I am a Minority

[ocm]

~SH~ I see that it is difficult for you to swallow too much information at a time, so I will deliberatley address only one topic at a time. When you respond to it we can go on to the next. You have made several errors in your last post, but in order to keep things simple I will address them later.

Current point of discussion (which I have chosen out from among your lengthy rant because you seem to have the most trouble understanding it)

CAFTA advances regional integration

Definitions:
advances=in this case it means "another step toward"
regional integration=in this case the establishment of a North American [or possibly Western Hemispheric] Union with an overall government, common currency, common security, common citizenship (in practice). US sovereignty would be progressively diminished. Do a Google search on "regional integration" along with CAFTA.


The statement above translated into laymens terms means:

CAFTA is another step toward the creation of a North American Union.

NAFTA was the first step
CAFTA is the second step
FTAA is the third step
Other steps possible here
Final step=creation of a North American Union like the European Union.


Important point

CAFTA does not bring all this about. It only "advances" it.

Question--Do you want to take a step toward regional integration? There are some people who do. Are you one of them?

Many people tell that there are economic benefits to CAFTA. But there is a trade off. US sovereignty would be diminished by it. An international tribunal would review all laws of this country--including state laws--that have anything whatsoever to do with trade with CAFTA countries. If the tribunal finds them "illegal" according to THEIR interpretation of the CAFTA agreement we would be required to change the laws or to face a financial penalty. That's part of the step toward a North American Union, the creation of a supernational governmental body that would review our laws for legality.

So, Do you want to advance regional integration?

 

[Anonymous]

ocm: "~SH~ I see that it is difficult for you to swallow too much information at a time, so I will deliberatley address only one topic at a time. When you respond to it we can go on to the next. You have made several errors in your last post, but in order to keep things simple I will address them later."

As fully expected, OCM diverts my questions and redirects to having me address an "OPINION".

It appears that the only way you agreed to this debate is if you could lead me around. Pal, that won't happen!

I'm not going to play your divertionary games.

There's a good reason why you guys lose in court. You make statements and present "opinions", you don't present "facts" to support those opinions. Reminds me of Taylor's "UNTESTED THEORIES" in Pickett vs. ibp.

I agreed to address OCM's letter posted by you and spare you the embarassment of your inability to contradict anything NCBA has stated regarding CAFTA-DR, with opposing facts to the contrary.

I asked you specific questions relating to your topic of choice (OCM's letter).

You intentionally avoided the embarassment of your inability to answer them. You had every opportunity to ask me questions in response.

Rather, you want me to address an "UNSUPPORTED OPINION" on the formation of a North American Union.

You've already established the current point of discussion which was the OCM letter posted by you.

Either answer my questions relating to your original topic of choice or prove that you can't.

I'm not playing your games. If you want to play games, Sandman is always up for that.

I'll go as far as to add a couple questions relating to your new topic of choice (the formation of a North American Union) within your original topic of choice (OCM's letter you posted).

The opinion on creating a "NORTH AMERICAN UNION" is just that, an opinion. Without supporting facts it's absolutely meaningless. That's my opinion of your opinion. Quite a topic for debate huh?

Lets get to the facts that support our opinions and quit wasting time.

To add to my list of questions regarding your topic of choice within your topic of choice, here's two more questions for you to divert:

Tell me, within the CAFTA-DR agreement, the specific wording that makes you "BELIEVE" that CAFTA-DR will advance the position of a North American Union?

Tell me, within the NAFTA agreement, the specific wording or actions that have taken place, that makes you "BELIEVE" that NAFTA started the movement towards a North American Union?

Either address my questions or you can talk to yourself and prove your inability to back your position with more than opinions and statements.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if ocm been reported as missing in action?

Hope he didn't forget that grenades need to be thrown after the pin is pulled.


~SH~

 

[Sierraman]

Ocm, look, I just read you original post here. Frankly, you sound weird. What if someone is a true conservative, you still gonna call 'em liberal? Weird you are, weird weird weird. That's why I skippped the rest. Just let me know if I have to read it and find things get better.

 

[ocm]

~SH~ There are two reasons I have been MIA
1. I have a life
2. I've been pondering how best to respond to your last post. I'm still not completely sure but here goes anyway.

You said

As fully expected, OCM diverts my questions and redirects to having me address an "OPINION".

DIVERSION?
In contrast I have directed the topic of discussion like a laser on a single paragraph of the article we're supposed to be discussing. You, however, seem to want to change the subject.


OPINION?
I have presented two FACTS and a syllogism (for those in Rio Linda, that an element of logic)

FACT 1 -- CAFTA advances "regional integration"
Support for the fact--It is stated by the US Government, specifically the US Dept of Commerce in its argument in favor of CAFTA.
www.ita.doc.gov/cafta/why_cafta.asp

FACT 2 -- "Regional integration" means the movement toward the creation of a North American Union.
Support for the fact--This is how the phrase "regional integration" is used almost universally on the web. If the US Dept of Commerce had something else in mind it would be completely out of line with the mean of the phrase as it is consistently used elsewhere.
If you want to redefine it, the burden of proof is on you to show that it means something different than how it is used virtually 100% of the time.
But if you want to make the effort to redefine it......hey, I've heard some people even like redefining the word "is."

SYLLOGISM

CAFTA advances regional integration.
Regional integration is the creation of a North American Union
Therefore CAFTA advances the creation of a North American Union.

I cannot for the life of me discover what you are calling an opinion.

I am using a government source (I know the government is not always correct but you should at least give them deference)

And I am using universally understood terminology (regional integration)

And I am using syllogistic logic that is over 2000 years old.

Now, you want my opinion--I think this is a bad deal for America--that's opinion.

So please take the following statement:

CAFTA advances the creation of a North American Union.

and demonstrate where OPINION entered into this conclusion.

Point like a laser to anything above (in FACT 1, FACT 2 or in the syllogism) that can justly be called OPINION that I have used to reach this conclusion, and no diversion please.

 

[ocm]

Sierraman;

The answer is --- humor.

OK my sense of humor is weird, although there is a significant element of truth in what I said.


Take a look at my avatar. That's really me.

 

[TXTibbs]

Take a look at my avatar. That's really me.

Your not serious are you? I can hardly tell what it is.....its a chubby little hand coming up out of some grass? I thought that was like a little kid or something.

 

[ocm]

Your not serious are you? I can hardly tell what it is.....its a chubby little hand coming up out of some grass? I thought that was like a little kid or something.

Yep, it's me.

It's Triticale, some real tall stuff. I was standing on the ground, standing straight up. Nobody could see me so I raised my hand, and just then they clicked the picture. Just for info, I'm about 5' 7'.

 

[HAY MAKER]

Your not serious are you? I can hardly tell what it is.....its a chubby little hand coming up out of some grass? I thought that was like a little kid or something.

Yep, it's me.

It's Triticale, some real tall stuff. I was standing on the ground, standing straight up. Nobody could see me so I raised my hand, and just then they clicked the picture.

Just for info, I'm about 5' 7'

.

Just for info OCM, would you state your age & gender?............good luck

 

[ocm]

Just for info OCM, would you state your age & gender?............good luck

Male
55

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Your not serious are you? I can hardly tell what it is.....its a chubby little hand coming up out of some grass? I thought that was like a little kid or something.

Yep, it's me.

It's Triticale, some real tall stuff. I was standing on the ground, standing straight up. Nobody could see me so I raised my hand, and just then they clicked the picture.

Just for info, I'm about 5' 7'

.

Just for info OCM, would you state your age & gender?............good luck

Good thing you checked Haymaker you wouldn't want to make yourself out the fool again. :wink: :wink:

 

[HAY MAKER]

Yep, it's me.

It's Triticale, some real tall stuff. I was standing on the ground, standing straight up. Nobody could see me so I raised my hand, and just then they clicked the picture. .

Just for info OCM, would you state your age & gender?............good luck

Good thing you checked Haymaker you wouldn't want to make yourself out the fool again. :wink: :wink:

Yeah nothing like being sure,but I guess if I hafta, I would rather be a fool sometimes instead of all the time :wink: ................good luck

 

[Sierraman]

So, what does ocm stand for? And what is the thing around your wrist in your avatar. It looks like a clay sculpture in that picture.

 

[ocm]

Organization for Competitive Markets

www.competitivemarkets.com


My watch is on my wrist. It slid down a ways when I stuck my hand up.

 

[ocm]

Organization for Competitive Markets

www.competitivemarkets.com


My watch is on my wrist. It slid down a ways when I stuck my hand up.

Another confusing thing may be the tree way back in the background.

 

[Anonymous]

ocm,

Why are you so afraid of answering my questions?

First I let you pick the topic for debate which was CAFTA, remember?

Then I agreed that I would address OCM's position on your chosen topic of discussion rather than have you try to contradict NCBA's position giving you your second advantge.

Then you picked the particular OCM newsletter on your chosen topic of discussion that we would address out of three you originally posted giving you your third advantage.

All three moves clearly giving you the advantage and allowing you to lead the debate in the direction of your choice. How could I be more fair than that?

At that point I asked you questions regarding OCM's position on your chosen topic of discussion.

As fully expected, you have since diverted my questions twice to try to draw me into an semantics argument over your "North American Unition" interpretation of the government's term, "regional integration".

I've allowed you to lead me as far as you are going to.

If you have confidence in your position, it's clearly your turn to answer ALL my questions and enter the debate. If you don't have confidence in your position, continue to divert my questions and prove what a phony you really are!

It's that simple!

Sir, it appears that you are a coward. Prove me wrong and answer ALL my questions or take your seat.


~SH~

 

[ocm]

~SH~ Your last reply was the most blatant example of diversion I think I have ever seen. I would invite all onlookers to judge for themselves.

I said:

So please take the following statement:

CAFTA advances the creation of a North American Union.

and demonstrate where OPINION entered into this conclusion.

Point like a laser to anything above (in FACT 1, FACT 2 or in the syllogism) that can justly be called OPINION that I have used to reach this conclusion, and no diversion please.

And you responded with a diversion. By all the rules of debate -- and I have been a debate judge -- YOU LOSE.

But just for the sake of piling on try this quote from a recent OCM news release.

"Unelected NAFTA tribunals have stricken 43 U.S. laws. The WTO has stricken several more, reducing our options for farm and industrial policy. We elect Congressman and Senators to do work for us, but they can't do work for us when foreign tribunals have the power to declare our laws "illegal." The tribunals can even trump our Supreme Court. "

Get you head out of the sand and face the truth.

 

[agman]

~SH~ Your last reply was the most blatant example of diversion I think I have ever seen. I would invite all onlookers to judge for themselves.

I said:

So please take the following statement:

CAFTA advances the creation of a North American Union.

and demonstrate where OPINION entered into this conclusion.

Point like a laser to anything above (in FACT 1, FACT 2 or in the syllogism) that can justly be called OPINION that I have used to reach this conclusion, and no diversion please.

And you responded with a diversion. By all the rules of debate -- and I have been a debate judge -- YOU LOSE.

But just for the sake of piling on try this quote from a recent OCM news release.

"Unelected NAFTA tribunals have stricken 43 U.S. laws. The WTO has stricken several more, reducing our options for farm and industrial policy. We elect Congressman and Senators to do work for us, but they can't do work for us when foreign tribunals have the power to declare our laws "illegal." The tribunals can even trump our Supreme Court. "

Get you head out of the sand and face the truth.

You have provided no debate at all-YOU LOSE. Do you have any original thoughts? Your only reference is to other's opinions or statements.

 

[ocm]

agman

Point like a laser to anything above (in FACT 1, FACT 2 or in the syllogism) that can justly be called OPINION that I have used to reach this conclusion, and no diversion please.

You are welcome to take up the same challenge I gave to ~SH~. You have just said that I am expressing the opinion of others. Please refer back to FACT 1, FACT 2, or the syllogism and tell me which one is only an opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

No wonder you guys always lose in court.

In court, you have to provide facts to back your opinions and you don't have any choice but to answer the questions.

You judged debate? HAHAHA! That's funny!

Had you ever judged debate you would know that you would have no choice but to answer my questions.

What a coward.

The loser is as clear here as it is in court.



~SH~