• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

And The North American Union Continues

A

Anonymous

Guest
How come no one in the administration will admit to this :???: If its true Rumsfeld was at the meeting- doesn't this show an administration push?....Are these folks selling out National Sovereignty for the almighty Multinational Corporates dollars. :???:

------------------------------------------------

Economic ties to U.S. riding super highway



By Don

Cowichan Valley News Leader

Oct 25 2006

Canada



A month ago, at the luxurious Banff Springs Hotel, Stockwell Day, John P. Manley, Gordon O’Connor, Peter Lougheed, and Anne McLennan — all past and present ministers in Canadian governments — met a couple of dozen high-ranking government and corporate officials from the U.S. and Mexico to discuss the formation of a North American Union.



The three-day meeting — including people as prominent as U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — was about pushing the NAFTA free trade agreement to the next level, the commercial, financial, and monetary integration of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.



Don’t blame this sell-out of Canada on Stephen Harper. On March 23, 2005, in Waco, Texas, then Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, standing beside Presidents George W. Bush of the U.S. and Vincente Fox of Mexico, announced their agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.



In spite of that announcement corporate and political leaders now deny any agreement at all, it was just an arrangement for continued dialogue.



Mimicking the Liberals, Harper met during March 2006, in Cancun, Mexico, with Bush and Fox to celebrate the still-being-born North American Union which would eliminate borders and strip Canada down to U.S. non-regulation of commerce, non-protection of the environment, less-than-minimal social safety net and health care and a further destruction of union wages and working conditions.



The first massive project being built is the NAFTA Super Highway. A new corporation, Kansas City (Missouri) Smart Port, Inc., will oversee the construction and operation of a super “port” 1,200 kilometres from the ocean.



The NAFTA Super Highway will start at the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas in southern Mexico where the flood of Chinese-made goods will be loaded onto Kansas City Southern Railway de Mexico and shipped non-stop to Kansas City.



Loading Chinese shipping containers onto U.S. rail cars in Mexico will by-pass the expensive longshoremen in Los Angeles and Long Beach, California.



A portion of the Kansas City port will be declared Mexican territory and custom inspections will take place there instead of at the border.



Another non-profit corporation, North America’s Super Corridor Coalition, has the job of building an “international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system” from Lazaro Cardenas through Kansas City and up to Winnipeg. This will allow Mexican trucks to haul sealed shipping containers along a 12-lane superhighway through the heartland of North America, from Mexico to Canada.



Canada is plugging its oil and natural gas, its water and grain, minerals and lumber, not to mention Canadian consumers, into the North American distribution system dominated by the U.S.



Our experience with NAFTA judicial panels, meat inspection and Mad Cow disease, the Afghan war, and the softwood lumber deal should convince us that Canada will be on the short end of the NAFTA Super Highway.



cowichannewsleader.com
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
How come no one in the administration will admit to this :???: If its true Rumsfeld was at the meeting- doesn't this show an administration push?....Are these folks selling out National Sovereignty for the almighty Multinational Corporates dollars. :???:

If this would let me type YES in bigger letters I would!!!

This admin has FOREVER been on the side of corporations....DUH!!!!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
We are having the biggest sellout of our politicians to corporations that I have seen in my life. All this behind closed doors.

"Corporatism should be more accurately defined as fascism as it is the merging of corporate and state power" ---Benito Mussolini.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Peter Laugheed has been out of politics for over decade now. Why would he be at this meeting?
I cant believe that Stockwell Day or Peter Laugheed would be for any kind of North American Union like they have in Europe.
I simply dont believe the news source.
Now if this was about a military defence "union" <think NORAD>of North America it would be different. Yes we have that and if there was such a closed door meeting im sure this is what it was about.
But nobody up here wants to merge with the States and for that very reason its not going to happen so I think your all getting worked up over nothing.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Peter Laugheed has been out of politics for over decade now. Why would he be at this meeting?
I cant believe that Stockwell Day or Peter Laugheed would be for any kind of North American Union like they have in Europe.
I simply dont believe the news source.
Now if this was about a military defence "union" <think NORAD>of North America it would be different. Yes we have that and if there was such a closed door meeting im sure this is what it was about.
But nobody up here wants to merge with the States and for that very reason its not going to happen so I think your all getting worked up over nothing.

It is hard to believe, Roper, but it is happening.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
RoperAB said:
Peter Laugheed has been out of politics for over decade now. Why would he be at this meeting?
I cant believe that Stockwell Day or Peter Laugheed would be for any kind of North American Union like they have in Europe.
I simply dont believe the news source.
Now if this was about a military defence "union" <think NORAD>of North America it would be different. Yes we have that and if there was such a closed door meeting im sure this is what it was about.
But nobody up here wants to merge with the States and for that very reason its not going to happen so I think your all getting worked up over nothing.

It is hard to believe, Roper, but it is happening.

Peter Laugheed was the biggest advocate of Alberta, Alberta Rights and Power and Alberta sovernty! His whole career was fighting against the Canadian Federal Government on behalf of Alberta. Peter Laugheed was about a smaller federal government> He hated the Feds. Why would he of all people want to join your government which is even bigger and farther away than our Federal government?
Why would Alberta want to join the States? Whats in it for us? Besides access to markets which we already have we would have a heck of alot to lose. # 1 our sovernty. Right now we are a big fish in a small sea. #2 Our resources which you guys need. #3 We dont want to pay your taxes or inherit your dept. #4 We are over stocked with people up here right now without being over run by millions of Americans.
Dont get me wrong I think America is great but there is nothing in a North American union that would help Alberta as much as it would hurt it.
Nobody up here wants it. Politically it would be suicide for a politician up here to advocate this type of union.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
How come no one in the administration will admit to this :???: If its true Rumsfeld was at the meeting- doesn't this show an administration push?....Are these folks selling out National Sovereignty for the almighty Multinational Corporates dollars. :???:

------------------------------------------------

Economic ties to U.S. riding super highway



By Don

Cowichan Valley News Leader

Oct 25 2006

Canada



A month ago, at the luxurious Banff Springs Hotel, Stockwell Day, John P. Manley, Gordon O’Connor, Peter Lougheed, and Anne McLennan — all past and present ministers in Canadian governments — met a couple of dozen high-ranking government and corporate officials from the U.S. and Mexico to discuss the formation of a North American Union.



The three-day meeting — including people as prominent as U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — was about pushing the NAFTA free trade agreement to the next level, the commercial, financial, and monetary integration of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.



Don’t blame this sell-out of Canada on Stephen Harper. On March 23, 2005, in Waco, Texas, then Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, standing beside Presidents George W. Bush of the U.S. and Vincente Fox of Mexico, announced their agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.



In spite of that announcement corporate and political leaders now deny any agreement at all, it was just an arrangement for continued dialogue.



Mimicking the Liberals, Harper met during March 2006, in Cancun, Mexico, with Bush and Fox to celebrate the still-being-born North American Union which would eliminate borders and strip Canada down to U.S. non-regulation of commerce, non-protection of the environment, less-than-minimal social safety net and health care and a further destruction of union wages and working conditions.



The first massive project being built is the NAFTA Super Highway. A new corporation, Kansas City (Missouri) Smart Port, Inc., will oversee the construction and operation of a super “port” 1,200 kilometres from the ocean.



The NAFTA Super Highway will start at the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas in southern Mexico where the flood of Chinese-made goods will be loaded onto Kansas City Southern Railway de Mexico and shipped non-stop to Kansas City.



Loading Chinese shipping containers onto U.S. rail cars in Mexico will by-pass the expensive longshoremen in Los Angeles and Long Beach, California.



A portion of the Kansas City port will be declared Mexican territory and custom inspections will take place there instead of at the border.



Another non-profit corporation, North America’s Super Corridor Coalition, has the job of building an “international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system” from Lazaro Cardenas through Kansas City and up to Winnipeg. This will allow Mexican trucks to haul sealed shipping containers along a 12-lane superhighway through the heartland of North America, from Mexico to Canada.



Canada is plugging its oil and natural gas, its water and grain, minerals and lumber, not to mention Canadian consumers, into the North American distribution system dominated by the U.S.



Our experience with NAFTA judicial panels, meat inspection and Mad Cow disease, the Afghan war, and the softwood lumber deal should convince us that Canada will be on the short end of the NAFTA Super Highway.



cowichannewsleader.com

Underhanded political corruption at its finest. I can handle political sexual misconduct better than things like this.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RoperAB said:
Econ101 said:
RoperAB said:
Peter Laugheed has been out of politics for over decade now. Why would he be at this meeting?
I cant believe that Stockwell Day or Peter Laugheed would be for any kind of North American Union like they have in Europe.
I simply dont believe the news source.
Now if this was about a military defence "union" <think NORAD>of North America it would be different. Yes we have that and if there was such a closed door meeting im sure this is what it was about.
But nobody up here wants to merge with the States and for that very reason its not going to happen so I think your all getting worked up over nothing.

It is hard to believe, Roper, but it is happening.

Peter Laugheed was the biggest advocate of Alberta, Alberta Rights and Power and Alberta sovernty! His whole career was fighting against the Canadian Federal Government on behalf of Alberta. Peter Laugheed was about a smaller federal government> He hated the Feds. Why would he of all people want to join your government which is even bigger and farther away than our Federal government?
Why would Alberta want to join the States? Whats in it for us? Besides access to markets which we already have we would have a heck of alot to lose. # 1 our sovernty. Right now we are a big fish in a small sea. #2 Our resources which you guys need. #3 We dont want to pay your taxes or inherit your dept. #4 We are over stocked with people up here right now without being over run by millions of Americans.
Dont get me wrong I think America is great but there is nothing in a North American union that would help Alberta as much as it would hurt it.
Nobody up here wants it. Politically it would be suicide for a politician up here to advocate this type of union.



Roper- Heres a couple articles on it from a US publication- www.thenewamerican.com ....

----------------------------------

Secret North American Forum Meeting in Banff, Canada (by Larry Greenley)
by Larry Greenley
October 14, 2006
Email this article
Printer friendly page


A secret meeting was held in Banff, Alberta, Canada, in mid-September where North American elites, including several Bush administration officials, planned for further integration of North America.

To show just how high-level this meeting was, George Shultz (secretary of state under Reagan, George W. Bush mentor, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations) was on hand to co-chair it.

According to CBC News, Mel Hurtig, noted Canadian author and politician, was one of the Banff meeting participants. Hurtig made public the agenda and attendee list for the September 12-14 forum revealing that the gathering was called “Continental Prosperity in the New Security Environment.” Scheduled participants from the United States included Carla Hills, Trilateral Commission member and former U.S. Trade Representative; Dr. Robert A. Pastor, CFR member and godfather of the North American Union (NAU); Dr. Thomas A. Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs; and Donald R. Rumsfeld, former CFR member and current secretary of defense. Rumsfeld was slated to be a keynote speaker. Topics on the agenda included North American energy strategy and security cooperation.

According to Hurtig: “We’re talking about such an important thing, we’re talking about the integration of Canada into the United States. For them to hold this meeting in secret and to make every effort to avoid anybody learning about it, right away you’ve got to be hugely concerned.”

Thomas Shannon, who attended the Banff meeting, made very clear what the Banff meeting was about in his remarks at a meeting in Ottawa, Canada on September 14, which are posted on the U.S. Department of State’s official website, usinfo.state.gov:

I also had a chance to go out to Banff, where yesterday and today actually, Canada, the United States and Mexico held the second session of the North American Forum.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the North American Forum, it sprang up as a parallel structure to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. It was originally an effort to … begin to create a vision for North America and an understanding of what North America is as an entity.

------------------------------

In The News : TNA Online Last Updated: Oct 26th, 2006 - 15:40:09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anti-North American Union Resolution Introduced (by Mary Benoit)
by Mary Benoit
October 14, 2006
Email this article
Printer friendly page


A nonbinding resolution sponsored by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.), and cosponsored by Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), and Ron Paul (R-Texas), brings official opposition to the creation of the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway.

The resolution (House Concurrent Res. 487) has been introduced at a time when the Bush administration — along with many lawmakers — refuse to admit that President Bush is trying to secretly implement a new regional government.

The resolution expresses the sense of Congress that:

(1) the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;

(2) the United States should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and

(3) the president should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.

Frequent readers of this magazine are familiar with the threat of the North American Union, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), and the proposed NAFTA Superhighway. THE NEW AMERICAN had been reporting on this issue prior to many other media outlets. Surely we can, and should, take some of the credit for generating enough attention for these lawmakers to introduce this resolution. However, even if this resolution were adopted, it would only be a first step; Congress needs to enact legislation blocking the North American Union.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Lots of good Derry Brownfield and other conspiracy theorists here, apparently!

There is already significant trade between the USA, Canada, and Mexico.

The world market is growing fast with them having far more population than North America, and their people gaining in incomes (not only from those evil outsourced US jobs, either).

Do we want a piece of that market for products from the Canada, USA, and Mexico? Do we already purchase products from countries other than Mxico, Canada, and USA? Could there be useful ways to expedite such trade?

What if: this is a TRADE facilitation issue?

What if: this 'superhiway' will make it less expensive to move products in all directions by air, rail, and hiway transport?

What if: the storage in those extensive cool limestone caves in the Kansas City area already being used to store outdated dry milk and other products from across the USA were used more productively?

What if: Canada, USA, and Mexico were to cooperate where it is beneficial to each of us? Would that necessitate joining as one government? NO!

What if: more poor Mexican people had jobs? Could that lead to more equitable and honorable social conditions in Mexico?????

Can we admit that there is nothing but chance, and determination keeping 'the poor' in the USA and Canada from bettering their conditions? Or that it is not a matter of 'the rich' holding down 'the poor', for the most part, but rather the choices made by 'the poor', and probably to a degree the use of 'the poor' as pawns in politics with policies developed that really have not benefitted 'the poor' so much as those employeed and elected to "help" them?

Do we really want to advocate taking away from "the rich" in Mexico and giving more to the peasants? Haven't they already tried that a couple of times in relatively modern history? Would we want it done here?

Wouldn't work and education alleviate more social problems than government largesse ever will?

Isn't it obvious, conspiratorial excitement aside, that a commercial corridor of some form linking the three nations could benefit us all?

On the other hand, I'm often criticized on these sites for not "knowing" that fraud, corruption, graft, and greed are the driving forces in politics and business in our country. Am I the only one who believe people are not bound to do evil if they get the chance?

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
A nonbinding resolution sponsored by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.), and cosponsored by Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), and Ron Paul (R-Texas), brings official opposition to the creation of the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway.

So Maxine- Have these good Republican folks been listening too much to old Derry too
:???:

Its already happening and you can't see it...

If you don't look you will not see....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I heard Pat Buchannon and G. Gordon Liddy talking poorly about the corridor and how it would ruin this country this morning. You can't get more conservative than them.

MRJ, are you a closet liberal or just a continual sellout to big corporations?

Perhaps you are in the high dollar income, seeing how your taxes are so high.
 

TSR

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Lots of good Derry Brownfield and other conspiracy theorists here, apparently!

There is already significant trade between the USA, Canada, and Mexico.

The world market is growing fast with them having far more population than North America, and their people gaining in incomes (not only from those evil outsourced US jobs, either).

Do we want a piece of that market for products from the Canada, USA, and Mexico? Do we already purchase products from countries other than Mxico, Canada, and USA? Could there be useful ways to expedite such trade?

What if: this is a TRADE facilitation issue?

What if: this 'superhiway' will make it less expensive to move products in all directions by air, rail, and hiway transport?

What if: the storage in those extensive cool limestone caves in the Kansas City area already being used to store outdated dry milk and other products from across the USA were used more productively?

What if: Canada, USA, and Mexico were to cooperate where it is beneficial to each of us? Would that necessitate joining as one government? NO!

What if: more poor Mexican people had jobs? Could that lead to more equitable and honorable social conditions in Mexico?????

Can we admit that there is nothing but chance, and determination keeping 'the poor' in the USA and Canada from bettering their conditions? Or that it is not a matter of 'the rich' holding down 'the poor', for the most part, but rather the choices made by 'the poor', and probably to a degree the use of 'the poor' as pawns in politics with policies developed that really have not benefitted 'the poor' so much as those employeed and elected to "help" them?

Do we really want to advocate taking away from "the rich" in Mexico and giving more to the peasants? Haven't they already tried that a couple of times in relatively modern history? Would we want it done here?

Wouldn't work and education alleviate more social problems than government largesse ever will?

Isn't it obvious, conspiratorial excitement aside, that a commercial corridor of some form linking the three nations could benefit us all?

On the other hand, I'm often criticized on these sites for not "knowing" that fraud, corruption, graft, and greed are the driving forces in politics and business in our country. Am I the only one who believe people are not bound to do evil if they get the chance?

MRJ

Without this being made public so that people can voice their opinion, it can't help making one think of another government conspiracy with some lining their pockets at the taxpayers expense. Especially in light of recent events concerning some of our legislators.
 

mrj

Well-known member
TSR said:
MRJ said:
Lots of good Derry Brownfield and other conspiracy theorists here, apparently!

There is already significant trade between the USA, Canada, and Mexico.

The world market is growing fast with them having far more population than North America, and their people gaining in incomes (not only from those evil outsourced US jobs, either).

Do we want a piece of that market for products from the Canada, USA, and Mexico? Do we already purchase products from countries other than Mxico, Canada, and USA? Could there be useful ways to expedite such trade?

What if: this is a TRADE facilitation issue?



What if: this 'superhiway' will make it less expensive to move products in all directions by air, rail, and hiway transport?

What if: the storage in those extensive cool limestone caves in the Kansas City area already being used to store outdated dry milk and other products from across the USA were used more productively?

What if: Canada, USA, and Mexico were to cooperate where it is beneficial to each of us? Would that necessitate joining as one government? NO!

What if: more poor Mexican people had jobs? Could that lead to more equitable and honorable social conditions in Mexico?????

Can we admit that there is nothing but chance, and determination keeping 'the poor' in the USA and Canada from bettering their conditions? Or that it is not a matter of 'the rich' holding down 'the poor', for the most part, but rather the choices made by 'the poor', and probably to a degree the use of 'the poor' as pawns in politics with policies developed that really have not benefitted 'the poor' so much as those employeed and elected to "help" them?

Do we really want to advocate taking away from "the rich" in Mexico and giving more to the peasants? Haven't they already tried that a couple of times in relatively modern history? Would we want it done here?

Wouldn't work and education alleviate more social problems than government largesse ever will?

Isn't it obvious, conspiratorial excitement aside, that a commercial corridor of some form linking the three nations could benefit us all?

On the other hand, I'm often criticized on these sites for not "knowing" that fraud, corruption, graft, and greed are the driving forces in politics and business in our country. Am I the only one who believe people are not bound to do evil if they get the chance?

MRJ

Without this being made public so that people can voice their opinion, it can't help making one think of another government conspiracy with some lining their pockets at the taxpayers expense. Especially in light of recent events concerning some of our legislators.

More what if....if you have an idea for some community improvement, business plan, etc., is it ALWAYS best to go public from the very first germ of an idea occurs and let the 'anti everything I didn't think of' crowd shoot holes in it before anyone has time to think it through?.....Or might it be better to talk to a few first, have something sketched out that looks like it could work, THEN go public?

OTOH, If it is a true conspiracy, tear it down before it gets root.

I never said it should be accepted with no questions. People like Econ seem to want to decide for the rest of us what is good and what is bad. Why not, after initial proposals, have a lot of people toss ideas around and try to make the best deal possible for the most people possible, especially in quasi- or definitely governmental project proposals. Might be better than the instant NO WAY which is so often the reaction before even understanding the concepts and reasons all too often described by someone who is against it no matter what and exxagerates to carry his own agenda.

Some think no possible good can come about if anyone makes money from gov't contracts or projects. I still recall the fighting against the Interstate Hiway system in the USA. It sure has 'incubated' lots of private businesses, small and large, as well as making travel much simpler when we haven't time for leisurely travel.

Rather than a "blind eye" I just don't buy Econs take on everything. I want to look at all the information before I make up my mind the way he tells us we must because he knows best.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
TSR said:
MRJ said:
Lots of good Derry Brownfield and other conspiracy theorists here, apparently!

There is already significant trade between the USA, Canada, and Mexico.

The world market is growing fast with them having far more population than North America, and their people gaining in incomes (not only from those evil outsourced US jobs, either).

Do we want a piece of that market for products from the Canada, USA, and Mexico? Do we already purchase products from countries other than Mxico, Canada, and USA? Could there be useful ways to expedite such trade?

What if: this is a TRADE facilitation issue?



What if: this 'superhiway' will make it less expensive to move products in all directions by air, rail, and hiway transport?

What if: the storage in those extensive cool limestone caves in the Kansas City area already being used to store outdated dry milk and other products from across the USA were used more productively?

What if: Canada, USA, and Mexico were to cooperate where it is beneficial to each of us? Would that necessitate joining as one government? NO!

What if: more poor Mexican people had jobs? Could that lead to more equitable and honorable social conditions in Mexico?????

Can we admit that there is nothing but chance, and determination keeping 'the poor' in the USA and Canada from bettering their conditions? Or that it is not a matter of 'the rich' holding down 'the poor', for the most part, but rather the choices made by 'the poor', and probably to a degree the use of 'the poor' as pawns in politics with policies developed that really have not benefitted 'the poor' so much as those employeed and elected to "help" them?

Do we really want to advocate taking away from "the rich" in Mexico and giving more to the peasants? Haven't they already tried that a couple of times in relatively modern history? Would we want it done here?

Wouldn't work and education alleviate more social problems than government largesse ever will?

Isn't it obvious, conspiratorial excitement aside, that a commercial corridor of some form linking the three nations could benefit us all?

On the other hand, I'm often criticized on these sites for not "knowing" that fraud, corruption, graft, and greed are the driving forces in politics and business in our country. Am I the only one who believe people are not bound to do evil if they get the chance?

MRJ

Without this being made public so that people can voice their opinion, it can't help making one think of another government conspiracy with some lining their pockets at the taxpayers expense. Especially in light of recent events concerning some of our legislators.

More what if....if you have an idea for some community improvement, business plan, etc., is it ALWAYS best to go public from the very first germ of an idea occurs and let the 'anti everything I didn't think of' crowd shoot holes in it before anyone has time to think it through?.....Or might it be better to talk to a few first, have something sketched out that looks like it could work, THEN go public?

OTOH, If it is a true conspiracy, tear it down before it gets root.

I never said it should be accepted with no questions. People like Econ seem to want to decide for the rest of us what is good and what is bad. Why not, after initial proposals, have a lot of people toss ideas around and try to make the best deal possible for the most people possible, especially in quasi- or definitely governmental project proposals. Might be better than the instant NO WAY which is so often the reaction before even understanding the concepts and reasons all too often described by someone who is against it no matter what and exxagerates to carry his own agenda.

Some think no possible good can come about if anyone makes money from gov't contracts or projects. I still recall the fighting against the Interstate Hiway system in the USA. It sure has 'incubated' lots of private businesses, small and large, as well as making travel much simpler when we haven't time for leisurely travel.

Rather than a "blind eye" I just don't buy Econs take on everything. I want to look at all the information before I make up my mind the way he tells us we must because he knows best.

MRJ

Don't worry MRJ, unlike you I am not for sale.
 

Steve

Well-known member
if the US joins Canada we would gain more liberals......if we add in Mexico we would get more leftists.....why would Bush want more leftist liberals?

maybe the real plan is to let Mexicans to go directly to Canada.....once there they will freeze thier @$$3$ off and run home......
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
if the US joins Canada we would gain more liberals......if we add in Mexico we would get more leftists.....why would Bush want more leftist liberals?

maybe the real plan is to let Mexicans to go directly to Canada.....once there they will freeze thier @$$3$ off and run home......

Here is some quotes of Pat Buchanan and some of his feelings from his book on the Mexican border issue....He believes if Bush does not act decisively now, the country will be conquered and disappear in the next generation- but he also does not imply a feeling of confidence with Bush...

The entire article can be read at www.manews.org/index.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is more, conquest aside, "Mass immigration pushes politics to the left, by increasing political demands for welfare programs and affirmative action policies. As people of Third World origins become an ever larger share of the population, the agenda of America's minorities will become America's agenda. And that is not the agenda of the Reagan Revolution." A corollary to this inevitable leftward tendency is the impending "suicide of the GOP," since "there is an irreconcilable conflict between being a conservative party [dedicated to small government] and being the party of Hispanics. The conflict is pulling the Bush-Rove coalition apart." The President's choice is a simple one, Buchanan thinks. "Either Bush secures the border now, or the Bush Republicans go the way of the Whigs."
 

Cal

Well-known member
MRJ said:
TSR said:
MRJ said:
Lots of good Derry Brownfield and other conspiracy theorists here, apparently!

There is already significant trade between the USA, Canada, and Mexico.

The world market is growing fast with them having far more population than North America, and their people gaining in incomes (not only from those evil outsourced US jobs, either).

Do we want a piece of that market for products from the Canada, USA, and Mexico? Do we already purchase products from countries other than Mxico, Canada, and USA? Could there be useful ways to expedite such trade?

What if: this is a TRADE facilitation issue?



What if: this 'superhiway' will make it less expensive to move products in all directions by air, rail, and hiway transport?

What if: the storage in those extensive cool limestone caves in the Kansas City area already being used to store outdated dry milk and other products from across the USA were used more productively?

What if: Canada, USA, and Mexico were to cooperate where it is beneficial to each of us? Would that necessitate joining as one government? NO!

What if: more poor Mexican people had jobs? Could that lead to more equitable and honorable social conditions in Mexico?????

Can we admit that there is nothing but chance, and determination keeping 'the poor' in the USA and Canada from bettering their conditions? Or that it is not a matter of 'the rich' holding down 'the poor', for the most part, but rather the choices made by 'the poor', and probably to a degree the use of 'the poor' as pawns in politics with policies developed that really have not benefitted 'the poor' so much as those employeed and elected to "help" them?

Do we really want to advocate taking away from "the rich" in Mexico and giving more to the peasants? Haven't they already tried that a couple of times in relatively modern history? Would we want it done here?

Wouldn't work and education alleviate more social problems than government largesse ever will?

Isn't it obvious, conspiratorial excitement aside, that a commercial corridor of some form linking the three nations could benefit us all?

On the other hand, I'm often criticized on these sites for not "knowing" that fraud, corruption, graft, and greed are the driving forces in politics and business in our country. Am I the only one who believe people are not bound to do evil if they get the chance?

MRJ

Without this being made public so that people can voice their opinion, it can't help making one think of another government conspiracy with some lining their pockets at the taxpayers expense. Especially in light of recent events concerning some of our legislators.

More what if....if you have an idea for some community improvement, business plan, etc., is it ALWAYS best to go public from the very first germ of an idea occurs and let the 'anti everything I didn't think of' crowd shoot holes in it before anyone has time to think it through?.....Or might it be better to talk to a few first, have something sketched out that looks like it could work, THEN go public?

OTOH, If it is a true conspiracy, tear it down before it gets root.

I never said it should be accepted with no questions. People like Econ seem to want to decide for the rest of us what is good and what is bad. Why not, after initial proposals, have a lot of people toss ideas around and try to make the best deal possible for the most people possible, especially in quasi- or definitely governmental project proposals. Might be better than the instant NO WAY which is so often the reaction before even understanding the concepts and reasons all too often described by someone who is against it no matter what and exxagerates to carry his own agenda.

Some think no possible good can come about if anyone makes money from gov't contracts or projects. I still recall the fighting against the Interstate Hiway system in the USA. It sure has 'incubated' lots of private businesses, small and large, as well as making travel much simpler when we haven't time for leisurely travel.

Rather than a "blind eye" I just don't buy Econs take on everything. I want to look at all the information before I make up my mind the way he tells us we must because he knows best.

MRJ
MRJ, thanks so much for looking at the other side of the issue. A very well done, intelligent post.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
TSR said:
Without this being made public so that people can voice their opinion, it can't help making one think of another government conspiracy with some lining their pockets at the taxpayers expense. Especially in light of recent events concerning some of our legislators.

More what if....if you have an idea for some community improvement, business plan, etc., is it ALWAYS best to go public from the very first germ of an idea occurs and let the 'anti everything I didn't think of' crowd shoot holes in it before anyone has time to think it through?.....Or might it be better to talk to a few first, have something sketched out that looks like it could work, THEN go public?

OTOH, If it is a true conspiracy, tear it down before it gets root.

I never said it should be accepted with no questions. People like Econ seem to want to decide for the rest of us what is good and what is bad. Why not, after initial proposals, have a lot of people toss ideas around and try to make the best deal possible for the most people possible, especially in quasi- or definitely governmental project proposals. Might be better than the instant NO WAY which is so often the reaction before even understanding the concepts and reasons all too often described by someone who is against it no matter what and exxagerates to carry his own agenda.

Some think no possible good can come about if anyone makes money from gov't contracts or projects. I still recall the fighting against the Interstate Hiway system in the USA. It sure has 'incubated' lots of private businesses, small and large, as well as making travel much simpler when we haven't time for leisurely travel.

Rather than a "blind eye" I just don't buy Econs take on everything. I want to look at all the information before I make up my mind the way he tells us we must because he knows best.

MRJ

Don't worry MRJ, unlike you I am not for sale.


Your claim that I "am for sale" is a lie just like so many of your statements. I've not been paid in any way for my work for the cattle/beef industry.

MRJ
 
Top