Replies

So let me get this straight. You claim a document says something it doesn't say, and I am supposed to prove the article doesn't say what you says it does. OK. Here you go. Links to the two articles in question. They don't say what you say they do.

Chicanery yet again.

Please read the following:

* There are over 800 posts on this thread. Please read it from the beginning. For each and every comment made on a particular post wherein articles or links are made and/or referred, if you take issue with the statement(s) made regarding those particular posts, provide evidence and/or support from an outside source, or debate the document referred to within THAT PARTICULAR POST, to prove and/or establish that your contradictions are factual or have merit and the poster's statements are incorrect or false.
That is not mind-reading and that is not proving the poster's point for them. If you merely DISAGREE with their opinion, however, doesn't make them incorrect and you correct. It means there's a difference in opinion. You have yet to provide or present anything which contradicts or refutes opinions reached from the actual documents to which many of us have referred. You have YET to post anything, save your own opinions in your attempts to refute any of our points.
Every article/link/excerpt referred to by the posters is on this thread with comments at the time those posts were made. If you start with those posts, and the specific documents to which those posts referred and provide a "logical contrary interpretation" based on your opinion, or back up your opinion with something which shows that our thought process has gone in the "wrong direction," I'm sure we'll be more than happy to have a dialogue regarding our differing conclusions.

Your anecdotal remarks about Hong Kong are irrelevant to the discussion at hand concerning the intentions and ramifications of the CPR, the NAU, and the Joint Statements concerning the entity now known as the "North American Union" (which is the topic, not Hong Kong). Your anecdotal comments about Canadian border irritations may well be factual; however, jeopardizing the American sovereignty through the creation of the entity known as the "North American Union" takes precedence over any individual's travel irritations.

Here I thought you were trying to actually engage in a debate on the article you posted, but instead you were trying to prove why you don't need to support your points.

And you obviously prefer histrionics to actually engaging in discussion by doing what I've asked several times now, see * above.