Skip to comments.
North American Union threat gets attention of congressmen
WorldNetdaily.com ^
| October 1, 2006
Posted on 10/02/2006 3:55:59 AM PDT by Man50D
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340, 341-357 next last
To: Ben Ficklin
I did some checking, and there's little or no difference between a Bill, or a Resolution. When they go through committee, debated and voted on, are in affect, binding. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
|
321
posted on
10/03/2006 5:00:45 PM PDT
by
Smartass
(The stars rule men but God rules the stars)
To: grey_whiskers
My definition of "weapons free" is "free to fire on any target not positively identified as friendly."
Short of having an out-and-out liberal Democrat (or hard-core libertarian, but I digress) in office at the time, the landing of a Chinese force large enough to attack the lower 48 in Mexico would result in U.S. forces crossing the Mexican frontier to meet them.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "my threat." Whatever you think it was, I'm sure I acted on it a good while ago.
To: Smartass
"I did some checking", and you're full of it.
To: 1rudeboy
Short of having an out-and-out liberal Democrat (or hard-core libertarian, but I digress) in office at the time, the landing of a Chinese force large enough to attack the lower 48 in Mexico would result in U.S. forces crossing the Mexican frontier to meet them. What of a small holding force, gradually increased over time? "Nothing overt" they could claim, so we couldn't go after them; and then, when they were ready, a surprise attack in conjunction with a financial attack, cyber attack, activation of sleeper cells (including Chinese students in the sciences killing as many other University people as they could reach), and whatever else the Chinese could dream up.
No, I'm not *demanding* they're going to do these things--but if they are going to attack us, then the above would be the worst case scenario short of nukes...
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "my threat." Whatever you think it was, I'm sure I acted on it a good while ago.
Threat of "weapons-free" -- which I took to mean a flame war unleashed on anyone who suggested that the corridors might be used by China to facilitate an attack on the US.
To: Ben Ficklin
I'm not willing to teach Civics tonight, either. I'm sure even Wikipedia can tackle it . . . .
To: grey_whiskers
"easier for the Chinese to land in force in Mexico and drive their forces up the highway"
It is possible that the Chinese could circle the tip of S America and invade Mexico from the Gulf of Mexico, but it is more likely that they would land on the Pacific coast. They would then have to cross the continental divide to reach the Texas border and come up "the highway"
To: grey_whiskers
Incrementally would be the way I'd do it . . . but that doesn't speak toward the issue of opposing the NAFTA Superhighway on the basis of national security. Interstate 35
already exists, so short of tearing it up and mining the route, there is little that can be done to make the ChiComs' (hypothetical) job any harder.
In other words, observing that an invader can use the route is either noting the obvious (witness the backpedaling that happened), or simple anti-[fill in the blank] demagoguery masked as concern for national security.
To: 1rudeboy; Smartass
World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi, and Reps. Goode, Tancredo, Paul and Jones are playing you for a sucker?
Yes they are. They made the "free trade" deal with communist china that enabled them to send their industrial spies to the silicon valley to "Rob America blind", in the words of the Heritage foundation, a group YOU are fond of quoting. Yep, they sure are responsible for the massive wealth transfer out of this country that funds COMMUNIST SLAVE LABOR, and makes mockery of the American way. Yes, they are playing us for suckers, a'yuh, uhuh. You shore did nail it.
To: 1rudeboy; Smartass
I doubt it. If you were at CFR headquarters, they wouldn't let you wear tinfoil, it might interfere the signals they are transmitting to you LOLOLOLOL.
To: hedgetrimmer
You are entitled to your opinion that "free traders" are playing us for suckers, but I would've liked to see you address my contention that the group I mentioned is playing you for a sucker. In other words, "yeah I know I'm a sucker but so are you" isn't much of an argument.
To: Ben Ficklin
OK, have it your way.
Have a good day.
331
posted on
10/03/2006 7:10:33 PM PDT
by
Smartass
(The stars rule men but God rules the stars)
To: Smartass
BTW, the enviros filed suit against the Indiana portion of the I69 NAFTA Highway. TSR started a thread on it today, but it died quickly.
To: Smartass
"OK, have it
your way." [emphasis added]
The fact that a House resolution, even if passed by both the House and the Senate (making it a joint resolution--but I digress), does not have the force of law is not subject to anyone's interpretation.
To: 1rudeboy
You are entitled to your opinion that "free traders" are playing us for suckers
YOU are not 'us'. You have explicity camped with the "free traders". In fact you have done so for years.
To: 1rudeboy; Smartass
Don't spin. The fact that a HOUSE RESOLUTION exists is because the NAU isn't fiction, it is FACT. And that is the topic of this thread.
To: 1rudeboy
Globalism is like communism, in that it subtly and stealthily permeates and burrows into a government, first not with guns and bullets, but with handshakes and smiles, and then grows to menacing power from within. Like hypertension, it is indeed, a "silent killer." The permeating of globalism into the US government not only exists, but also prospers on both sides of the partisan aisle, and in many back-room deals within the allegedly hallowed halls of our nation's Capitol. Our government created the NAU.
Through "free trade" by
free traitors.
To: hedgetrimmer
I cannot imagine a comment that has less to do with mine (#333) than yours. Are you sure you didn't wish to direct it elsewhere? Another thread? Another forum, perhaps?
To: hedgetrimmer; Smartass
Don't spin.Let me try to walk you through this one (I tried with Smartass on a related issue, but it was beyond his capacity). I stated a fact in my comment #333. A fact is not "spin" except to the most depraved Liberal Democrat mind.
To: 1rudeboy; hedgetrimmer
We really have to quit meeting like this...I mean two times in one day is to much for me to handle. I don't get paid for this, and you do!
I probably made an error by calling the Resolution a Bill. I stand corrected. On further research, I found the following at: Glossary
HCON 487 IH
Concurrent Resolutions
H.Con.Res House Concurrent Resolution S.Con.Res. Senate Concurrent Resolution
A concurrent resolution is a legislative proposal that requires the approval of both houses but does not require the signature of the President and does not have the force of law. Concurrent resolutions generally are used to make or amend rules that apply to both houses. They are also used to express the sentiments of both of the houses. For example, a concurrent resolution is used to set the time of Congress' adjournment. It may also be used by Congress to convey congratulations to another country on the anniversary of its independence."
More or less, a notice of a prelude to tougher legislation.
|
339
posted on
10/03/2006 8:50:27 PM PDT
by
Smartass
(The stars rule men but God rules the stars)
To: Smartass
We really have to quit meeting like this . . . I mean two times in one day is to much for me to handle. I don't get paid for this, and you do! No doubt. I was working at CFR HQ and posting until 2:00am, and back at the office (and posting) at 9:45am. Now, it's almost 11:00pm and I'm still here. I get overtime, but Mr. Pastor insists on paying me in Ameros. What a bitch.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340, 341-357 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