KK: I never thought about it one way or the other considering the term political union.
By all means, please enlighten us - is the union of American States "political," or is it something that is not "political?"
Please answer that simple question. If you suggest that the "union" is something other than "political," please also reference the specific legal grounds upon which that "union" was maintained by federal military force (circa 1861-1865), and advise us why those legal grounds are not also "political" in nature.
In all honesty, you don't seem to have "thought about" much of any thing, based on your posts...
WIJG: Quite obviously, you believe the "union" to be something other than a political union.
KK: I never thought about it one way or the other considering the term political union.
WIJG: By all means, please enlighten us - is the union of American States "political," or is it something that is not "political?"
I wrote: I never thought about it one way or the other considering the term political union and all of a sudden you put it on me to enlighten everybody about something I had not thought about one way or the other using your term?
Since youre the one who brought the political union thing up (in response to my A new government but not a new Union.), why dont you enlighten us - is the union of American States "political," or is it something that is not "political?" Not that Im all that interested because from my point of view youre just using a weak arguing technique, diverting the discussion from the main line (is the Union continuous or did one Union end and a new Union begin with the Constitution) to a new area in which you think you can dominate.
In all honesty, you don't seem to have "thought about" much of any thing, based on your posts...
Another weak arguing technique: insult and ridicule. Also a technique used in the pseudo Delphi process for reaching consensus (as opposed to the legitimate Delphi process). And a technique used by some in authority to show who the boss is.