these interminable threads are actually making me hope for an oppressive one-world regime, just out of spite for salisburyboy

5/19/2006 3:27:43 PM

Hate me if you want. I don't care.

And to clarify something. Our supreme allegiance is to God above all. But between the government leaders and the Constitution, the Constitution wins out.

5/19/2006 3:31:49 PM

seriuosly people.....STOP RESPONDING TO THIS INSANITY!!!

5/19/2006 3:31:55 PM

How is this insane?

The conservative weekly is the source for the info, not me.

5/19/2006 3:32:43 PM

ahhh...i cant help it....

president bush is majorly screwing up. his immigration policy is patheticly weak. The borders could be closed in 3 months if he wanted them to be. put me in charge and ill get it done. the fact is he is totally spineless in this area and im ready for him to be gone for that one reason. i have quickly turned into a single issue person and immigration is my biggest one.

that said. to think that bush has some grand plan of making some massive "NAU" is a total joke. you have no evidence of this and you will NEVER have any evidence of this. all you can do is point to his actions (which are pathetic indeed) and make accusations. Come off the "bush secret plan" stuff


and salis...you can suck my balls

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 3:38 PM. Reason : 666]

5/19/2006 3:33:23 PM

maybe if you kiss their ass some they will

have you thought of that?

5/19/2006 3:34:16 PM

^^

5/19/2006 3:38:51 PM

Quote :

"That's a blatant cheap political ploy used by Bush to try to con his conservative base into supporting his amnesty plan."

Once again, someone's actions contradict what salisburyboy wants to believe about them. Thus it is just a ploy.

Quote :

"It was even reported in the MSM that Bush told Vicente Fox that putting National Guard on the border would only be temporary."

Not the MSM! Now they're saying something that will support you if taken out of context, so you have no problem citing it.

Quote :

"Bush is seeking $1.9 billion from Congress, for, among other things, the deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops to help Border Patrol agents. The number of troops will increase gradually to that number by 2008, Bush said, and will be reduced as the Border Patrol is able to increase its presence."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/18/bush.border/index.html

The use of troops is temporary, little buddy. That doesn't mean that the border will be wide open in 6 months.

5/19/2006 3:42:18 PM

Quote :

"these interminable threads are actually making me hope for an oppressive one-world regime, just out of spite for salisburyboy"

Have you really thought that out? Or are you banking that they will only oppress the "troublemakers" and dissidents like me who don't want to live under tyranny. And you guys who submit to them will be allowed to live out a meager, but tolerable, existence, right?

Quote :

"to think that bush has some grand plan of making some massive "NAU" is a total joke. you have no evidence of this"

No evidence? What about the article I just posted, for starters?

Quote :

"and you will NEVER have any evidence of this"

Never? Wow. We've got a psychic here.

Quote :

"I want someone to tell me again how I'm a "cracy nutjob whacko conspiracy theorist" for talking about globalism, Bush promoting open borders, the CFR, etc. Aren't I just completely insane?"

5/19/2006 3:47:23 PM

Quote :

"No evidence? What about the article I just posted, for starters?"

yeah..thats right, you clown...none

once again salis...articles with speculation DO NOT equal evidence. what do you think that article proves??? does it offer any evidence???...absolutely not

and no you will never have any evidence that bush has a secret plan to create this NAU...if that turns out to be wrong ill admit it...and ill quite TWW...and ill jump off the empire state building.

5/19/2006 3:51:53 PM

Quote :

"these interminable threads are actually making me hope for an oppressive one-world regime, just out of spite for salisburyboy"

hahahaha, i agree

Quote :

"And you guys who submit to them will be allowed to live out a meager, but tolerable, existence, right?"

just explain to me why this should scare me

5/19/2006 3:53:09 PM

From the article:

Quote :

"Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada"

WSJ:

Quote :

"Especially laughable is the specter of "a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada." Canada was a founding member of Nafta, which in turn was an outgrowth of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement."

aw, pwned again. how cute

Saliburyboy:

Quote :

"Have you really thought that out? "

yes, if we get an oppressive one-world regime, you will no longer be allowed to post conspiracy threads. I don't care if I have to live in a mud hut washing the feet of my illuminati overlords - as long as you stop posting.

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 4:00 PM. Reason : s]

5/19/2006 3:58:46 PM

this:

Quote :

"Never? Wow. We've got a psychic here."

in the very same thread where he said this:

Quote :

"The point is that things won't stay the same. Merging our country with Mexico will bring down the quality of life for Americans overall. Absorbing 2nd and 3rd world countries brings down America. And it allows foreigners who don't share our views on government and rights to have power over us. Laws will most likely change (eg, regarding freedom of speech, religion, right to trial, against warrantless searches, etc.)."

hypocrisy.

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 4:03 PM. Reason : *]

5/19/2006 4:02:30 PM

Quote :

"I don't care if I have to live in a mud hut washing the feet of my illuminati overlords - as long as you stop posting."

I highly doubt that.

5/19/2006 4:03:18 PM

hell no

i agree with him

i'd rather be worried about ebola than your next fucking thread

5/19/2006 4:05:31 PM

Remember that old thread you had about the illegal immigrants wanting to start their own country in the southwest, and most of your evidence was newspaper articles about mexicans raping white women?

That was great.

Its stuff like that that makes me think that your biggest problem is living in the same country as hispanics, you just try to hide it behind politics.

5/19/2006 4:06:17 PM

so the illegal immigrants want to start their own country while bush wants to secretly make canada a part of NAFTA (it was a founding nation of NAFTA, you moron!)

but seriously, how many simultaneous conspiracy theories can you have running in your paranoid mind?

5/19/2006 4:08:16 PM

all of 'em.

no really, he believes them all.

every last one.

oh sure he says he made a mistake with the keyloggers thread

but secretly he still believes that shit

which is why he's REAL paranoid on the computer, never back to a door or window and shit

5/19/2006 4:10:16 PM

i sitll wanna know what would be so bad about letting the "zionist oppressors" win

5/19/2006 4:13:31 PM

Finally, you humans are getting your shit together.

5/19/2006 4:14:05 PM

can't we all just get along?

5/19/2006 4:16:21 PM

seriously

what if the zionists are able to unite us all

think about it for a minute

imagine the progress we could make without war or strife

WHY ARE WE FIGHTING THESE PEOPLE

LET THEM WIN

IT WILL USHER IN A GLORIOUS AGE OF PROSPERITY

5/19/2006 4:17:57 PM

Quote :

"so the illegal immigrants want to start their own country while bush wants to secretly make canada a part of NAFTA (it was a founding nation of NAFTA, you moron!)"

Perhaps the author was trying to make the point that Bush is working to open up the Canadian border like the Mexican border is now.

5/19/2006 4:26:14 PM

or perhaps he's a moron

5/19/2006 4:26:40 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps the author was trying to make the point that Bush is working to open up the Canadian border like the Mexican border is now."

if you think the canadian border is any tighter than the mexican one, you're a bigger goddamned idiot than we've ever credited you for.

just because every juan, carlos, and jaime are clamoring across the southern border doesn't mean it's any easier than the 2500 miles of open border with canada.

5/19/2006 4:29:17 PM

Quote :

"if you think the canadian border is any tighter than the mexican one, you're a bigger goddamned idiot than we've ever credited you for"

I realize that there aren't many border agents on the Canadian border, but you don't have near the number of people crossing the Canadian border either.

Also they actually deport white people that come into this country illegally. You ever noticed that? If someone is here illegally from Europe or Canada, suddenly it's a big deal and that person needs to be deported. But meanwhile the government does absolutely nothing about the 50 zillion Hispanic illegals. It's a big joke.

5/19/2006 4:32:06 PM

LET THEM WIN!

5/19/2006 4:36:38 PM

Not me. I'm fighting them bastards to the death. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

I know. That's "crazy" talk. Like back when people actually had strong convictions. You know, like the founding fathers.

5/19/2006 4:46:00 PM

if you can't beat 'em

join 'em

i'm convertin'

5/19/2006 4:46:19 PM

back when people thought that Canada needed to be secretly included in NAFTA

5/19/2006 4:46:47 PM

hahaha salisburyboy's definition of "blatantly obvious" is "according to a website"

hey if Bush wants to go towards a global government, how come we disassociate ourselves from the United Nations?

5/19/2006 4:49:49 PM

you won't even tell us your real name

and you expect us to believe you are "fighting" them

how about if we're part of the conspiracy

i'm up on my two feet trying to silence you

because i've decided to convert from Southern Baptist Protestant Christian to Edomie Zionist

5/19/2006 4:54:20 PM

I'm a shapeshifter alien 33rd degree Mason sent to Earth to torment salisburyboy by spreading the false propaganda of the Bush administration...George Bush, The only true leader, the reincarnation of our Lord and Savior Beezlebub himself, praise the devil

5/19/2006 4:59:02 PM

LET THEM WIN!

5/19/2006 4:59:39 PM

go back to your tv shows and CNN/FoxNews/CBS/et.al

it's all going to be allright

the government has a nice future in store for you

5/19/2006 5:00:37 PM

we have a nice future in store for you too

its called stealing all your freedoms out from under you and converting you to zionist

ALL PRAISE THE MIGHTY GEORGE W. BUSH FOR HE IS THE TRUE GOD

5/19/2006 5:02:02 PM

Back to the point of the thread...

I like the idea of a NAU and I support the movement towards a form of global government.

I think it would do more overall good than harm.

5/19/2006 5:03:38 PM

fuck that, Im not in favor of open borders with cancers.....mexico....

5/19/2006 5:07:53 PM

well if theres one thing Ive learned in the past 3 years its that Iraq would be willing to give up their sovereignty

5/19/2006 5:09:26 PM

Ok, salisburyboy, let's keep this going.

Quote :

"Merging our country with Mexico will bring down the quality of life for Americans overall."

This is a possible outcome, yes, but I don't think it's an inevitable outcome. I think it's a given that incorporating Mexico into the US would bring down some of our statistics (say, PCI), but it's not nearly so sure that it would bring down our actual standard of living.

But let's assume the problem away for the moment, either by saying that the new government had some brilliant program to keep us from being hurt, or by saying that we just joined a government with Canada's, whose standard of living is not substantially lower than ours. I'm guessing that you'd be opposed to that merger as well. Why?

Quote :

"Laws will most likely change (eg, regarding freedom of speech, religion, right to trial, against warrantless searches, etc.)."

How do you figure? Mexico and Canada both have all those freedoms protected in their Constitutions. So why would we lose a freedom by merging three governments that all have it?

You're going to have to work a lot harder than just saying all our rights would evaporate if you want that to be a viable reason for opposing a large, regional government.

Just look at the European Union, which looks like the perfect testing grounds for all your theories. Many of the EU countries are (or were) quite poor in comparison to others. Did England's standard of living plummet? Did France's? Sweden's? Did all of these countries forfeit the basic rights they have in their Constitutions? On the contrary, those rights were enshrined yet again in the Union's governing documents.

I can point to actual events, actual evidence, that counters what you have claimed. I'm just curious to see what you can provide.

And don't get me wrong -- I'm not advocating a NAU or anything. But I do want to see honest answers for either side.

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 6:21 PM. Reason : ]

5/19/2006 6:13:55 PM

Well, to be honest, salisburyboy is absolutely wrong that a wealthy country merging with a poor country automatically produces lower standards of living. That is not economically defensible, the vast majority of our productivity is inate in us and our place of residence, they cannot be relocated.

However, if the U.S. Congress suddenly became 25% PRI or PRD, two of the largest Mexican political parties and both members of the Socialist International. This might have a dramatic and deliterious effect upon the American free enterprise system given the sorry state of constitutional protections for economic liberty.

5/19/2006 6:42:25 PM

would the last person leaving mexico please turn out the light.

5/19/2006 6:56:48 PM

Quote :

"I can point to actual events, actual evidence, that counters what you have claimed."

omf obvious troll!!!

5/19/2006 6:57:28 PM

Quote :

"but seriously, this is a chit chat thread, not a soap box thread. lock."

WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU DUKE

5/19/2006 7:17:04 PM

i bet he NEVER address grumpy's claims, claims which have evidence and shit like that behind them

in fact, he'll either call grumpy a troll

or just back away from this

a la keyloggers

5/19/2006 10:58:54 PM

I expect him to respond, but I am almost totally certain I know what his response will be. I won't say it in public, because then he might be like, "Uh-uhn, I wasn't gonna say that!" But if you want to hear my prediction, I'll PM it.

5/19/2006 11:06:26 PM

Grumpy, what do you says to people like me that worry Mexicans might start voting here in America the way they vote back home in Mexico? Of the top three parties in Mexico two of them are members of Socialist International, the other is somewhat totalitarian.

We libertarians may complain about the shit pulled in this country, but we fully recognize it could always be worse. Such as in Mexico, where large sections of the economy are state-granted monopolies and the rest is corruption driven. In Mexico, none of our fancy economic theories apply, "the world of truth" hasn't existed for centuries. And all of it is reinforced, reiterated, and maintained through the Mexican ballot-box.

Mexico isn't corrupt because the poeple are bad, it is corrupt because it is poor, it is poor because it is rigged-kleptocracy, it is the way it is because the people have and keep voting in favor of unworkable politcal-economic systems.

5/19/2006 11:56:09 PM

"libertarians" are looking more and more like people who are just scared the govt. is out to steal their magic bag, based on this board. OH NOES, ITS TEH UNIONS AND SOME TAXES!!!111

oh, and:

Quote :

"Just out of curiosity, what would be the obvious, inherent evil in forming a larger Union, assuming our rights stayed the same?"

Quote :

"Just out of curiosity, what would be the obvious, inherent evil in forming a larger Union, assuming our rights stayed the same?"

Quote :

"Just out of curiosity, what would be the obvious, inherent evil in forming a larger Union, assuming our rights stayed the same?"

Quote :

"Just out of curiosity, what would be the obvious, inherent evil in forming a larger Union, assuming our rights stayed the same?"

Quote :

"Just out of curiosity, what would be the obvious, inherent evil in forming a larger Union, assuming our rights stayed the same?"

Quote :

"Just out of curiosity, what would be the obvious, inherent evil in forming a larger Union, assuming our rights stayed the same?"

aside from, of course, the fact that Canadiens are evil, or something. I dunno, help me out here, whackjobs.

5/20/2006 12:23:30 AM

It's not really that difficult of a question. It isn't like socialism is hardwired into the Latino brain. Try to remember that a full third of Hispanics vote Republican, meaning that if we're going to worry about a race leading down a socialist path I guess you should start trembling about black political activism.

There won't be a massive shift towards socialist policies for these reasons:

1) It takes years to become a citizen, even if everything in the process goes perfectly smoothly. A lot can change over that many years, even for someone who doesn't move into a radically different setting.
2) There simply isn't the party mechanism for anyone to vote such policies into law. We have no parties that are terribly similar to Mexico's major ones, and in the time they would need to build up steam even more would change than just in the time before the first wave got to vote.
3) The Democrats and Republicans, for better or worse, are the big players. If they don't think immigrant populations will favor them, they will court them.
4) My suspicion is that immigrant voting patterns will be like anyone else's in this country -- if they get up here, realize that there's really only two parties going, they're not going to be any more likely to "throw their vote away" than the next guy.
5) I suppose you might worry that our current parties, in an effort to pander, will support terrible policies. But that damage will inevitably be limited -- no matter how many immigrants come up here, indigenous voters will almost certainly have a numerical majority and really certainly have the lion's share of political power. The parties have to pander to them first.
6) The immigrants' kids will be taught in American schools, where the new political influence will take some time to infiltrate.

I can also think of one reason why none of those five should even have to be said:

Chosing who gets to come into the country based on how they would vote is abominable. It's just fancy disenfranchisement, and should be absolutely antithetical to any sort of Libertarian ideal. The obvious companion to such a position would be that you would support favorable policies towards types of immigrants inclined to vote your way, and that's sick.

5/20/2006 12:25:39 AM

Also, the more socialist parties in america are too far out of the mainstream to really recruit anyone. Seriously, can you tell me the name of one Socialist International party in America?

PS: The Labour Party in the UK is SI, so its not like it means impending radicalism for any party who is a part of that group.

5/20/2006 12:30:47 AM