Are you pro european or anti euro?

[[KMA]Avenger]

i didnt think you did, the media in the states is not talking about it and if they are its pro-NAU with no real debate about it, they are deliberately keeping the american people in the dark about the "North American Union", basically "YOUR" president (i use "YOUR" very loosely because he does NOT represent YOU, he represents the corporations) and congress as well as the canadian and mexican leaders, are signing away all 3 nations sovereignty with the formation of the North American Union and the NAFTA superhighway, which by the way, a french company has got the contract for the tolls of the highway.

theres allot of information about NAU on Google and YouTube.

[Evilevi777]

i'll check it out in the morning, wait, it's 4 am lol, well, i'll check it out whenever i get up, anyways, off to

[[KMA]Avenger]

sleep well

[Legendary Apophis]

i'd like to see people who vote post why etc...some didn't yet! (voting for 1 or 2 option I mean)

I don't want of United States of Europe don't get me wrong, but this everyone cares for his own country is a bit boring and had to go way in my opinion. I'm all in favour of sharing things with other European countries to show Europe isn't nothing and that we can compete with the US in the commerce and economy! Divided we are weak, united we are strong, or somthing like that

i never said we should all close our borders and hide behind them jim, i'm not a xenophobe lol.

i am in favor of trade and and exchange of ideas and having an open border, but i am NOT in favor of engineered and forced mass immigration and so long as these fecking banking are in control that is exactly what we have, engineered and forced mass immigration.

Though, there's a difference between a federal government and an authoritarian government, and I'm not sure which the EU is shooting for.

they're "shooting" for a dictatorship and Tony Blair wants to be Hitler....i mean he wants to be its head.

So basically you prefer The European Coal and Steel Community like treaty than Maastricht? Because at that time "banks" weren't involved as much.

Lol England seems too much out of European Union business to control it, see, they didn't want of the money firstly, secondly they feel more close to US than EU if we see diplomatic relations...
Mass immigration comes from the fact some of new countries in the union aren't on same level of economy yet, they have to catch up, but many of their inhabitants instead of staying in their country to help it as much as they can to catch up, prefer to come to West, THINKING there it's full of work and they'll have a better situation...

Did you see the link? It does have some historical consequence...

Hmmm it's north states (new jerzey, virginia, new empshire, north carolina etc)

Lol civil war? or independance war related?

At the beginning of the French and Indian War (Seven Year War for Europe I think), the colonies were trying to build a greater unity. This whole independent minded thing is nothing new in America. Each of the original 13 came from different backgrounds. Massachussets was formed by Puritans avoiding Anglican harrassment, Virginia was founded by a company hoping to strike gold and nearly died off because of it. Border wars scuffles between colonies would have been more common if they didn't have outside enemies in the French and the Native Americans.

The cartoon was drawn by Benjamin Franklin about a month before the Albany Conference (1763). It was supposed to encourage the colonies to join together to fight the external threats. As it was, only 7 of the 13 sent delegates. But they managed to put together a charter for self rule, which was therefore rejected by Britain because it gave too much leeway and the colonies because it didn't give enough.

However, this same debate that Europe is going through is (on the surface, as Europe has a huge amount of historical baggage in comparison) rather similar to the Federalist vs Anti-Federalist debate that erupted following the writing of the Constitution and during the movement to dissolve the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, the United States were a group of colonies who had very loose association. Border and tariff wars were rather common between these new states. As it is, the Constitution gave a higher power which was able to prevent the squabbling states from fighting and began to pay off foriegn debt, etc.

Yeah, Europe is in a different place than America was at that time. But the debate for a centralized government still seems similar, from an American's perspective. Though, there's a difference between a federal government and an authoritarian government, and I'm not sure which the EU is shooting for.

i actually learned about this only 2 or 3 weeks ago in classes, very nice , and oh yeah btw, i don't really have any idea about this EU thing, i'm from the states

lol...

i didnt think you did, the media in the states is not talking about it and if they are its pro-NAU with no real debate about it, they are deliberately keeping the american people in the dark about the "North American Union", basically "YOUR" president (i use "YOUR" very loosely because he does NOT represent YOU, he represents the corporations) and congress as well as the canadian and mexican leaders, are signing away all 3 nations sovereignty with the formation of the North American Union and the NAFTA superhighway, which by the way, a french company has got the contract for the tolls of the highway.

theres allot of information about NAU on Google and YouTube.

It's nice to learn France is involved in something I never heard about . Or maybe it's just another of those blame others thing heh?

[[KMA]Avenger]

it is a blame thing but its NOT a blame the french thing, its blame our leaders for selling us out time...thing

edit:

and jim, if these unelected and convicted criminals have their way the french and all the other european nations wont exist for much longer.

[Legendary Apophis]

it is a blame thing but its NOT a blame the french thing, its blame our leaders for selling us out time...thing

edit:

and jim, if these unelected and convicted criminals have their way the french and all the other european nations wont exist for much longer.

No it can't be possible as like half of EU inhabitants have not european pride, you can't imagine how much are still in the "country and nothing else" opinion . And most of long time EU countries aren't led by people who are only pro europe and not pro nation as well...Berlusconi, Sarkozy...I don't see these guys accepting to give up nation for Federation as long as they are in place And since Sarkozy is now the EU president...

[[KMA]Avenger]

Before you start in on this "NAU" stuff again, bring me some hard evidence that it's more then just a figment of some Canuck economist's imagination...

are you asking me if the NAU is real or...what are you asking me exactly?


is that what your looking for??


Jerome R. Corsi
North American Union to Replace USA?
by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted: 05/19/2006
Print This
Forward
Feedback
Digg This!
Subscribe
Sponsored By:

President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:

At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.

What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:

In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.

To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.

The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.

The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:

The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.

Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox.

Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?






we have the EU. we have the African and Asian unions and plans are underway for a middle east union...why would you guys think America would be left out, and can you guys not see the danger emerging??

[Legendary Apophis]

Very unlikely considering McCain was "soft" on immigration and because of his electors he changed totally his line to be zero tolerance on this. Seeing how people consider immigration for most part "they came to steal our jobs and they earn alot of money and became rich" (lmao at this...), I don't think this will pass!

[[KMA]Avenger]

jim, seriously now...do you think they would spend billions of dollars building a super highway if there was even a 1% chance this would NOT happen?

[bigcakes]

the American people won't stand for us joining countries with mexico and canada. if the idea was brought up i think it would be shot down pretty fast and im highly doubting that Bush would even be for that. and i voted no on the EU because i think every country should have its own identity and the world shouldnt be divided into 5-10 unions. thats my 2 cents....
kbye
john

[Legendary Apophis]

jim, seriously now...do you think they would spend billions of dollars building a super highway if there was even a 1% chance this would NOT happen?

Why would they spend millions to build up the Mexican-American wall more and more?

[[KMA]Avenger]

I'm not going to take the time to explain it, but that's an acceptable source. Why don't you take a lesson from Alex Jones and cite credible sources that caused you to come to this conclusion rather then just more opinions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/NAU/



Results 1 - 10 of about 45,200,000 for the north american union. (0.22 seconds)


hows that for my sources?

jim, seriously now...do you think they would spend billions of dollars building a super highway if there was even a 1% chance this would NOT happen?

Why would they spend millions to build up the Mexican-American wall more and more?

a wall is no match for a wrecking ball

[Phoenix of Terra]

What did smoosh say about the unicorn searches?

Results 1 - 10 of about 28,500,000 for God is fake. (0.14 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 22,000,000 for God is real. (0.17 seconds)

Oh no, I guess God really is fake because more atheists blog than worshipers. I'm going to need to pray on this. At least, I would if there was anyone to pray to.

[[KMA]Avenger]

well, i think i've hijacked jims thread enough lol

but before i go can i just ask WHY you guys find it so hard to believe even in the light of some strong evidence, could it because the corporate media doesn't talk about it?? or is it because you guys are to lazy to look for yourselves? would you find it more believable if the corporate run media did talk about it?

and lets ask if its in the corporate run media's best interest to talk about such things when the parent company's of these corporate giants are racking in so much money from government contracts, for instance...


MSNBC is owned by GE (general electric), i dont think GE would appreciate it if MSNBC started talking about how bad the iraq war is seeing how GE is a major contractor for the american government...

not trying to go off course i'm just giving you guys an example of how things work and why they work the way they do.


regardless, i've said what i had to say so i'm outa here.

[Psi Kiya Trist]

Before you start in on this "NAU" stuff again, bring me some hard evidence that it's more then just a figment of some Canuck economist's imagination...

are you asking me if the NAU is real or...what are you asking me exactly?


is that what your looking for??


Jerome R. Corsi
North American Union to Replace USA?
by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted: 05/19/2006
Print This
Forward
Feedback
Digg This!
Subscribe
Sponsored By:

President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:

At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.

What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:

In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.

To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.

The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.

The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:

The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.

Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox.

Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?






we have the EU. we have the African and Asian unions and plans are underway for a middle east union...why would you guys think America would be left out, and can you guys not see the danger emerging??

i'ma pull a "itake" here...

Proof? evidence?

but before i go can i just ask WHY you guys find it so hard to believe even in the light of some strong evidence...

i didn't see ANY evidence. only opinions.

~_+Psi Kiya TrisT+_~