitutionalist and what you’re signing on to has nothing to do with our founding principles and our own sovereignty, except that it destroys them in large measure.
Despise me if you will, because that would only be fitting for someone that despises what you seek to implement.
I do not support the WTO. I do not support NAFTA. I will not support an NAU and I for sure won’t support the FTAA.
I consider those who do to be traitors to this nation.
Actually, your admission was about all I needed to know.
Thanks for your honesty.
We have seen how rulings from the WTO go against the United States about 75% of the time. What you are signing on to is a plan that would see a new governing body established to rule on matters of trade. And there is no reason to believe that body would rule any more favorably than the WTO currently does.
Nations in that body could be expected to receive equal standing within it. This body will rule on matters of trade. It will also rule on matters that impact trade.
One would generally think those matters would be limited to tariffs and access. Unfortunately, that woudln’t be the case.
Several years ago the WTO ruled in a tax matter against U.S. businesses that do business overseas. The United States had been giving those businesses tax breaks in the U.S. because they had already paid taxes on that business in foreign nations. The WTO ruled that to be an unfair subsidy of U.S. businesses.
This is one simple issue. It represents what can take place on matters of business practices, taxation, border matters, employee compensation, hiring practices, law enforcement, national security... in short anything the new international trade entity said it did. If the trade body is established and the majority of it’s members decide to address anything they want, it will be addressed.
You have stated that the United States won’t be bound to listen to this governing body if it doesn’t want to. That may be true, but the governing body will be free to assess trade penalties against the U.S. if it doesn’t comply. Member states will be obliged to levy import fees as the governing body sees fit.
What we would be signing on to here is to the development of a monster body, that would wield power over the ability of the United States to conduct trade unhindered. And that body will not be limited to simple trade matters.
The idea that we should play along here is sophmoric at best, and absolutely anti-United States Sovereignty and self-determination at worst.
The members of this body will not be required to face the public it serves for re-election. And even if it did, most of the people voting to re-elect would be outside of the United States.
This plan is a lose, lose, lose, lose, lose... for any sovereign nation that will face it’s ultimate downsides.
I cannot sign on to the plan.
With the U.S. as the complaining party:So, assuming that the 19 cases resolved with the U.S. as responding party are all "losses," my math* shows that WTO rulings go against the U.S. 45% of the time.
resolved to U.S. satisfaction without completing litigation: 25 casesWith the U.S. as the responding party:
U.S. won on core issue(s): 28 cases
U.S. did not prevail on core issue(s): 4 cases
resolved without completing litigation: 19 cases
U.S. won on core issue(s): 15 cases
U.S. did not prevail on core issue(s): 33 cases
Source: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (.pdf file).
_____
*Feel free to check my math. I used 25+28+15 for the wins, and 4+19+33 for the losses.
What do the following have in common?
The Easter Bunny
The amero conspiracy
Santa Claus
The Great Pumpkin
Bigfoot
Barney Frank’s list of female sexual conquests
Can you answer the riddle?
Or, leaving the “without litigation” cases out altogether, the WTO rules against the U.S. 46% of the time.
Okay, lets say you are correct. You appear to be.
Are you saying we should celebrate because we lost sovereignty and self-determination only 45% of the time?
I wouldn’t sign on to a plan that saw us lose 1% of our sovereignty on any issue.
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.