Snopes Resolves the whole NAU Nutjob Theory [Archive]

Piscivore

11th January 2008, 03:13 PM

I'm sorry, but NAU (http://www.goodsearch.com/Redirect.aspx?type=1&url=http://rc12.overture.com/d/sr/?xargs=15KPjg1jVSt5auwuf0L%5FiXEbqUkwwB5Zi0%2DsgaB pV5F6co9nEZWPYuPa7By%5FVIbO1m6QihuPvg%5FKITOqz2n%5 F%2DUFBCMQVqXGOvpjdjJk9p4IP700eF3gOUhxvy4yYsZYyBSI TvgO4Hm8beSc4q8fCcUoOBLkEGPrLVjydnnneofBuuC1VJuqVG MZd9E57822ZOefIRXG%5FdLKo3cjDDHfZ1h%2D%2Dw%2E&yargs=home.nau.edu) is real. I've been there.

BenBurch

11th January 2008, 04:07 PM

Can you believe I have a CTer on another forum (http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40448) saying I'm misrepresenting Snopes because the last paragraph says that of course something like this might happen in the future?

Drudgewire

11th January 2008, 04:09 PM

sN(W)Opes. :rolleyes:

krelnik

11th January 2008, 09:17 PM

And now, the rest of the story: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/amero.asp

That article was written on September 11th! Explain that! :)

Jonnyclueless

11th January 2008, 10:43 PM

eromitlab

12th January 2008, 03:25 AM

I think we're missing the bigger story here.

There's an airport called Qala Nau (http://www.world-airport-codes.com/afghanistan/qala-nau-6140.html), in a city of the same name.
Which country is it in?

Afghanistan! ZOMG its all really starting to add up now! It's the 9/11-NAU nexus point!

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 09:02 AM

I did before you suggested. I read the whole thing, which is why I posted it here.

CFR: Building a North American Community (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/)

Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.

North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a trinational, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.

When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it.

I am amazed that when presented with realities many hide their eyes.

The EU seems to be doing well. What is so bad about a NAU?

Gord_in_Toronto

12th January 2008, 09:14 AM

Or Canada, for that matter.

Or the Real World(tm) either? ;)

WildCat

12th January 2008, 09:15 AM

CFR: Building a North American Community (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/)
Sorry Jerome, not a government institution. Just a think tank where all kinds of ideas are written about.

I know you must parrot your cult leader Ron Paul at all costs that there is a huge, secret conspiracy to implement the NAU and that NAFTA is the starting point of all this, but can you name one single elected official (house, senate or executive office) who is advocating a NAU?

Gord_in_Toronto

12th January 2008, 09:16 AM

I'm still waiting for a twoofer to explain to me how exactly the NAU will work.

Will Canadian law simply cease to apply? Will our political system be abolished? Will our currency and flag be changed?

But of course. Yes, yes and yes. After all we hate their democracy. :jaw-dropp

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 09:49 AM

Sorry Jerome, not a government institution. Just a think tank where all kinds of ideas are written about.

I know you must parrot your cult leader Ron Paul at all costs that there is a huge, secret conspiracy to implement the NAU and that NAFTA is the starting point of all this, but can you name one single elected official (house, senate or executive office) who is advocating a NAU?

What is the SPP? Was it voted upon by congress? No, yet it exists. They fact that this agreement was not made under the proper authority does not mean that it does not exist.

WildCat

12th January 2008, 09:56 AM

What is the SPP? Was it voted upon by congress? No, yet it exists. They fact that this agreement was not made under the proper authority does not mean that it does not exist.
I've been through the SPP with you before Jerome. It is not a treaty by any stretch of the imagination, nor even a law.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 10:25 AM

I've been through the SPP with you before Jerome. It is not a treaty by any stretch of the imagination, nor even a law.

Yes, but it is real is it not?

Your argument against a push for a NAU is also based on the fact that there are no treaties or laws in proposal.

By your logic here the SPP also does not exist.

Jonnyclueless

12th January 2008, 10:44 AM

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

WildCat

12th January 2008, 10:45 AM

Yes, but it is real is it not?

Your argument against a push for a NAU is also based on the fact that there are no treaties or laws in proposal.

By your logic here the SPP also does not exist.
Someone actually equating the NAU with the SPP in terms of scope and legal ramifications has no business using the word "logic" in a sentence. I don't thiunk you know what the word means.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 10:51 AM

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 10:52 AM

Someone actually equating the NAU with the SPP in terms of scope and legal ramifications has no business using the word "logic" in a sentence. I don't thiunk you know what the word means.

I am not equating the NAU with the SPP. I am presenting your logic as it applies to both circumstances.

A W Smith

12th January 2008, 11:02 AM

Caught lying again jerome?

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 11:15 AM

Caught lying again jerome?

What is it if not an agreement?

What is an agreement between sovereign nations if not a treaty?

WildCat

12th January 2008, 11:23 AM

What is an agreement between sovereign nations if not a treaty?
By your definition the POTUS accepting a cup of tea from the British PM would require the consent of the Senate.

You and Ron Paul aren't even in the ballpark on this one.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 11:32 AM

By your definition the POTUS accepting a cup of tea from the British PM would require the consent of the Senate.

You and Ron Paul aren't even in the ballpark on this one.

You can generally construct better straw-men than this. Are you losing your touch?;)

Jonnyclueless

12th January 2008, 11:35 AM

This is definitely one of the funniest attempts to play conspiracy I have seen in a long time!

BenBurch

12th January 2008, 11:36 AM

What is it if not an agreement?

What is an agreement between sovereign nations if not a treaty?

Jerome, a treaty is a very specific thing in US law which this does not even begin to be.

Article 2 Section 2 on the nice pocket copy Senator Byrd personally handed me;

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

"He" referring to the Preznit.

Article 3, Section 3;

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

Referring to the Congress.

Finally in Article 3, Section 6;

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, no agreement is a treaty.

An agreement is the equivalent of Bill telling Monica "I won't make a mess of your dress." Though maybe he wishes he had honored that one.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 11:50 AM

In other words, no agreement is a treaty.

You have fallen for the semantics game being played.

treat: to discuss terms of accommodation or settlement

treaty: an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation

The above is courteously of Websters.

Treaty: legal definition (http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/treaty/)

A treaty is a binding agreement under international law, entered by parties who are subject to international law, mainly states and international organizations. It is a pact formed between two nations or communities, each with the right of self-government.

Which part of these definitions are you stating do not apply?

Jonnyclueless

12th January 2008, 12:13 PM

You mean he is fallen for the legal definitions distinguishing the differences. Where as YOU Jerome are trying to play the semantics game.

Any way you slice it, it's a completely BS claim.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 12:36 PM

You mean he is fallen for the legal definitions distinguishing the differences. Where as YOU Jerome are trying to play the semantics game.

Which part of the legal definition of treaty does not apply to the SPP?

Elizabeth I

12th January 2008, 12:52 PM

What is the SPP? Was it voted upon by congress? No, yet it exists. They fact that this agreement was not made under the proper authority does not mean that it does not exist.

There are lots of things - even agreements - that were not voted upon by Congress. Yet they exist.

OMG!

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 12:56 PM

There are lots of things - even agreements - that were not voted upon by Congress. Yet they exist.

OMG!

Thank you. That was exactly the point I was making. The fact that things are agreed upon without being supported or voted upon by congress does not mean that they do not exist which was the argument presented. You have confirmed what I have said. :)

Jonnyclueless

12th January 2008, 12:57 PM

What's more important is that SPP is not trying to make Canada, US, and Mexico into one big country. BUt the question is explained in 11 FAM 721.2. And as has been mentioned the 2/3rd of congressional consent as per article II section2 clause 2 of the constitution.

But again more importantly, these are purely speculative claims with no basis in reality. And to use an organization that in no way resembles the conspiracy as an example of the conspiracy? Pretty dishonest.

Jonnyclueless

12th January 2008, 12:58 PM

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 01:19 PM

BenBurch

12th January 2008, 01:50 PM

There are lots of things - even agreements - that were not voted upon by Congress. Yet they exist.

OMG!

I agreed to buy my buddy in England a Steak if England won the World Cup. Does that make it a treaty?

Corsair 115

12th January 2008, 02:50 PM

Please explain why establishing common cross national standards and commonly protected borders with sovereign nations should not be defined as a treaty...Because it's not a treaty, it's three nations deciding to abide by one standard rather than three competing standards. And depending on whose standards are adopted, the other two nations will have to make the changes to their relevant legislation individually.

In any event no such common standards have been agreed to, nor even seriously discussed. Besides, the U.S. is by far the dominant power on the continent, so it's going to be American rules and regulations which are most likely adopted since it is the U.S. which has the economic and diplomatic weight to get its way. Thus it'll be Canada and Mexico changing, not the U.S.

Look no further than the common border issue for an example. It used to be that Canadians could fly into the U.S. with nothing more than a driver's license and a birth certificate. Now, a passport is necessary due to the increased U.S. border security concerns in the wake of 9/11. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative spells out what other nations are expected to do in order to get their travel documents up to a level that will be acceptable to the United States.

As I said earlier, anyone who thinks the NAU is real and that Canada is happily going along with it is someone who clearly, clearly knows nothing about Canadian politics.

Elizabeth I

12th January 2008, 02:57 PM

I agreed to buy my buddy in England a Steak if England won the World Cup. Does that make it a treaty?

Certainly, and we will be referring it to the World Court at the Hague if you don't comply. ;)

Continue your stubbornness and...

Elizabeth I

12th January 2008, 03:00 PM

Thank you. That was exactly the point I was making. The fact that things are agreed upon without being supported or voted upon by congress does not mean that they do not exist which was the argument presented. You have confirmed what I have said. :)

Doesn't mean they exist as some sort of conspiracy to strip us of our national sovereignty and constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.

Lots of people talk about lots of things. Often they even form organized groups for the purpose of talking about whatever. That doesn't make a secret society or gang of conspirators.

Corsair 115

12th January 2008, 03:24 PM

Lots of people talk about lots of things. Often they even form organized groups for the purpose of talking about whatever. That doesn't make a secret society or gang of conspirators.In Canada, from time to time the government itself implements a commission to study this issue or that. The commission, after a thorough examination and review, submits its final report and recommendations.

Guess what? A lot of the time that commission report is filed away and gathers dust, with few or none of the recommendations ever being implemented. So there's a case of the government itself providing the impetus for changes and yet nothing comes from the proposed recommendations.

Given this, why should non-governmental groups or agencies making proposals and recommendations be accorded any extra weight in terms of possibility of their material being enacted?

Jennie C.

12th January 2008, 05:12 PM

Because it's not a treaty, it's three nations deciding to abide by one standard rather than three competing standards. And depending on whose standards are adopted, the other two nations will have to make the changes to their relevant legislation individually.

In any event no such common standards have been agreed to, nor even seriously discussed. Besides, the U.S. is by far the dominant power on the continent, so it's going to be American rules and regulations which are most likely adopted since it is the U.S. which has the economic and diplomatic weight to get its way. Thus it'll be Canada and Mexico changing, not the U.S.

Look no further than the common border issue for an example. It used to be that Canadians could fly into the U.S. with nothing more than a driver's license and a birth certificate. Now, a passport is necessary due to the increased U.S. border security concerns in the wake of 9/11. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative spells out what other nations are expected to do in order to get their travel documents up to a level that will be acceptable to the United States.

As I said earlier, anyone who thinks the NAU is real and that Canada is happily going along with it is someone who clearly, clearly knows nothing about Canadian politics.

And I could restate the last paragraph substituting "the US" for "Canada".

(except "USAian politics" would sound really funny)

Elizabeth I

12th January 2008, 06:32 PM

In Canada, from time to time the government itself implements a commission to study this issue or that. The commission, after a thorough examination and review, submits its final report and recommendations.

Guess what? A lot of the time that commission report is filed away and gathers dust, with few or none of the recommendations ever being implemented. So there's a case of the government itself providing the impetus for changes and yet nothing comes from the proposed recommendations.

I've even been on a couple of committees whose work had similar results. :(

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 06:46 PM

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 06:48 PM

Doesn't mean they exist as some sort of conspiracy to strip us of our national sovereignty and constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.

That has never been the question.

Please follow the talk, it will better inform you if you do.

Horatius

12th January 2008, 07:43 PM

A treaty is a binding agreement under international law, entered by parties who are subject to international law, mainly states and international organizations. It is a pact formed between two nations or communities, each with the right of self-government.

Which part of these definitions are you stating do not apply?

I'd say the "binding agreement under international law" part. Can you show us anything about the SPP that is binding on the countries involved?

The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries.

The SPP isn't an agreement, it's simply a debating club with a very exclusive membership. Get over it.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 07:54 PM

I'd say the "binding agreement under international law" part. Can you show us anything about the SPP that is binding on the countries involved?

Ahh, so the SPP holds ZERO requirement upon the parties involved. Who are the parties by the way? Are these parties nations represented by their respective leaders or are these just private individuals having a debate?

The SPP isn't an agreement, it's simply a debating club with a very exclusive membership. Get over it.

A debating club of nations. Hum, I guess if they come to an agreement within said club that would be... what?

Jonnyclueless

12th January 2008, 08:04 PM

Again.

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 08:56 PM

Horatius

12th January 2008, 08:58 PM

A debating club of nations. Hum, I guess if they come to an agreement within said club that would be... what?

A starting point to implementing some changes through their existing national legal frameworks....which you'd know if you bothered to read the SPP site people have linked to before.

It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.

The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.

If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues.
...
If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

But of course, you won't read believe this either, will you?

And of course, this process is the exact same process any government agency uses to implement anything they consider to be a desirable change in current legislative or regulatory rules. The only difference is in where they get the ideas.

If you consider the SPP as some sort of unholy alliance to alter the very fabric of your nation, why don't you also complain about a system that allows any random person to propose a new law to a member of Congress, as that can have the exact same effect on your life as the SPP?

JEROME DA GNOME

12th January 2008, 09:03 PM

A starting point to implementing some changes through their existing national legal frameworks....which you'd know if you bothered to read the SPP site people have linked to before.

So you are stating that the SPP has ZERO authority?

But of course, you won't read believe this either, will you?

Valiant attempt at maligning me.

And of course, this process is the exact same process any government agency uses to implement anything they consider to be a desirable change in current legislative or regulatory rules. The only difference is in where they get the ideas.

If you consider the SPP as some sort of unholy alliance to alter the very fabric of your nation, why don't you also complain about a system that allows any random person to propose a new law to a member of Congress, as that can have the exact same effect on your life as the SPP?

When did I complain about anything other than the fact that people do not see what is placed before them.

In fact I am currently undecided as to circumstance of a NAU.

Horatius

13th January 2008, 07:15 AM

So you are stating that the SPP has ZERO authority?

Define "Authority". Then show me where the SPP has any of it. I work for the Canadian Government, and no one from the SPP has ever come into my office and told me what to do. So where's the authority?

When did I complain about anything other than the fact that people do not see what is placed before them.

In fact I am currently undecided as to circumstance of a NAU.

And what is it we're not seeing that's been placed before us?

Are you referring to this little quip?

One must read the words to understand their meanings. One can not just go by the title prior to the words.

Do you not see any discrepancy in the meanings of the various sentence structures under the title "Fact"?

Clearly, we do not see "any discrepancy in the meanings of the various sentence structures under the title 'Fact'"; clearly you do. So instead of being some subtler-than-thou pest, why don't you try explaining what you perceive to be "discrepancies"?

And just what the hell is the "meaning" of a a "Sentence structure (http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/sntstrct.html)" anyways? Trying to sound smart by adding extra words doesn't always work, you know.

Corsair 115

13th January 2008, 04:15 PM

Ahh, so the SPP holds ZERO requirement upon the parties involved. Who are the parties by the way? Are these parties nations represented by their respective leaders or are these just private individuals having a debate?See earlier point about commissions whose reports and recommendations gather dust.

The SPP can make thousands of recommendations. Unless the governments of the three nations involved actually implement those recommendations into law, the SPP means nothing.

Besides, the SPP is mostly about satisfying American concerns. Canada and Mexico want continued ease-of-access to the U.S. market while the U.S. wants more guarantees of security.

The idea that the U.S. will be the country losing its sovereignty is just silly. Given America's economic and diplomatic strength, it's the other two countries who are in far greater danger of losing their sovereignty in order to meet American demands.

HereticHulk

18th January 2008, 05:09 PM

The last paragraph on the linked snopes article, they leave themselves a caveat that basically contradicts the whole entry!!?!?

I'm sure it won't happen by 2010 either. That's hardly the point!

abenja1

18th January 2008, 05:22 PM

The last paragraph on the linked snopes article, they leave themselves a caveat that basically contradicts the whole entry!!?!?

I'm sure it won't happen by 2010 either. That's hardly the point!

If you want to talk about contradictions we could talk about how you slam the mainstream media yet have no problem citing them when they serve your agenda. Now THAT is a contradiction worthy of an award.

JEROME DA GNOME

18th January 2008, 09:27 PM

If you want to talk about contradictions we could talk about how you slam the mainstream media yet have no problem citing them when they serve your agenda. Now THAT is a contradiction worthy of an award.

Are you really arguing that the facts from a source you trust are not relevant because he has distrusted them in the past?

:eek:

JEROME DA GNOME

18th January 2008, 09:31 PM

None of this is to say that the three North American countires might not someday decide to form closer ties along the lines of the European Union, perhaps with a common currency and more fliud borders. But there is currently no official governmental plan underway to make all that happen by 2010.

Snopes told us so. It is not happening by 2010. Duhh.

Corsair 115

18th January 2008, 11:46 PM

Snopes told us so. It is not happening by 2010. Duhh.I doubt it'd happen by 2110.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 07:22 AM

I doubt it'd happen by 2110.

Wanna' bet?

If it happens by 2110 then you have to change your title to: Jerome is the greatest!

What do you think?

proxywar

19th January 2008, 07:36 AM

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 07:42 AM

Jerome is a attention whore looking to showcase his online superiority.
The problem is the only way he can accomplish this goal is through a
bet. Which I'm impling is just your ego arguing just to argue at this point.

Of course you missed the fact that Corsair and I have a history talking about this subject. Sorry that you were not in on the joke.

What would you call it when a poster attempts to "call-out" another poster?
Personal attack?

What did your post have to do with the subject?
Nothing?

Checkmite

19th January 2008, 08:05 AM

So you are stating that the SPP has ZERO authority?

YES, the SPP has ZERO authority to do ANYTHING except talk and debate. Countries national policies will not change based on ANYTHING the SPP comes up with, until those changes are approved by the countries' legislative bodies.

proxywar

19th January 2008, 08:22 AM

Of course you missed the fact that Corsair and I have a history talking about this subject. Sorry that you were not in on the joke.

What would you call it when a poster attempts to "call-out" another poster?
Personal attack?

What did your post have to do with the subject?
Nothing?

It was a browbeating comment but made for a good reason... Corsair should have to bother with your pesky arguing just to argue banter no longer. Swallow your pride and walk way. Because the audience has already turned brutus and nolonger sees your relevance Caesar.

You want to argue a "what if" yet the facts don't back you up at all. you're speaking nothing but conjecture fruit cup.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 11:05 AM

YES, the SPP has ZERO authority to do ANYTHING except talk and debate. Countries national policies will not change based on ANYTHING the SPP comes up with, until those changes are approved by the countries' legislative bodies.

It is designed to function within the authority of the executive branch thus neglecting the congress entirely.

Horatius

19th January 2008, 11:16 AM

It is designed to function within the authority of the executive branch thus neglecting the congress entirely.

Once again showing that you haven't bothered to read anything.

Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.

Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.

Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.

Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.

Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.

Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

WildCat

19th January 2008, 11:28 AM

Once again showing that you haven't bothered to read anything.
What's amazing is the the SPP CT nutters have created such a buzz that that Q&A had to be published.

Jonnyclueless

19th January 2008, 11:31 AM

It is designed to function within the authority of the executive branch thus neglecting the congress entirely.

Ah so now the executive branch can do anything it wants without authority from congress eh? Kinda makes you wonder what the point is in having the other branches if the executive branch over rides them eh? Maybe you can explain this for us. Please, continue. And tell us about this authority that SPP has as well.

abenja1

19th January 2008, 04:18 PM

Are you really arguing that the facts from a source you trust are not relevant because he has distrusted them in the past?

:eek:

I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the truther agenda. If HH is going to go OOOOOOOOO THE EVIL MAINSTREAM CORPORATE MEDIA IS BRAINWASHING US and then in a thread a week later post a story from CBS, ABC, or any other mainstream media that fits his agenda I'm calling him out in it. He can't have it both ways. If you go to Prison Planet, you will see it happen all the time.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 04:31 PM

Ah so now the executive branch can do anything it wants without authority from congress eh? Kinda makes you wonder what the point is in having the other branches if the executive branch over rides them eh? Maybe you can explain this for us. Please, continue. And tell us about this authority that SPP has as well.

This is a long standing point of mine.

You let me know when the last war that America fought was declared by congress, and how many wars have been fought undeclared since.

The above is just the most easily understood example.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 04:35 PM

Once again showing that you haven't bothered to read anything.

Once again showing that you haven't bothered to comprehend what you have copy/pasted out side of the headlines and bullets.

Corsair 115

19th January 2008, 04:39 PM

Wanna' bet?

If it happens by 2110 then you have to change your title to: Jerome is the greatest!Not if it happens after I die. Then I won't have to say anything! :D

Horatius

19th January 2008, 04:46 PM

Once again showing that you haven't bothered to comprehend what you have copy/pasted out side of the headlines and bullets.

Once again, making allusions that you comprehend things better than us, but not making any attempt to explain or demonstrate that alleged comprehension beyond making obviously erroneous statements that are easily refuted.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 04:57 PM

Once again, making allusions that you comprehend things better than us, but not making any attempt to explain or demonstrate that alleged comprehension beyond making obviously erroneous statements that are easily refuted.

Better than us?

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Who is "us"?

I am honestly confused by this statement.

WildCat

19th January 2008, 05:05 PM

You let me know when the last war that America fought was declared by congress, and how many wars have been fought undeclared since.
Can you show me the Declaration of War for the first Barbary War in 1801? The one waged by a US President (Jefferson) who was also one of the Founding Fathers? :rolleyes:

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 05:12 PM

Can you show me the Declaration of War for the first Barbary War in 1801? The one waged by a US President (Jefferson) who was also one of the Founding Fathers? :rolleyes:

Yusuf Karamanli declared war on the United States.

WildCat

19th January 2008, 05:14 PM

Yusuf Karamanli declared war on the United States.
So what? So did OBL. As did Japan and Germany, yet there was still a formal declaration of war.

Or maybe Congressional approval is all that the Constitution actually requires after all?

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 05:16 PM

So what? So did OBL.

Is he the head of state for Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran?

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 05:18 PM

Or maybe Congressional approval is all that the Constitution actually requires after all?

Or maybe when war is declared against your country another declaration of war is redundant.

Corsair 115

19th January 2008, 05:22 PM

This declaration of war stuff is interesting, but what exactly is its connection to the alleged NAU?

WildCat

19th January 2008, 05:23 PM

Is he the head of state for Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran?
He's the head of the organization we are at war with.

The Constitution mandates no specific language for a war declaration. It's quite clear that all that is necessary is Congressional approval.

WildCat

19th January 2008, 05:26 PM

This declaration of war stuff is interesting, but what exactly is its connection to the alleged NAU?
Apparently Jerome is claiming that the POTUS is using unconstitutional powers for war, and thus there is precedent for the POTUS to use unconstitutioinal powers to form a NAU.

Of course, the precedent was set in 1801 by one of the Founding Fathers, so his case is extremely weak at best.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 05:28 PM

This declaration of war stuff is interesting, but what exactly is its connection to the alleged NAU?

The premise that the laws and structure of the US government are not currently being followed. This allows for the executive branch to exercise authority to put into practice recommendations of the SPP without the need of congress.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 05:34 PM

He's the head of the organization we are at war with.

Al qaeda? When did they take charge of the three nations we are talking about?

The Constitution mandates no specific language for a war declaration. It's quite clear that all that is necessary is Congressional approval.

To declare War

Nope. It's only three words, very clear.

It is clear that congress has the power to declare war. It does not have to power to allow the president to declare war.

WildCat

19th January 2008, 05:46 PM

It is clear that congress has the power to declare war. It does not have to power to allow the president to declare war.
Absolutely true. That's why there is this Authorization For Use Of Military Force (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm) against terrorists and the nations that support them, and this one for Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html).

There's the Congressional approval demanded by the Constitution. All you're doing is arguing semantics, which is silly since there is no specific wording demanded by the Constitution.

Corsair 115

19th January 2008, 05:56 PM

The premise that the laws and structure of the US government are not currently being followed. This allows for the executive branch to exercise authority to put into practice recommendations of the SPP without the need of congress.Seems an awfully thin premise. "Thin? Damn near invisible." (Bonus points to anyone who can cite the movie that line comes from!)

The amount of rules, regulations, standards, codes, procedures, and practices that would have to be changed in order to unify the three countries is staggering. It's not something that can be cobbled together in a few pages, it'd be an utterly massive undertaking.

Just look at the financial industry for example. In the U.S., a rather large and problematic subprime mortgage crisis. In Canada, no such subprime mortgage crisis. The reason? Different financial regulations and practices in Canada as compared to the U.S.

So whose financial laws get adopted?

I can't speak to the U.S., but in Canada if the public complains loudly about something politicians pay attention. Some years back the big banks here wanted the legislation changed so that they could merge; the public made it very clear to the Liberal government of the day that they were not in favour of the idea. The idea was shelved. Even now, the Conservative government announced recently that it would not be allowing bank mergers any time soon. (They know a political loser of an idea when they see one.)

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 05:58 PM

Absolutely true. That's why there is this Authorization For Use Of Military Force (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm) against terrorists and the nations that support them, and this one for Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html).

There's the Congressional approval demanded by the Constitution. All you're doing is arguing semantics, which is silly since there is no specific wording demanded by the Constitution.

The constitution does not give the congress the authority to give their authority to declare war to the president.

I know they have done this, that's the point!

Checkmite

19th January 2008, 07:43 PM

It is designed to function within the authority of the executive branch thus neglecting the congress entirely.

But its function is nothing but dialogue. It is not designed to initiate any action or make any binding policy.
It's job is only to consult and suggest courses of action.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 07:48 PM

But its function is nothing but dialogue. It is not designed to initiate any action or make any binding policy.
It's job is only to consult and suggest courses of action.

It is headed by the executives of the three nations. You can not honestly divorce the heads of the organization from their positions as the heads of the nations they are representing.

Horatius

19th January 2008, 09:14 PM

Better than us?

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Who is "us"?

I am honestly confused by this statement.

The "us" would be everybody (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3328964#post3328964) who (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3329015#post3329015) has quoted (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3330278#post3330278) the same document (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3330428#post3330428) to you several times.

For someone who alludes to having a better comprehension of the written word than I, or the others linked above, you really do seem to have trouble following the thread of a conversation.

You claim to have read the document you've been linked to several times, and yet, you don't seem to remember it from one day to the next....Why exactly should any of "us" be impressed with your level of comprehension, given your seeming inability to recall simple things for more than a day?

But hey, don't let me get in the way of your next dismissive non-reply.

Jonnyclueless

19th January 2008, 09:25 PM

This is a long standing point of mine.

You let me know when the last war that America fought was declared by congress, and how many wars have been fought undeclared since.

The above is just the most easily understood example.

Well for one thing declaring war does not represent the power ot eh executive branch. There are cases where the time it would take to get congressional approval for an attack would be a national security issue. For instance if Russia launched a nuclear attack on us. Someone has to respond. This is why the president is allowed to delcare war for a brief period. But eventually it has to be approved by congress. Just like the Afghan and Iraq war were approved.

You're being pretty dishonest and using strawman arguments.

Horatius

19th January 2008, 09:27 PM

It is headed by the executives of the three nations. You can not honestly divorce the heads of the organization from their positions as the heads of the nations they are representing.

Uh-huh. Yeah, except it isn't, really.

The three leaders instructed each nation to establish ministerial-level Security and Prosperity working groups. Secretary Chertoff chairs the security agenda while Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, chairs the prosperity agenda.

Taken from a report to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations (http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/testimony/testimony_0053.shtm).

So where does the "neglecting the congress entirely" part come into it again?

Jonnyclueless

19th January 2008, 09:28 PM

The constitution does not give the congress the authority to give their authority to declare war to the president.

I know they have done this, that's the point!

The constitution isn't a list of things that are allowed. The Constitution is a list of exceptions. A democracy lets the people make any rules the people want. The constitution is an exception to that. Basically a list saying (well, you can't do this).

It's not a list of what CAN be done, but what CAN'T.

Do you understand the purpose of the constitution OR the executive branch? There IS a purpose for the executive branch if you didn't know.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 09:29 PM

For someone who alludes to having a better comprehension of the written word than I, or the others linked above, you really do seem to have trouble following the thread of a conversation.

Ever think the appearance of allusions could be projection? I leave it to you to discern who and why.

You claim to have read the document you've been linked to several times, and yet, you don't seem to remember it from one day to the next....Why exactly should any of "us" be impressed with your level of comprehension, given your seeming inability to recall simple things for more than a day?

O.K., WE will give it a go.

The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

The President can act unilaterally under the authority of executively controlled entities. With this power he can implement the recommendations which are agreed upon by the three executives of sovereign nations contained within the "non-treaty".

Please explain how acting upon an agreement with others nations without the approval of the congress is constitutional.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th January 2008, 09:35 PM

The constitution isn't a list of things that are allowed. The Constitution is a list of exceptions. A democracy lets the people make any rules the people want. The constitution is an exception to that. Basically a list saying (well, you can't do this).

It's not a list of what CAN be done, but what CAN'T.

Do you understand the purpose of the constitution OR the executive branch? There IS a purpose for the executive branch if you didn't know.

Nope. You are familiar with the phrase "all rights reserved"?

I says right in the document that the federal government can ONLY do what the document states it can do.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Corsair 115

19th January 2008, 10:43 PM

It is headed by the executives of the three nations. You can not honestly divorce the heads of the organization from their positions as the heads of the nations they are representing.Ultimately means nothing since any legislation still has to pass through Congress or Parliament. Prime Ministers here have had to, on occasion, step back from proposed legislation due to the public backlash.

Horatius

19th January 2008, 11:07 PM

Ever think the appearance of allusions could be projection? I leave it to you to discern who and why.

Once again showing that you haven't bothered to comprehend what you have copy/pasted out side of the headlines and bullets.

Yeah, sure, I'm projecting. Right. :rolleyes:

O.K., WE will give it a go.

The President can act unilaterally under the authority of executively controlled entities. With this power he can implement the recommendations which are agreed upon by the three executives of sovereign nations contained within the "non-treaty".

Please explain how acting upon an agreement with others nations without the approval of the congress is constitutional.

Except that he can't. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/blfedregs_c.htm)

Federal regulations created by the regulatory agencies are subject to review by both the president and Congress under Executive Order 12866 and the Congressional Review Act of 1966.

Congress may not choose to use it's power, but the power is there. The President can't just wave his hand and make new law. Ultimately, the legislative authority to implement regulations comes from the Congress, which passes the legislation that establishes the regulatory agencies, and which oversees the regulatory actions of these agencies.

proxywar

19th January 2008, 11:31 PM

Horatius your link doesn't work.

Horatius

20th January 2008, 07:18 AM

Hmmm....still works for me. Odd. Try it again, and if it still doesn't work, I'll try to find another site.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 07:41 AM

Ultimately means nothing since any legislation still has to pass through Congress or Parliament. Prime Ministers here have had to, on occasion, step back from proposed legislation due to the public backlash.

No, all agencies under the authority of the executive write regulations that are not voted upon by congress. Think about executive orders which are in effect law.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 07:43 AM

Except that he can't. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/blfedregs_c.htm)

You just presented an executive order to evidence that executives do not write law. That's ironic, don't you think?

Horatius

20th January 2008, 09:55 AM

And you didn't bother to read the link again, did you?

While some requirements of Executive Order 12866 apply only to executive branch agencies, all federal regulatory agencies fall under the controls of the Congressional Review Act.

And that's not ironic, it's pretty much exactly what I expected from you.

And now I'm done. You don't have any interest in learning anything. Everyone else here is posting links and quotes from actual sources to support their views, while you do nothing but post bare allegations backed up by nothing more than your own paranoia and self importance. Perhaps you should take a long look at how it is you've come to believe as you do, considered in this light.

Perhaps you should, but you won't.

Have fun wallowing in your self deception.

Checkmite

20th January 2008, 09:56 AM

It is headed by the executives of the three nations. You can not honestly divorce the heads of the organization from their positions as the heads of the nations they are representing.

It means nothing. The president of the US appoints an ambassador to the United Nations; therefore, the ambassador represents the president and speaks with his authority.

Yet CONGRESS still has to vote on whether or not the US will abide by any resolutions the UN passes, no matter what the president (through his ambassador) says about the matter.

Same thing with the SPP.

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 10:46 AM

Nope. You are familiar with the phrase "all rights reserved"?

I says right in the document that the federal government can ONLY do what the document states it can do.

And hopefully you will realize that that doesn't help your argument. Nor does it change that you are jumping from one strawman to another. I recommend studying what the executive branch does and why we have one, and why it's a bad idea to go with your ideals of there being no executive branch and having everything decided by congress.

But in the meantime we'll jump from NAU, to SPP, to executive branch, and whatever other dance you can do to pretend the NAU is real.

Corsair 115

20th January 2008, 11:28 AM

No, all agencies under the authority of the executive write regulations that are not voted upon by congress. Think about executive orders which are in effect law.Then perhaps you can explain why President Bush didn't ram through his proposed changes to Social Security from a few years back if he had such power to ignore Congress at his whim.

You're seriously trying to claim Bush (or any president) could ram through a "North American Union," something far more complex and wide-ranging than reforming Social Security?

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 11:36 AM

Then perhaps you can explain why President Bush didn't ram through his proposed changes to Social Security from a few years back if he had such power to override Congress at his whim.

You're seriously trying to claim Bush (or any president) could ram through a "North American Union," something far more complex and wide-ranging than reforming Social Security?

Because what he stated that he wanted done was not in reality what he wanted done.

HERE (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010502-5.html) is what he wanted done and did do.

Pay particular attention to the restrictions placed on the commission formed and contrast this to the rhetoric that he presented to the public.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 11:38 AM

And hopefully you will realize that that doesn't help your argument. Nor does it change that you are jumping from one strawman to another. I recommend studying what the executive branch does and why we have one, and why it's a bad idea to go with your ideals of there being no executive branch and having everything decided by congress.

But in the meantime we'll jump from NAU, to SPP, to executive branch, and whatever other dance you can do to pretend the NAU is real.

I am sorry that you attempted to excoriate me and found yourself lost in the simple language of the constitution which contradicts your point.

Please, explain how what the constitution says evidences your point and not mine.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 11:41 AM

It means nothing. The president of the US appoints an ambassador to the United Nations; therefore, the ambassador represents the president and speaks with his authority.

Yet CONGRESS still has to vote on whether or not the US will abide by any resolutions the UN passes, no matter what the president (through his ambassador) says about the matter.

Same thing with the SPP.

Opps, according to the SPP facts/myths section this in not true. Apparently the departments under the executive will be acting upon the initiatives of the council.

The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP.

WildCat

20th January 2008, 11:43 AM

Apparently the departments under the executive will be acting upon the initiatives of the council.
And the next POTUS can do what they wish with the SPP. The executive branch is allowed under the Constitution to actually do things you know... there's that whole separation of powers thing you may wish to become acquainted with.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 11:44 AM

And you didn't bother to read the link again, did you?

Of course I did. That is how I knew that you presented an executive order (presidential created law) as an example of the president not creating law.
:boggled:

WildCat

20th January 2008, 11:46 AM

Of course I did. That is how I knew that you presented an executive order (presidential created law) as an example of the president not creating law.
:boggled:
It's not law. It's a directive to agencies under the control of the Executive Branch.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 11:46 AM

And the next POTUS can do what they wish with the SPP. The executive branch is allowed under the Constitution to actually do things you know... there's that whole separation of powers thing you may wish to become acquainted with.

Sure, the next POTUS can do what they wish, this does not make it legal. The separation of powers is delineated in the constitution and the executive making and acting upon treaties is a violation of this separation.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 11:48 AM

It's not law. It's a directive to agencies under the control of the Executive Branch.

Equivocation! :)

WildCat

20th January 2008, 11:55 AM

Sure, the next POTUS can do what they wish, this does not make it legal. The separation of powers is delineated in the constitution and the executive making and acting upon treaties is a violation of this separation.
It's not a treaty of any sort. And the POTUS doesn't need Congressional approval to issue directives to the agencies under his control.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 11:59 AM

It's not a treaty of any sort.

Just an agreement between heads of state. :boggled:

And the POTUS doesn't need Congressional approval to issue directives to the agencies under his control.

My point exactly.

Corsair 115

20th January 2008, 12:08 PM

Because what he stated that he wanted done was not in reality what he wanted done.

HERE (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010502-5.html) is what he wanted done and did do.

Pay particular attention to the restrictions placed on the commission formed and contrast this to the rhetoric that he presented to the public.That is beside the point of the President having the power to enforce his decisions regardless of Congress, which is what you've been claiming in regard to the supposed NAU. So does the President have the power to ram through anything he wants or does he not?

If the President does not, then the NAU is dead on delivery. (It'd be dead on delivery in Canada in any case, regardless of what happens in the U.S.)

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 12:16 PM

That is beside the point of the President having the power to enforce his decisions regardless of Congress, which is what you've been claiming in regard to the supposed NAU. So does the President have the power to ram through anything he wants or does he not?

If the President does not, then the NAU is dead on delivery. (It'd be dead on delivery in Canada in any case, regardless of what happens in the U.S.)

You seem to be under the impression that there is going to be some big public celebration of the NAU initiation date. It is being done incrementally under the public radar.

I still remember when the trade treaties were proposed in Europe that the people who pointed out that this would lead to a European Union were called names.

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 01:17 PM

I am sorry that you attempted to excoriate me and found yourself lost in the simple language of the constitution which contradicts your point.

Please, explain how what the constitution says evidences your point and not mine.

Go back and read now. If you can't understand it, then I can't help you. But this is to be expected from someone who pretends the NAU is for real by pointing out the SPP. And when that gets shot down, uses a strawman argument about how the executive branch can do anything it wants because it can declare war for 30 days. And to be expected from someone who doesn't understand the reasoning for this.

And we'll all pretend that we don't see that you have yet to be able substantiate this NAU and aren't doing a cute little song and dance to skirt the issue here.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 01:19 PM

Go back and read now. If you can't understand it, then I can't help you. But this is to be expected from someone who pretends the NAU is for real by pointing out the SPP. And when that gets shot down, uses a strawman argument about how the executive branch can do anything it wants because it can declare war for 30 days. And to be expected from someone who doesn't understand the reasoning for this.

And we'll all pretend that we don't see that you have yet to be able substantiate this NAU and aren't doing a cute little song and dance to skirt the issue here.

Please, explain how what the constitution says evidences your point and not mine.

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 01:20 PM

You seem to be under the impression that there is going to be some big public celebration of the NAU initiation date. It is being done incrementally under the public radar.

I still remember when the trade treaties were proposed in Europe that the people who pointed out that this would lead to a European Union were called names.

Ah so its a super secret treaty to merge 3 countries that no one will happen to notice until it happens. No one except for you of course. And thank goodness we have you to help save the world. Of course you have yet to provide a shread of evidence to this nonsense, but as long as you keep dancing around and bringing up strawman arguments maybe we'll all be duped.

And the european union is nothing like the conspiracy claims about the NAU. And no one was called names except for the idiots who tried to claim the EU was some plot to merge all the countries in some dictatorship orwellian scenario. Which of course the EU being created proved them to be idiots.

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 01:21 PM

Please, explain how what the constitution says evidences your point and not mine.

Now read the thread you are responding to as well as the one where I already explained that.

NOW explain how this proves your claim about the NAU.

Horatius

20th January 2008, 01:43 PM

Because what he stated that he wanted done was not in reality what he wanted done.

HERE (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010502-5.html) is what he wanted done and did do.

Oh my ****ing science....You're trying to use the establishment of a committee to support your allegations that the president can create law by fiat?

Section 1. Establishment. There is established the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security (Commission).

...

Sec. 3. Mission. The mission of the Commission shall be to submit to the President bipartisan recommendations to modernize and restore fiscal soundness to the Social Security system...

And even at that, they aren't intended to work independently of the Congress:

(d) The Commission shall receive input from and provide briefings to the Congress, by procedures determined by the President in consultation with the congressional leadership and the Commission. Public hearings shall be held at the call of the co-chairs, in consultation with the President.

That's it, I really am done now.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 01:48 PM

And the european union is nothing like the conspiracy claims about the NAU. And no one was called names except for the idiots who tried to claim the EU was some plot to merge all the countries in some dictatorship orwellian scenario. Which of course the EU being created proved them to be idiots.

Ahh, so there were people called names and told that an EU was not being created.

Gotcha'!, because the most extreme views presented did not come true...? Where were you going with this?

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 01:52 PM

Now read the thread you are responding to as well as the one where I already explained that.

I can understand why you are refusing to explain how these words from the constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", mean that the government can do what ever the consitution states it can not do.

Because there is no way to come to that thought!
:D

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 01:54 PM

Oh my ****ing science....You're trying to use the establishment of a committee to support your allegations that the president can create law by fiat?

No, the president can already create laws. These are called executive orders.

You have the support structure of my argument reversed.

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 02:26 PM

Ahh, so there were people called names and told that an EU was not being created.

Gotcha'!, because the most extreme views presented did not come true...? Where were you going with this?

Nice attempt to dodge, but it didn't work. More strawman I see. Is this going to happen with every single post?

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 02:29 PM

I can understand why you are refusing to explain how these words from the constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", mean that the government can do what ever the consitution states it can not do.

Because there is no way to come to that thought!
:D

I can understand why you refuse to read my post where it was explained. I can also understand why you continually change what I said to match what you want as well. but luckily my post is there for everyone to read.

It;s ashame people such as yourself have to be so dishonest in sad attempts to prolong such nonsense conspiracies. It's ashame you have to dodge issues and use strawman arguments and silly posts like this to try and distract everyone from the fact that you cannot back up that NAU claim and have jump from one strawman to another. We go from NAU, to SPP, to absurd claims about the executive branch, to the EU, to changing those claims about the EU, to taking the constitution out of context. Sad, just really sad. Anything you can do to keep up the fantasy I guess.

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 02:37 PM

No, the president can already create laws. These are called executive orders.

You have the support structure of my argument reversed.

And that still does not make them laws. And they can be overturned by the courts. And to do away with this power would cripple the country. An executive order is not a law. But I am sure people such as yourself love to use extreme cases as what is the norm. Much like you do the case for war. And as always ignoring the need for this and the pretending it means the executive branch can just do anything it wants and everyone else is powerless. Of course in your world I am sure they have this power, are run by greedy people who control everything and have not yet taken over the world because....well, there is no because, for some reason they just haven't gotten around to it yet huh?

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 02:39 PM

Nice attempt to dodge, but it didn't work. More strawman I see. Is this going to happen with every single post?

You are a joke right?

Please present any post you have made in this thread which presents anything more than an accusation without any form of supporting evidence.

You make me smile. :D

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 02:42 PM

And that still does not make them laws. And they can be overturned by the courts. And to do away with this power would cripple the country. An executive order is not a law. But I am sure people such as yourself love to use extreme cases as what is the norm. Much like you do the case for war. And as always ignoring the need for this and the pretending it means the executive branch can just do anything it wants and everyone else is powerless. Of course in your world I am sure they have this power, are run by greedy people who control everything and have not yet taken over the world because....well, there is no because, for some reason they just haven't gotten around to it yet huh?

Delusional rant much?

:D :D :D

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 03:03 PM

You are a joke right?

Please present any post you have made in this thread which presents anything more than an accusation without any form of supporting evidence.

You make me smile. :D

Oh isn't that irony!!!!!

Yes because you would NEVER present an accusation without any form of supporting evidence!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Nice dodge in response to a previous dodge of yours.

Yeah delusional rants..... Nothing delusional coming from you as you jump from one strawman to the next. My favorite strawman being the one about people being laughed at about the EU. Boy does that really prove your littel NAU fantasy.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 03:10 PM

Nice dodge in response to a previous dodge of yours.

I responded to my own dodge with a dodge? :confused:

Yeah delusional rants..... Nothing delusional coming from you as you jump from one strawman to the next. My favorite strawman being the one about people being laughed at about the EU. Boy does that really prove your littel NAU fantasy.

What I presented was an anecdote. This is much different than a straw-man fallacy.

:D :D :D

You must be playing a game here. :)

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 03:21 PM

I responded to my own dodge with a dodge? :confused:

What I presented was an anecdote. This is much different than a straw-man fallacy.

:D :D :D

You must be playing a game here. :)

No genius, you responded to me pointing out your dodge with yet another dodge.

What you presented was in no way shape or form an anecdote. You are trying to lead people to believe that the NAU is legitimate by using strawman arguments, such as the SPP, misleading claims about the power of the executive branch, misleading claims about the EU, misleading claims about war, etc etc. And of course you still have never been able to provide any real evidence to substantiate these fantasies about the NAU. And even when discussing the SPP and it's shown to you that your claims were wrong, your response is basically "well that's what they are telling you and since they are part of the diabolical plot they must be lying". Yeah, and *I* am the one playing games? Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure your cute little tricks might impress other people who fall for that NAU nonsense, but to reasonable people it doesn't work.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 03:28 PM

No genius, you responded to me pointing out your dodge with yet another dodge.

What you presented was in no way shape or form an anecdote. You are trying to lead people to believe that the NAU is legitimate by using strawman arguments, such as the SPP, misleading claims about the power of the executive branch, misleading claims about the EU, misleading claims about war, etc etc. And of course you still have never been able to provide any real evidence to substantiate these fantasies about the NAU. And even when discussing the SPP and it's shown to you that your claims were wrong, your response is basically "well that's what they are telling you and since they are part of the diabolical plot they must be lying". Yeah, and *I* am the one playing games? Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure your cute little tricks might impress other people who fall for that NAU nonsense, but to reasonable people it doesn't work.

Even if everything you said above is correct, none of it is a straw-man fallacy.

:D :D :D

Here you go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

The page even has a picture. :cool:

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 03:31 PM

Wow, I thought you were delusional, but I had no idea how much. I encourage everyone to click the link there and read the thread. Thanks for driving my point home. Good work!!

twinstead

20th January 2008, 03:34 PM

Jerome are you going to argue the definition of strawman, or are you going to address the substantial rational issues raised concerning your theories?

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 03:35 PM

Wow, I thought you were delusional, but I had no idea how much. I encourage everyone to click the link there and read the thread. Thanks for driving my point home. Good work!!

Please explain what opponents position I misrepresented.

You should quit soon. The size of the hole you are digging is becoming a mockery.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 03:36 PM

Jerome are you going to argue the definition of strawman, or are you going to address the substantial rational issues raised concerning your theories?

I have been. Have you read the thread up to this silly talk?

twinstead

20th January 2008, 03:37 PM

I have been. Have you read the thread up to this silly talk?

I have not only read the thread up to this point, but have studied the NAU theories extensively, thank you very much.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 03:41 PM

Jerome, could you clarify some things for me?

What, exactly, would the "laws" that the President would pass to for this NAU look like?

Since this president won't be around for its formation, which candidates will form the union?

Considering the war(s), Congress could end them if they were to vote to defund them. What would prevent Congress from stepping in to prevent this takeover?

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 03:41 PM

I have been. Have you read the thread up to this silly talk?

NO, you haven't and that has been the entire point of this whole absurd argument which serves as one giant dodge by you to avoid addressing the actual issue.

So now you go from NAU, to SPP, the misleading claims about the executive branch, to misleading claims about the constitutions, to misleading claims about EU, to misleading claims about strawman arguments, and many other conspiracy shuffle hops in between there. Yet you never ever present anything to substantiate the NAU claim which IS what the thread is about.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 03:42 PM

I have not only read the thread up to this point, but have studied the NAU theories extensively, thank you very much.

You should read this thread. My thoughts are brilliant! ;)

twinstead

20th January 2008, 03:45 PM

I have to agree with jonnyclueless, Jerome. I can't think of ANY way the president of the United States alone could manage to successfully enact what you say he could. And, that doesn't even count Canada and Mexico's assured reservations.

This whole idea is ludicrous. It's just a right wing conspiracy theory, pursued because I suppose you must be jealous of all the left-wing conspiracy theories out there.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 03:50 PM

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 03:53 PM

twinstead

20th January 2008, 03:54 PM

Then why does the SPP state that the executive authority will be used to implement the plans?

What it states and what is feasible may be two different things, perhaps? Exactly how far do you think executive authority goes?

Do you think that Bush will just call a news conference one day and say, "oh, by the way, Mexico, Canada, and the USA are now one nation"?

twinstead

20th January 2008, 03:55 PM

Here's one for Jonnyclueless. The above is an argument from personal incredulity.

So explain exactly how this would take place? You can't very well accuse me of this without explaining to me exactly how what I think is incredulous could take place, can you?

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 04:00 PM

So explain exactly how this would take place? You can't very well accuse me of this without explaining to me exactly how what I think is incredulous could take place, can you?

You are right, that was a bit uncivil. Sorry. :o

The president has authority over executive domain, as such he will have those dominions enact the recommendations of the "non-treaty" that he agreed to with the two other heads of State.

twinstead

20th January 2008, 04:00 PM

http://www.alternet.org/audits/54184/?page=1

If there were a real movement to create an NAU in the form envisioned by the reactionary oddballs at WorldNetDaily -- there isn't -- it would quickly be rejected not only by most Americans, but also by every member of Congress who likes the idea of serving another term.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 04:07 PM

The president has authority over executive domain, as such he will have those dominions enact the recommendations of the "non-treaty" that he agreed to with the two other heads of State.

Could you please be a little more specific? Like what these "recommedations" would look like?

And I'd appreciate answers to my other questions.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 04:09 PM

Then why does the SPP state that the executive authority will be used to implement the plans?

Link to that please?

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 04:09 PM

http://www.alternet.org/audits/54184/?page=1

That is motive for not advertising the process.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 04:14 PM

Link to that please?

This is kind of funny. It is in the link from the SPP website which was used as evidence that I am wrong. I am only laughing at the irony.

SPP.GOV (http://www.spp.gov/)

Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.

Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.

Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.

Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP.If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

twinstead

20th January 2008, 04:23 PM

That is motive for not advertising the process.

All I ask is exactly how a member of the executive branch would be able to bring about such sweeping, constitution busting change without approval of Congress.

All I ask is how a sitting president would be able, without the support of the American people or Congress, be able to form a North American Union?

Is that so hard?

While you're at it, could you please provide evidence that this is actively being pursued by the Bush administration.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 04:24 PM

The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP.

Jerome, I have absolutely no idea how what you posted has to do with executive authority.

Could you elaborate?

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 04:33 PM

Jerome, I have absolutely no idea how what you posted has to do with executive authority.

Could you elaborate?

Those agencies are under the authority of the executive.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 04:40 PM

Those agencies are under the authority of the executive.

That doesn't answer my question. Cabinet departments aren't able to unilaterally enact legislation (see the furor over the Patriot Act).

And PLEASE answer the other questions.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 04:53 PM

All I ask is exactly how a member of the executive branch would be able to bring about such sweeping, constitution busting change without approval of Congress.

Incrementally.

All I ask is how a sitting president would be able, without the support of the American people or Congress, be able to form a North American Union?

Slow and steady, like the tortoise in the race with the hare.

While you're at it, could you please provide evidence that this is actively being pursued by the Bush administration.

That would take some extensive research which is impossible because the public is not privy to the exact measures of the agreements.

The SPP website tells us that executive agencies will be the tool of implementation, just not the specifics.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 04:55 PM

That doesn't answer my question. Cabinet departments aren't able to unilaterally enact legislation (see the furor over the Patriot Act).

And PLEASE answer the other questions.

I am not sure what it is you are asking for.

Please, give me all the questions you have and I will attempt to answer them as best I can.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 05:00 PM

Here are the questions:

What, exactly, would the "laws" that the President would pass to for this NAU look like?

Since this president won't be around for its formation, which candidates will form the union?

Considering the war(s), Congress could end them if they were to vote to defund them. What would prevent Congress from stepping in to prevent this takeover?

And I would ask you to be more specific than you were with twinstead. "Incrementally" and "Slow and steady" are not answers. You are making specific allegations here, you must have a pretty good idea how this will come to pass, otherwise you would not be able to be so sure of yourself.

twinstead

20th January 2008, 05:04 PM

And I would ask you to be more specific than you were with twinstead. "Incrementally" and "Slow and steady" are not answers. You are making specific allegations here, you must have a pretty good idea how this will come to pass, otherwise you would not be able to be so sure of yourself.

I would imagine that he would indeed have extremely specific answers to your and my questions, otherwise how could he be so sure of himself?

So. My angle is that even if, and this is a big IF, the POTUS wanted to merge the US, Canada, and Mexico into a union, the American, Mexican, and Canadian people, as well as the US congress, would not only WANT to stop it dead, but would be able to easily.

An executive order would only get one so far. This is too far.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 05:10 PM

I am not sure what it is you are asking for.

You said that the president would use "executive authority" to enact this takeover. I merely pointed out that the cabinet departments aren't able to make law on their own, without Congress, and I pointed out the furor over the Patriot Act as proof. If Bush wanted that so bad, why didn't he just use his executive authority to enact it?

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 05:11 PM

What, exactly, would the "laws" that the President would pass to for this NAU look like?

No laws exactly. This is the beauty of bureaucracies, they enact policy.

Since this president won't be around for its formation, which candidates will form the union?

Hillary, was it not her husband that set the ball rolling?

Considering the war(s), Congress could end them if they were to vote to defund them. What would prevent Congress from stepping in to prevent this takeover?

Now you are thinking! Nothing could stop congress from de-funding most anything the executive does. Of course congress could de-fund the war. Now the question becomes: Why did the Dems run on stopping the war during the mid-term elections and not stop the war after winning?

And I would ask you to be more specific than you were with twinstead. "Incrementally" and "Slow and steady" are not answers. You are making specific allegations here, you must have a pretty good idea how this will come to pass, otherwise you would not be able to be so sure of yourself.

All I can tell you is how the SPP agreement; of which the executives of three nations were the parties, tells us it is to be implemented.

The SPP stated that it will be implemented slowly through the bureaucracies under the control of the executive.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 05:15 PM

I would imagine that he would indeed have extremely specific answers to your and my questions, otherwise how could he be so sure of himself?

My point exactly. If there is some mechanism to do this, I would assume he'd have some idea how it worked.

An executive order would only get one so far. This is too far.

Not to mention EOs have limits.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 05:16 PM

An executive order would only get one so far. This is too far.

The executive order was only brought into the conversation because someone linked to an executive order as if it were law to present that the executive had no ability to create law.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 05:22 PM

You said that the president would use "executive authority" to enact this takeover. I merely pointed out that the cabinet departments aren't able to make law on their own, without Congress, and I pointed out the furor over the Patriot Act as proof. If Bush wanted that so bad, why didn't he just use his executive authority to enact it?

I didn't call it a take over, and I am not certain as to my feelings concerning the benefits and faults of a NAU. It may very well be a good move for all three nations. A secure border, free trade, free movement of populations?

The cabinet departments constantly make policies which are in essence law. This power is abdicated by congress because this insulates them from reprisal from their constituents. It is a win, win.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 05:24 PM

No laws exactly. This is the beauty of bureaucracies, they enact policy.

OK, then what policies will they enact???

Hillary, was it not her husband that set the ball rolling?

I asked what candidates support usurping Congress and enacting the stealth NAU.

Now you are thinking! Nothing could stop congress from de-funding most anything the executive does. Of course congress could de-fund the war. Now the question becomes: Why did the Dems run on stopping the war during the mid-term elections and not stop the war after winning?

You didn't answer my question. This is really getting silly.

All I can tell you is how the SPP agreement; of which the executives of three nations were the parties, tells us it is to be implemented.

And what, EXACTLY, does that say?

The SPP stated that it will be implemented slowly through the bureaucracies under the control of the executive.

No, it says that any recommendations will be addressed through the proper Cabinet departments. That includes Congressional oversight:

If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

Jerome, are you finally going to make a good faith effort to answer these questions, or are you going to continue this juvenille "gotcha"?

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 05:31 PM

The cabinet departments constantly make policies which are in essence law.

Examples please?

This power is abdicated by congress because this insulates them from reprisal from their constituents. It is a win, win.

In order for this to occur then, you are admitting that Congress will have to take specific action, abdication, which invalidates your "stealth" hypothesis.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 05:42 PM

OK, then what policies will they enact???

Policies that are stated in the SPP.

Have you read the SPP web site? or are you wanting me to find for you what I have already read?

I asked what candidates support usurping Congress and enacting the stealth NAU.

I answered. When Hillary wins you will have this conversation in the back of your mind. :)

You didn't answer my question. This is really getting silly.

I answered your question. Congress can de-fund almost anything the executive does.

And what, EXACTLY, does that say?

You can find EXACTLY what it says on the web-site SPP.org.

In general it is the melding of the regulations of the three nations concerning everything from health to transportation to trade to immigration to security.

No, it says that any recommendations will be addressed through the proper Cabinet departments. That includes Congressional oversight:

Are you under the impression that congress reviews the policies of the cabinets in a complete or consistent way?

I live in DC, and the majority of my friends and acquaintances work for the Federal government, this is not how government works.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 05:47 PM

Examples please?

EPA Laws and Regulations (http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/)

In order for this to occur then, you are admitting that Congress will have to take specific action, abdication, which invalidates your "stealth" hypothesis.

Congress has already abdicated its authority. That was the point with the declaration of war example. All congress has to do is nothing, and if a congress person speaks out against what is happening they are pasted with the label of loony conspiracy theorist.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 05:50 PM

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 05:55 PM

And now Jerome is doing what we call "making **** up". Thank you for sharing your fantasies of what you think will happen in your fantasy. This does not change the fact that Jerome has not provided a single piece of evidence to any of this nonsense.

Of course jermone points to the SPP web site as evidence. but when that proves him wrong, he simply dismisses it as them hiding the stuff that proves his claims. This is worse than the arguments made by Lisabob or Lastchild.

twinstead

20th January 2008, 05:56 PM

twinstead

20th January 2008, 05:57 PM

This is worse than the arguments made by Lisabob or Lastchild.

Wow. That's pretty hard to do.

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 05:59 PM

Jerome, I politely asked you for some idea as to how the president would implement a stealth surrender of our sovreignty to Mexico and Canada, and all I've gotten is complete evasion. It is plainly apparent you have no idea what you are talking about.

Honestly, if you can't answer these simple, straightforward questions, why should we believe you?

Because he can't. There's no question about this. Hence the need to constantly dance around the issue and make pure conjecture as an argument as well as constantly using out of context examples that really just show why we have an executive branch. His argument technique is identical to the federal reserve wooers.

Basically in his ideal world, there would be no executive branch and everything would be voted on by Congress. Of course this would be the worst thing that could ever happen as so many decisions need to be made in a realistic time manner and nothing would get done. Just imagine on 9/11 if instead of the vice president needing to make a shoot down order, it had to be voted on by congress.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 06:00 PM

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 06:04 PM

It appears that the only way you will see that you are wrong, jerome, is when the NAU doesn't come to pass. I don't have to convince you of anything.

Let's just wait and see what happens. One of us will be right. Let's see who.

Sure, that sounds reasonable. I was certain that this site does not count points for right and wrong.:) People can honestly disagree about circumstances, and I commend both you and Tomblvd for reasonable respectful disagreement.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 06:06 PM

Because he can't. There's no question about this. Hence the need to constantly dance around the issue and make pure conjecture as an argument as well as constantly using out of context examples that really just show why we have an executive branch. His argument technique is identical to the federal reserve wooers.

Basically in his ideal world, there would be no executive branch and everything would be voted on by Congress. Of course this would be the worst thing that could ever happen as so many decisions need to be made in a realistic time manner and nothing would get done. Just imagine on 9/11 if instead of the vice president needing to make a shoot down order, it had to be voted on by congress.

When are you going to answer that question concerning the constitution?

I guess you are just going to dance around the issue because you can not answer.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 06:09 PM

I have given you straight answers based on the information that is provided to the public. I have given you links to the resources where you can investigate further. I have evaded nothing.

"Look on the SPP website" is not an answer, especially since it says exactly the opposite of what you allege.

You are making extraordinary claims, so it is incumbent on you to support those claims. "Look it up" is not a satisfactory answer. It is, however, a typical evasion.

If you don't have any answers to these questions, how is it you are so sure this NAU will come to pass?

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 06:14 PM

When are you going to answer that question concerning the constitution?

I guess you are just going to dance around the issue because you can not answer.

what, for the fourth time now? When are you going to stop pretending that I didn't? Kind of ironic that you mention dancing around because now you have once again avoided the actual issue to again ask about the constitution despite 3 times already I reminded you that I already addressed it in this thread, and before you even asked the question.

You should be good at dancing by now. So much so that part of your dance is accusing others of it so you don't have to answer the guys question.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 06:16 PM

"Look on the SPP website" is not an answer, especially since it says exactly the opposite of what you allege.

You are making extraordinary claims, so it is incumbent on you to support those claims. "Look it up" is not a satisfactory answer. It is, however, a typical evasion.

If you don't have any answers to these questions, how is it you are so sure this NAU will come to pass?

I explained the process. Do you really need me to pull quotes from the web site which lay out this process?

Now when I pull quotes from the web site, what are you going to say?

This seems like a goose hunt. I have already pulled one quote from the SPP and you ignored it. Why in the world would I present more? So you can ignore that and then proceed to state that I am evading the question?

What is your response to my first quote from SPP?

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 06:18 PM

what, for the fourth time now? When are you going to stop pretending that I didn't? Kind of ironic that you mention dancing around because now you have once again avoided the actual issue to again ask about the constitution despite 3 times already I reminded you that I already addressed it in this thread, and before you even asked the question.

You should be good at dancing by now. So much so that part of your dance is accusing others of it so you don't have to answer the guys question.

Really, for the fifth time: Where did you address it? LINKY LINK?

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 06:21 PM

I explained the process. Do you really need me to pull quotes from the web site which lay out this process?

Is the SPP website to be trusted, or isn't it? But some quotes would be nice.

This seems like a goose hunt. I have already pulled one quote from the SPP and you ignored it. Why in the world would I present more? So you can ignore that and then proceed to state that I am evading the question?

What is your response to my first quote from SPP?

Post 161.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 06:26 PM

Really, for the fifth time: Where did you address it? LINKY LINK?

Really Jerome, you, of all people, should be the LAST person to lecture others on evading questions.

I asked for specifics on how the NAU would be legislated into existence: Nothing.

I asked what candidates running for president would enact the NAU: Nothing.

I asked how the NAU would come into being without support of congress considering they control the money: Evasion

Horatius

20th January 2008, 06:26 PM

"Look on the SPP website" is not an answer, especially since it says exactly the opposite of what you allege.

Get used to it, it's all he has. It's painfully clear that Jerome has serious comprehension issues when trying to read things. Take his interpretation of events in this thread as an example.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 06:33 PM

Is the SPP website to be trusted, or isn't it? But some quotes would be nice.

I never implied that it couldn't be trusted. In fact I recommended reading it.

Post 161.

All you said in this post was that you did not understand how the executive has authority over the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security.

Then we had a conversation concerning this.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 06:37 PM

Really Jerome, you, of all people, should be the LAST person to lecture others on evading questions.

I asked for specifics on how the NAU would be legislated into existence: Nothing.

I asked what candidates running for president would enact the NAU: Nothing.

I asked how the NAU would come into being without support of congress considering they control the money: Evasion

I was wrong about you being reasonable. You had me fooled.

I answered all those questions multiple times and you ignore them to present implied insults.

Good luck with that.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 06:44 PM

I never implied that it couldn't be trusted. In fact I recommended reading it.

I did and read this:

Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.

Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.

Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.

Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.

Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.

Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

And no, I see no inconsistencies in that last statement. You may thing Congress doesn't pay attention to what the Executive Branch does, but I know that if the president (and seeing as how his term is almost over, shouldn't he get going with this already?) tries to give away our sovreignty, there would be a whole lot of pissed off people. And no, this isn't something you can do a bit at a time and have no one notice.

Thus sayeth the SPP website, as worshipped by brother Jerome. Game over.

Tomblvd

20th January 2008, 06:47 PM

I was wrong about you being reasonable. You had me fooled.

I answered all those questions multiple times and you ignore them to present implied insults.

Good luck with that.

I honestly tried being reasonable, and all I got was evasion.

Trust me jerome, you aren't nearly as smart or clever as you think yourself to be.

LibraryLady

20th January 2008, 06:50 PM

Please keep the tone civil. It's just starting to veer off into insults.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 06:53 PM

I honestly tried being reasonable, and all I got was evasion.

Trust me jerome, you aren't nearly as smart or clever as you think yourself to be.

I'm not the one that did not understand that the executive had authority over the Commerce dept. and the Dept. of Homeland Security. :D

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 07:26 PM

Keep dancing, keep dancing. No one notice that he has yet to substantiate anything at all. Tap tap tap dance.

Elizabeth I

20th January 2008, 07:28 PM

This declaration of war stuff is interesting, but what exactly is its connection to the alleged NAU?

Maybe we're going to fight Canada?

JEROME DA GNOME

20th January 2008, 07:32 PM

Maybe we're going to fight Canada?

Nope, integral partners in both trade and security.

Jonnyclueless

20th January 2008, 07:38 PM

Nope, integral partners in both trade and security.

That's SPP, not NAU. The idea simply being to work together to help protect the borders and help with trade, Nothing to do with merging 3 countries. The NAU is completely theoretical and no government has proposed it.

Corsair 115

20th January 2008, 10:54 PM

You seem to be under the impression that there is going to be some big public celebration of the NAU initiation date. It is being done incrementally under the public radar. And I pointed out to you that it is not possible due to the sheer amount of rules, regulations, standards, codes, procedures, and practices that have to be changed. All of that requires legislative changes which cannot be achieved without the legislatures of the respective countries.

Do you seriously think financial regulations in Canada can be unilaterally changed by the Prime Minister? Think again. For that matter, can financial regulations in the U.S. be unilaterally changed by the President? And financial regulations are but one element of the existing laws which would need to be changed, let alone the myriad of others.

Another example: does the President have the power to unilaterally revoke the WHTI legislation? It's already been enacted into law.

I still remember when the trade treaties were proposed in Europe that the people who pointed out that this would lead to a European Union were called names.This would only have relevancy if you could show the European Union was achieved without any sort of public input or actions by the legistatures of the involved European nations.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: anyone who thinks the NAU is real and that Canada is happily going along with it is someone who clearly, clearly does not understand Canadian politics. I'd be willing to add that it shows a misunderstanding of a fundamental aspect of the American national character too.