Skip to comments.
Pro-Integration Corporations Should Not Be Shaping Canada's Economic Policy
Vive le Canada ^
| August 15, 2006
| Meera Karunananthan
Posted on 08/24/2006 8:14:38 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-168 next last
To: hedgetrimmer
I am shaking my head in astonishment. You truly exceed yourself.
The difference between the NACC and the NABC is considerably more substantial than a letter of our alphabet. Unless you honestly think Plácido Domingo is also one of them. [sinister music]
81
posted on
08/25/2006 10:15:02 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: jmc813; hedgetrimmer
One of hedgetrimmer's critical errors in reasoning is her insistence that Executive Branch appointees are answerable to the public, as if we live in a direct democracy and not a representative republic.
82
posted on
08/25/2006 10:25:05 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
The NABC is a standing committee of the council of the Americas, which you showed as the head of the 'US Secretariat' for the NACC.
To: 1rudeboy
One of hedgetrimmer's critical errors in reasoning is her insistence that Executive Branch appointees are answerable to the public, as if we live in a direct democracy and not a representative republic.
Another misstatement. Why do you bother?
To: hedgetrimmer
Have I mischaracterized you position? How?
85
posted on
08/25/2006 10:36:09 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: hedgetrimmer
As far as I can tell, the Council of the Americas is not even remotely related to the NACC. You really need to step up.
86
posted on
08/25/2006 10:38:39 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
For future reference:
The NACC is an off-shoot of the SPP, according to this press release, and thereby part of the Administration.
The Council of the Americas is some sort of a non-profit organization created by David Rockelfeller.
It also appears to go by the name of the Americas Society.
87
posted on
08/25/2006 10:52:54 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
Eric Farnsworth Council of the Americas
NACC United States Secretariat
Your post.
To: hedgetrimmer
Oh, I see . . . a member of the NACC is also a representative of the Council of Americas. Not quite "[t]he NABC is a standing committee of the council of the Americas, which you showed as the head of the 'US Secretariat' for the NACC." You weren't even close.
89
posted on
08/25/2006 11:06:47 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
Actually, it looks like two NACC members on the United States Secretariat (whatever that is) are representatives of the Council of Americas, and another two are representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
90
posted on
08/25/2006 11:16:59 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
Rather than being a executive branch department, the SPP sounds looks like its
run by the Council of the Americas and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2006, the Council of the Americas and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce held a meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partnership with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez and Canadian and Mexican representatives, Deputy Minister of Industry Suzanne Hurtubise and Dr. Alberto Ortega.
Where is the 'representative republic' in this set up?
To: hedgetrimmer
It might "sound look" to you, but I'd like to see more evidence of it . . . in any case, I'm more interested in your predilection for what I termed "direct democracy" earlier.
This is not "representative" enough for you?
92
posted on
08/25/2006 12:10:12 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
No, really. How can the Council of the Americas hold a meeting of an executive branch department, the SPP. Really. I want to know. How is that reflective of a 'representative republic'?
To: hedgetrimmer
Almost two hours ago, in my comment #82, I noted that you have a rather unique perspective regarding the tension (for lack of a better term) between the mechanics of a direct democracy and a representative republic. You objected, but when I asked you to clarify, you declined to do so.
Now you are contending, again, that your right to participate in the political process (as a voter or whatnot) is somehow compromised by this meeting. So what is your problem, again?
94
posted on
08/25/2006 12:22:00 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
A public/private partnership, is NOT a constitutionally defined instrument of our representative republic, a fact, which I am sure you are well aware.
Why are you defending it? For money? For the usurpation of power? Why?
To: hedgetrimmer
I am aware of no Constitutional restriction against operating the Trans Alaska Pipeline, or the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company.
96
posted on
08/25/2006 12:32:47 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: MarxSux
For those who don't know, the Council of Canadians is a far-left fringe group that includes the likes of John McMurtry.So what??? This new Republican North Americanization is far worse for the sovereignty of our countries than anything the Democrats have come up with thus far...
97
posted on
08/25/2006 1:15:06 PM PDT
by
Iscool
To: 1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
Who wants open borders?
The NACC and the SPP.
Who doesn't want open borders?
81% of the American people.
Why isn't our government securing the borders?
The business interests in their so-called public-private partnership don't want them to close it.
Is this the way a constitutional republic predicated on individual rights is supposed to be run?
Not a chance.
To: 1rudeboy; hedgetrimmer
Her "victim" gambit is getting VERY old!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-168 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson