Quote :

""Creating the amero," Chapman explained, "will be presented to the American public as the administration's solution for dollar recovery. In the process of creating the amero, the Bush administration just abandons the dollar."""

So, salisburyboy, are you telling us that the dollar will no longer exist by the end of the Bush presidency? That leaves the zionist cabal less than 2 years to do it!

Of course, this is the same guy that predicted that the draft would return June 15, 2005.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 2:56 PM. Reason : ¡Es el número de página diez! ]

1/5/2007 2:53:04 PM

Quote :

"I don't think it is a conspiracy theory, I just think it is wishful thinking on your part. Such a feat would be unprecedented, it took the fall of the berlin wall to unify Europe, what is the impetus for North America? That you think it makes sense? Nope, conspiracy or not, the dollar is not going to "collapse" and the "Amero" will not take its place and these three countries are not going to join in the sense of becoming one country (as Europe has), it just isn't going to happen. The Elites have little to gain from unification and a rediculous amount to lose (America's Elites might be supplanted by Mexican or Canadian Elites if the countries unify, it's better to rule in a smaller country than serve in a bigger one)."

I wanted to find something in your comment to agree on, but I couldnt at all. First hand, the wheel is already in motion and documents signed (see http://www.cfr.org) so it has moved far past the 'wishful thinking' stage. The dollar collapsing or not has little to do with it imo, the need for a new currency would be the support easier buy/sell/trade by the populations of the three countries. All of the elites have a lot to gain as well. The American free market loving ultra conservative elitest will gain the same benefits they did by getting nafta established, as they will have more options when it comes to wage labor, costs, and enviromental rules based on which region they wish to operate in, or which multinational employees they choose to hire. As for canada and mexico they have a lot to gain because they get a higher valued currency than thier own being spent more frequently in their country and thus boosting their economy.

1/5/2007 3:09:58 PM

Quote :

"Nope, conspiracy or not, the dollar is not going to "collapse" and the "Amero" will not take its place and these three countries are not going to join in the sense of becoming one country (as Europe has), it just isn't going to happen."

What makes you so sure any or all of those things couldn't happen?

Basically all of those things happened in the case of Europe....their currencies were replaced with the Euro and their national sovereignties have been eroded and a European super-state has emerged.

Quote :

"Of course, this is the same guy that predicted that the draft would return June 15, 2005"

That's not true. I didn't make that prediction. And it wasn't a prediction to begin with. That date was the earliest date at which a draft could possibly begin...according to the analysis of legislation in the article I posted. In other words, according to their analysis of the legislation, a draft could occur as early as that date if the legislation were enacted.

On to your next misrepresentations and lies, Mr. Joshua.

1/5/2007 3:24:28 PM

Quote :

"Basically all of those things happened in the case of Europe"

Yea, like I tried to explain, all of those things MADE SENSE in Europe. Economically speaking the benefits to a bunch of small countries uniting with each other economically is huge.

But the benefits of three large countries uniting with each other is puny.

So, the reason I say it will not happen is because no one can make money off it. Unifying Europe made it's elites fabulously wealthy, but doing the same in North America would have very little impact, so they will not bother.

1/5/2007 3:36:49 PM

^plenty of people can make money off of it. see my comment above.

1/5/2007 3:43:08 PM

Quote :

"But the benefits of three large countries uniting with each other is puny. "

Well Mexico would love to join with the U.S. and Canada on a purey economic basis. It would elevate their economy and standard of living.

As for the US, you incorrectly assume that the people controlling the U.S. governent act in the best interests of the United States as a whole or the majority of it's citizens. Quite the opposite. The elite interests that control the governments of the U.S. (and Canada and other Western governments) act in the best interests of the elite...and screw the common man. They are waging war against the masses. That's why they leave the borders wide open and enact so-called "free trade" policies that allow corporations to take advantage of cheap labor. This all acts to lower wages and the standard of living for Americans. The long-term goal is to weaken America by lowering it's standard of living and eroding it's national sovereignty. It will be done, of course, incrementally to ensure that the level of public opposition is reduced.

1/5/2007 3:51:20 PM

I'm a liar for stating fact?

Quote :

"That's not true. I didn't make that prediction."

These are predictions:

Quote :

"salisburyboy A caller on the Alex Jones show on 8/23/04 stated that he was told by an officer in the National Guard that the draft boards have been set up in every county in the U.S. and that it is a done deal that the draft will return sometime after the 2004 election, no matter whether Bush or Kerry wins. Alex stated that people in the know he has talked to would confirm this. 8/23/2004 2:35:37 PM"

Quote :

"salisburyboy You are an idiot if you DON'T think there will be a draft 10/27/2004 2:17:55 PM"

Quote :

"salisburyboy Some sort of draft (probably termed "selective service" or some other euphemism) will most likely have to be implemented soon. 2/1/2005 12:30:54 PM"

When was the last time that one of your predictions came true?

1/5/2007 4:00:25 PM

well push did openly say recently that he wants to deploy more troops and theres going to have to be an increase in military numbers to do so correctly and that he was leaving it up to our new defense sec to come up with that answer. allowing foreigners to join the american army has been batted around, but that'll get shot down by a large amount of people. unless its considering illegal mexican citizenship and allowing them to become legal citizens post war (i support this idea). The only other option is another draft, so...

1/5/2007 4:07:58 PM

Quote :

"I'm a liar for stating fact?"

I see you abandoned your claim that I "predicted a draft would return June 15, 2005."

As for those quotes, I wasn't making any specific prediction on the draft....eg, exact date or time it would be implemented. I merely passed on information from other sources...and made the point that a draft would probably come at some point in the future.

And if you want to get technical, the stop loss policy is a de facto involuntary service system. It doesn't matter that they don't refer to it as a "draft"...and give it an innocuous/euphemistic name.

And the possibility that some kind of involuntary service system (in addition the the stop loss policy) may be enacted is still quite high. Especially given the stretched state of the military, the move to attack Iran, and the plan to increase troop levels in Iraq.


[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 4:25 PM. Reason : ``]

1/5/2007 4:17:32 PM

I didn't abandon anything little buddy, obviously you were concerned enough to post it and regarded the information as reliable enough to warrant passing on to others.

Quote :

"It doesn't matter that they don't refer to it as a "draft"...and give it an innocuous/euphemistic name."

It shouldn't matter what they call it at all - you should be able to recognize the fact that a stop-loss program is entirely different than a draft.

Quote :

"And the possibility that some kind of involuntary service system (in addition the the stop loss policy) may be enacted is still quite high."

Feel free to provide some sort of evidence to support your claim.

Fortunately for people like Alex Jones, your ADD enables you to jump from one sensationalist conspiracy theory to another with amazing speed and an amazing lack of critical thinking.

1/5/2007 4:27:09 PM

Look Mr. Joshua. The bottom line is that I am sincere and am trying to discuss very serious issues intelligently and rationally. And people can see that...no matter how hard you or others try to smear and misrepresent me. I may make some mistakes along the way, but I'm not trying to mislead anyone. People like you, on the other hand, are intentionally misleading people, trolling, misrepresenting others, etc.

As for the specific issue of the draft, people can see that I'm concerned about the possiblity of a draft. I still believe that the possibility of an additional involuntary service policy is high. But by raising awareness of the possibility of it, I hope that it can be delayed or ultimately averted. I wasn't even pretending to predict anything.




[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ``]

1/5/2007 4:37:53 PM

people rather not believe that they're being controlled than do something about it

1/5/2007 4:45:09 PM

Quote :

"The bottom line is that I am sincere and am trying to discuss very serious issues intelligently and rationally."

By copying and pasting articles from dubious sources and then refusing to discuss them?

Quote :

"And people can see that...no matter how hard to try to smear me and misrepresent me."

Where have I ever done that?

Quote :

"I may make some mistakes along the way, but I'm not trying to mislead anyone."

Where have you ever admitted making a mistake?

Quote :

"People like you, on the other hand, are intentionally misleading people, trolling, misrepresenting others, etc."

So whenever anyone questions your credibility you smear them as a troll? Is that part of the intelligent and rational discussion that you're trying to have?

Where have I ever misrepresented anyone or tried to mislead anyone?

Quote :

"As for the specific issue of the draft, people can see that I'm concerned about the possiblity of a draft."

You've also been very concerned about key stroke-loggers, the price of stamps, government control of the weather, "fugly" jews, the gay pedophilia ring that runs america, remote controlled humans, that brilliant a.u.t.h.o.r.i.t.i.e.s. thread, gay sex in the marine corps, etc.

Maybe you should have a little bit more discretion when you cry wolf - just for the sake of your own credibility.

Quote :

"people rather not believe that they're being controlled than do something about it"

People also like to think that there are hidden forces at work that control every aspect of the world rather than come to terms with the fact that they live in a complex world where anything can happen. Go read about conspiracism.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 4:49:22 PM

I guess I must go deeper.

To join with Mexico/Canada would require an amendment to the constitution. Why? Because, from what I know of the voting history of the currently sitting 9 justices, Congress cannot divest authority over any relevant matter to a super-national entity as they interpret the constitution. And getting such a amendment passed would be a huge headache and it would accomplish very little. All three nations are large and have very stable currencies, just replacing every Canadian Dollar and Mexican Peso would cost far more money than could ever be saved for decades. Not to mention the massive economic dislocations as the three massive economies adapt to being forcibly attached at the hip. Hell, the campaign to get 2/3rd of the states to ratify such an amendment would cost more than will be saved for decades.

So, Salsburybot, like I said, the elites are not going to exert so much effort when it gains them so little. That said, economically speaking, if the U.S. did enter into a union with Mexico the effects would be barely noticed (outside of the massive costs of recirculating the currencies). We are already integrated both economically and demographically, an official Union would change little.

Quote :

"the need for a new currency would be the support easier buy/sell/trade by the populations of the three countries"

"NEED" is such a strong word. The three economies are so large by themselves, trade amonst them is tiny, less than 5% of GDP (more for Canada), so the costs are puny as well. Not to mention, all three currencies (being from large economies) are very stable, so there is very little risk premium on our currency exchanges.

Entrepreneurs already have free rein to choose which region to operate in, an official Union would not help this anymore than NAFTA already have.

Finally, Mexico's economy cannot be boosted by any amount of trade with America. Mexico has that classic problem of suppressed supply that is so common in the third world. No amount of Union with America will break the stranglehold of the unions, monopolies, bureaucrats, gangs, and organized criminals that are curtailing competition and preventing economic development.

This is also why Mexico could never drag America down to its economic level: no amount of unity with Mexico would transplant these problem organizations to American cities where they are considered illegitimate and illegal.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 7:10 PM. Reason : sp]

1/5/2007 7:09:14 PM

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc109-487

Quote :

"H. Con. Res. 487[109]: Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada. Introduced: Sep 28, 2006 Sponsor: Rep. Virgil Goode [R-VA] Cosponsors Rep. Barbara Cubin [R-WY] Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC] Rep. Jack Kingston [R-GA] Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX] Rep. Thomas Tancredo [R-CO] Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN]"

http://newsblaze.com/story/20070107092239nnnn.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html

Quote :

"North American Union - It's Coming January 7, 2007 By William H. Calhoun If you have not read the news in a few months, you may be unaware: there are plans to create a North American Union, whereby Mexico, the United States and Canada will eventually become a single country, with a single currency and a single superhighway system. [...] Nevertheless, cheerleaders for the Bush Administration deny that any plans for a North American Union exist. Neocon Michael Medved says that "there's no reason at all to believe in the ludicrous, childish, ill-informed, manipulative, brain dead fantasies about a North American Union. The entire chimera has been conjured up to scare people over nothing...." If there are no plans for a North American Union, then why did four of the most patriotic Congressmen see it necessary to introduce H. Con. Res. 487? And if it is not real, then what would H. Con. Res. 487 harm? Legislation preventing a "chimera" certainly cannot present any danger. Why are neocon Trotskyites like Medved becoming so emotionally unstable over a bill to prevent a "chimera"? To any discerning mind, plans for a North American Union do exist. One only need to look at the wording of SPP documents, or look at the NASCO website. [...]"

NASCO website on construction on the NAFTA Superhighway aka "International Mid-Continent Trade Corridor"
http://www.nascocorridor.com/

1/8/2007 9:57:53 AM

Quote :

"key stroke-loggers, the price of stamps, government control of the weather"

Key stroke loggers do worry me, although I don't know in what context SB mentioned them. Stamps are rising, but a lot of that has to do with the increase in gas prices as well as the reduced number of people using actual letters over the past ten years. The government controlling the weather, however, is something to be concerned about. It is admittingly the united states goal of being able to control the weather by the year 2025, which presonally frightens me.


Also

Quote :

"Finally, Mexico's economy cannot be boosted by any amount of trade with America"

Please read about the affect NAFTA had in boosting the mexican economy.

Quote :

"To join with Mexico/Canada would require an amendment to the constitution."

Agreed and in the CoFR document it states how that would be done.


http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap15/v3c15-1.htm

edited this so i could provide some evidence to the claims i was making.

[Edited on January 8, 2007 at 10:36 AM. Reason : facts]

1/8/2007 10:34:11 AM

Quote :

"Stamps are rising"

The thread I made regarding the price of stamps wasn't concerned with the rising prices, but rather a peculiar instance where they issued a book of 18 $0.37 stamps for a total price of $6.66.

Just fyi before Mr. Joshua comes at you with that.

1/8/2007 10:45:25 AM

I "come at" people? Sounds rather homoerotic, little buddy.

Is it your sincere belief that the dollar will no longer be our currency by January 2009 at the latest?

1/8/2007 2:33:15 PM

there would be some severe resistance to this. in 100 - 200 years i can see it getting there but Mexico is very very poor compared to the US or Canada. Canada is barely staying together as a single country itself (Quebec) much less wanting to 'merge' with the US....

the biggest thing would be developing Mexico... which imho won't be happening under the current Mexican govt.

(as for the entirely unrelated draft thing, it won't happen, the military does not want the draft as draftee's are a highly inefficient use of funds (training, equipment etc.) and resulting effectiveness (draftee's significantly less effective (higher mortality) than fully trained volunteer professional personal))

[Edited on January 8, 2007 at 3:21 PM. Reason : add]

1/8/2007 3:16:55 PM

I'm not sure, but I heard back in 2000 a tale that if Quebec ever gained independence it would apply to join the U.S. as the 51st state.

I guess nowadays that is not going to happen... maybe they could join the E.U.?

1/8/2007 3:28:34 PM

this nutjob unsubstantiated bullshit is just pathetic

its so painfully ironic that conspiracy theorists like salisburyboy pride themselves on not being "sheep to the mass media" and not falling for all the on-the-surface bullshit that is put out, yet they fall for even bigger bullshit stories

HEY MR CANADIAN GUY AND EL PRESIDENTE, THIS IS DUBYA...I DONT KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT ID LOVE TO DISBAND OUR GOVT AND BUILD A 24 LANE HIGHWAY FROM MEXICO CITY TO TORONTO

1/8/2007 3:30:40 PM

aha, exactly the point.... Canada we wouldn't mind picking up b/c they can look after themselves mostly, but I don't think they would want to "join" us... Mexico is too fucked up for us to seriously want to add them but they would love it...

1/9/2007 9:33:09 AM

Mexico would not want to join the USA because about half of its economy would be ruled either unconstitutional or in restraint of trade by U.S. courts (this is if they joined the existing U.S. Union, not a supra-national organization which can be made to ignore these things).

1/9/2007 10:01:35 AM

and as its stated in teh CoFR document it would be a

Quote :

"supra-national organization which can be made to ignore these things). "

1/9/2007 10:16:48 AM

I think this threory is plausible over the next 100 years or so. No need to 'rule it out'. If it didn't have the "conspiracy theory" title hanging over it's head providing immediate negative stigma, people would react different to this. Fact.

[Edited on January 10, 2007 at 7:41 PM. Reason : ,]

1/10/2007 7:22:37 PM

so if mexico joins the US...what would that do to the price of illegal drugs? lol

1/10/2007 7:38:01 PM

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070110/phw026.html?.v=79

Quote :

"North American Union Would Erase U.S. Borders, Replace U.S. Constitution, Destroy Standard of Living for Americans, According to New Book 'Fighting Immigration Anarchy' Wednesday January 10, 2007 Congress, Citizen-Activists Offer Best Hope to Defeat European Union-Style Government for North America BLOOMINGTON, Ind., Jan. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- As the 110th Congress convenes, supporters of U.S. borders and sovereignty urge more Americans to join Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), Virgil Goode (R-Va.), Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) in fighting a little-known plan to create a North American Union. The scheme would combine the U.S. with Mexico and Canada into a single political and economic system modeled after the European Union. The merger would erase U.S. borders and sovereignty and allow for the free movement of people, products, and capital between the regions by 2010. It would allow unelected bureaucrats and corporate internationalists to "harmonize" U.S. laws with corrupt Mexico and socialist Canada, according to Daniel Sheehy, author of "Fighting Immigration Anarchy: American Patriots Battle to Save the Nation." In September 2006, the four congressmen introduced a resolution opposing the merger and the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway system that would connect the three countries. The massive corridors would result in the loss of countless acres of private land and more terrorists, criminals and drugs entering the U.S., Sheehy said. "I urge Americans to learn about this radical agenda to erase our country and tell their state and federal representatives to join these brave congressmen in putting a stop to this madness," Sheehy said. "We are in grave danger of losing our Constitution, national independence, standard of living, and common English language and culture." Sheehy is also a national speaker and activist for border and immigration law enforcement. Fighting Immigration Anarchy includes an explosive and well- researched 20-page chapter titled "Bush and Other Elites Merging U.S., Mexico, and Canada." In March 2005, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin approved the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America. The SPP is a framework for the integration of the three countries. Working groups were assigned to implement the details of the agreement. Congress did not approve the SPP and most Americans have never heard of it. Other Americans also are expressing outrage as they learn about this hidden agenda. In recent weeks, state Senators Karen Johnson of Arizona and Nancy Schaefer of Georgia publicly denounced the SPP as nothing but a plan to end U.S. sovereignty. Johnson is calling for congressional hearings. Citizen-activist groups such as STOPSPP.org in San Diego and the Minutemen have held protests to awake the public to this scheme. "This is a systematic plan designed to serve the economic interests of multinational corporations and globalists and replace our constitutional system," Sheehy explained. "Since 9/11 our government leaders have told us we are in a 'war on terror.' Yet, they have refused to secure our borders and enforce U.S. immigration laws. We've had more illegal immigration since 2001 than in any other five-year period in our nation's history. Our leaders are pushing hard for massive 'guest-worker' programs and amnesty. Seven hundred miles of fencing along the Mexican border authorized by Congress last September may never be built. "None of this makes any sense until you realize that open borders and this massive immigration invasion are part of a larger plan to discard American sovereignty in favor of a North American Union. There will be no more illegal immigration since there will be free movement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. Our government's immigration and trade policies are being used to destroy America's middle class by lowering wages at the behest of multinational corporations. It's time for Americans to wake up and take back their country before it's too late.""

1/11/2007 7:51:37 AM

^Hey, that's some pretty heavy material there. Where did you get that from? I would like to read more about it.

Wow, didn't see the link at first. Are there more links/sources for this information?

[Edited on January 11, 2007 at 1:19 PM. Reason : ,]

1/11/2007 1:17:50 PM

Is it your sincere belief that the dollar will no longer be our currency by January 2009 at the latest?

1/11/2007 1:41:02 PM

ATTN! Mr. Joshua. STFU and go troll some where else.

1/11/2007 2:05:40 PM

Its trolling to question someone's sensationalism?

stfu.

[Edited on January 11, 2007 at 2:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/11/2007 2:06:36 PM

its trolling trying to discredit salisburyboy on purpose with no real evidence to back it up just for the hell of it. If you don't agree with him then stfu and move on with your life. He has the right to state his opinion just like anyone else, right or wrong. And when he is wrong, there is nothing bad about that. We all make incorrect predictions...thats why they are called predictions.

1/11/2007 2:42:24 PM

You know, if anything, I would imagine that Canada and Mexico would be more concerned about a merger with the United States than us. The former, which hates being referred to as the 51st state, has established an identity as being the not-USA; why would they suddenly give that up? As for Mexico, while they would certainly appreciate the free flow of people, I'd imagine that their strong sense of nationalism (which still broods about the Mexican-American War nearly two centuries ago) would not be happy with the thought of joining an American Union.

This would be an unequal partnership. The United States has the larger economy, the greater amount of capital, the larger population, and a much more powerful military than Canada and Mexico combined. Hell, we have individual states that would be more powerful countries than Canada or Mexico. Also, as crappy as the American dollar is doing at this point, it would still be the dominant currency in any merger. In other words, any union would be dominated, if not overwhelmed, by the United States in all aspects.

1/11/2007 3:02:59 PM

mayhaps thats the point...its like invading and occupying another country minus the whole Iraqi war disaster.

1/11/2007 3:14:40 PM

Quote :

"its trolling trying to discredit salisburyboy on purpose with no real evidence to back it up just for the hell of it."

Where have I tried to discredit anyone? I'm simply questioning the little guy because he excells at copying and pasting articles while including little to no original thought.

Quote :

"If you don't agree with him then stfu and move on with your life. has the right to state his opinion just like anyone else, right or wrong."

But I don't have the right to discuss his opinions or his sources? Whoops, I thought that this was a discussion board.

1/11/2007 3:16:21 PM

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese011107.htm

Quote :

"The truth about conspiracy theories By Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center Thursday, January 11, 2007 What is a conspiracy theory? There seems to be a lot of them because every time I write about another government program or policy, the denials begin as someone starts smirking "conspiracy theory" and calling me a fringe whacko. It's getting tiresome. [...] They say it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that the Bush Administration is creating a North American Union. "They" all shake their heads at this one, with smiles on their faces and they simply say no, there is no effort to create a North American Union. The Bush Administration's Security and Prosperity Partnership is not using a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report as a blue print for the plan, and certainly not, there are no plans to throw out the dollar for a common North American currency called the Amero. The SPP, says the "Myths and Facts" section of the SPP web site (put there to calmly put down those darn conspiracy theorist) is not an agreement nor is it a treaty, In fact, no agreement was ever signed," the document proudly states. The Truth. On March 23, 2005, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin met at the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas in what they called a "Summit." After the meeting, the three heads of state then drove to Baylor University to announce their "signing" of an agreement to form the Security and ProsperityPartnership of North America. Today, 20 working groups operate out of offices in the Commerce Department preparing policy papers, memorandums of understanding, and trilateral declarations of agreement, laying the foundation for how the agreement will work. Each working group has a counterpart in the other two nations. The Bush Administration refuses to release the names of the members of the working groups. Members of the groups and top Administration leaders including the Secretaries of Defense, State and Homeland Security have attended top level meetings in Canada and Mexico to discuss SPP policy such as "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration." Yet, all of these very expensive meetings and travel expenses, paid for by the Administration have never been authorized by the U.S. Congress. Officially, Congress has never been informed of the activities of the SPP, nor have they been approved. It's all been created behind the scenes with the use of the President's Executive Order pen. A key participant in the organization of the SPP is Dr. Robert Pastor, a member of the CFR and author of a 2001 book entitled "Toward a North American Commission" which outlined in detail the creation of a North American Union, including the creation of a common currency he called the Amero. In May, 2005, the CFR published its own version in a report called "Building a North American Community." Pastor had a guiding hand it writing that report as well. Yet, the Bush Administration continues to deny there is any connection to Pastor's book or the CFR report, even though Pastor is a major player in the implementation of the SPP. We are supposed to believe that a man who has written passionately to advocate a North American Union, and travels the world advocating its establishment, now quietly sits in SPP meetings but does nothing to help promote or implement his ideas. It's even harder to explain the near identical language in the SPP documents and Pastor's book. No conspiracy here, just good old fashioned civil servants trying to make the government run better. Logic and the ability to read and to mentally process such information is simply to be suspended. Anything other conclusion is simply to be degraded as a conspiracy theory. [...]"

1/11/2007 4:17:25 PM

you are the biggest moron ever

1/11/2007 4:36:31 PM

so does this happen before or after we become a police state?

1/11/2007 6:30:25 PM

^the USA is already a police state.

see: 17 year old gets sentenced to 10 years without perole for having sexual intercourse with his 15 year old girlfriend.

/policestate

1/11/2007 7:50:26 PM

^ or this:

http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=455349

Quote :

"Non-father must pay past-due child support, Ark. court says LITTLE ROCK (AP) -- Even though a paternity test ruled out Anthony L. Parker as the father of a child in a child-support dispute, he still has to pay support owed the mother before he took the test, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The court reversed a decision by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mary Spencer McGowan and sent the case back to her to determine the amount Parker must pay. The opinion, written by Associate Justice Donald L. Corbin, said state law and prior court cases make it clear that an "acknowledged father" cannot be relieved of past-due child support. State law only speaks to a man's future child-support obligations once that person has been found through testing not to be a child's father. And Associate Justice Robert L. Brown said in a concurring opinion that the court was "legislating by inference." Brown said the opinion reached "a grossly unfair result by saddling a person with a post-due support debt" when that person has not claimed to be the father and is proven not to be. He urged the state Legislature to clarify the law. In the case, the state Office of Child Support Enforcement filed a paternity complaint against Parker on April 18, 2002, but Parker did not respond. McGowan entered a judgment of paternity June 20, 2002, and ordered Parker to pay $24 a week in child support and $4,446 in past-due support. Parker did not pay the money, and the state agency filed a contempt motion against him March 7, 2003. But Parker did not appear for a court hearing on the motion, and the judge issued a pick-up order for him. Before Parker was arrested in March 2005, the state garnished his wages from June 2004 through February 2005. Parker asked for a paternity test and was found not to be the father. The state agency continued to pursue past-due support, but McGowan denied the request Feb. 28, 2006. "To force a man to pay the state ... payments made to a woman for a child that is not his violates all precepts of common law as to who is responsible for supporting a child," McGowan wrote."

1/11/2007 8:02:25 PM

Speaking of a police state, remember when salisburyboy made the prediction that the confiscation of firearms in New Orleans following Katrina was just practice for the next terrorist attack on the nation and the police state that would exist in its aftermath?

The senate voted 84 - 16 in favor of an amendment that would prohibit the confiscation of firearms during an emergency or major disaster.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP04615:

So did the zionist cabal just drop the ball on that one?

1/15/2007 4:00:16 PM

they're zionist, not perfectionist...geez

1/15/2007 4:05:39 PM

^^^I guess I owe the bitch some money too, I haven't been tested.

1/15/2007 4:40:37 PM

Quote :

"They say it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that the Bush Administration is creating a North American Union. "They" all shake their heads at this one, with smiles on their faces and they simply say no, there is no effort to create a North American Union."

I actually think he might be right on this one.

While I don't that it will be extreme as the article suggests and there is simply no way you are getting rid of the dollar in favor of an Amero, I think the idea for a North American Union has a lot of backing in and out of the Administration.

First off, up until recently a union with Canada would have been almost a formality. We have the same language, same broad ethnic mix, and completely interlocking economies. We even have the same sports teams. We have different money and slightly different immigration standards. Those are probably the main obstacles to loose federation.

The money thing would be solved by pegging the Canadian Dollar to the US dollar. It would be nice if Canada could strengthen their currency to peg one-for-one but I don't think thats necessary.

Mexico obviously is a different story. However, a union with Mexico based on the liberalization of the Mexican economy would be great for both countries.

And no the US would not begin speaking Spanish. Union would mean that in thrity years almost all Mexicans would speak English. Not only is the US larger in population and productivity, English is the Lingua Franca for the entire world. A fully globablized Mexico would have to adopt it.

1/15/2007 5:07:26 PM

Quote :

"It would be nice if Canada could strengthen their currency to peg one-for-one but I don't think thats necessary."

As I've stated earlier, it would not be "nice." Canada's currency would need to deflate quite far to meet price parity with severe dislocations in both Canada and America to little avail. I suspect Canada is sufficiently large that the costs would out-weigh the benefits.

Quote :

"English is the Lingua Franca for the entire world. A fully globablized Mexico would have to adopt it."

I think Mexico is sufficiently large that while most people may learn English, Spanish will remain the common language. Being part of Canada has not dampered Quebec's French.

1/15/2007 11:33:24 PM

Quote :

"As I've stated earlier, it would not be "nice." Canada's currency would need to deflate quite far to meet price parity with severe dislocations in both Canada and America to little avail. I suspect Canada is sufficiently large that the costs would out-weigh the benefits. "

It would be nice in the since of, it would be convient. I am not arguing that it would macroeconomically sound at this point. Though, I am not sure its as bad as you are suggesting.

If the US were to begin slowly defending a stronger Canadain rate the business shifting could be slight enough not to cause to big of a ruckus.

1/16/2007 4:58:08 PM

The Federal Reserve is already doing all it can to bring parity, I suspect. Didn't they already double the money supply in the matter of half a decade?

1/16/2007 6:21:02 PM