Really all you (just like Salisburyboy) need to look at is what has happened heretofore:

1/3 of Hispanics, even immigrant Hispanics, vote Republican. Hell, Hispanics in Florida gave Bush the 2000 election more than any pack of Buchanan-loving Jews did.

The other 2/3 vote Democrat, which, while not perfect, isn't exactly the same as May Day parades and nationalization of all industry. And there is very little left over.

Aside from all that, there's still voter apathy to look forward to. If we get 20 million immigrant voters in this country, then only ten million of them are gonna vote, and of those, an improbably bad scenario is that five million of them vote out of the mainstream. That makes them, what, a little scarier than Naderites?

5/20/2006 12:35:05 AM

I'm not scary.

5/20/2006 12:38:19 AM

Gump-Gop knows all

From reading this thread, I am in total disqusts that some of you are advocating this "merger union" or "this totally ridiculous ideology" brought forth by salisburyboy. Blood was shed creating this place we call America. We have been at the top of the food chain for decades, and with mindsets like this, I can visualize the U.S melting away like a glacier.

Quote :

"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."

o really...then what the hell are you doing?

Quote :

"Just look at the European Union, which looks like the perfect testing grounds for all your theories."

thats actually a quite lame comparison when gauging the difference between the two countries (mexico to u.s) to ANY countries in the EU. None of them can present a decent comparison. Its like night and day. So theres no need to go off on a tangent screaming EU is "perfect testing grounds". An then the EU is fairly young in general. Who's to say it won't fail?

You guys take this as if the population of Mexico will remain intact if we were to merge?!?! If we were to merge with that country I guarantee you the U.S would absorb over half of that countrys' pop. Now tell me that won't be detrimental. You guys can go on your economic rants all you want, that only demonstrates how it overrides your inability to use common sense in most situations.

Let this futile argument go. We all know that a union is a stupid idea. I can't see no other reasons why you would want to rebut this Union argument other than to troll salisburyboy (which is fine with me). But the union argument itself is terrible!

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 1:13 AM. Reason : this isnt a fuckin game of CIV people!!!!]

5/20/2006 1:09:27 AM

^ Some EU members are rediculously wealthy countries. Spain is a rediculously poor country having a per-capita income only 25% higher than that of Mexico.

Quote :

"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."

True, but from our perspective the representatives we have aren't implimenting perfect policies either.

Quote :

"It's just fancy disenfranchisement, and should be absolutely antithetical to any sort of Libertarian ideal."

It doesn't hurt to know ahead of time that this nation's defenders of liberty are going to be facing a very steep uphill battle for awhile.
Plus, the ideals of liberty and self determination are not a suicide pact. If America is the last bastion of liberty it behooves us to rig its survival into the system we bequeth the next generation, which includes the incoming immigrants. This is what our founding fathers attempted to do for us through a system of checks and balances and competition between state governments. All of which was bypassed by the 17th Amendment, but that is a discussion for another thread.

My point is that you are mistaken when you imply that I intended to prevent immigrants from voting, I just wanted to do the math and findout if they have enough votes to pass another even more "democratic" constitutional amendment to go with the others. If so, then I need to fix up on my tax-shelters and check into alternative citizenship for my children.

But after reading your post I suspect such behavior will prove unnecessary. These aren't Bolivians, Mexicans have plenty of probably personal experience with the failures of socialism, how else to explain Mexico's recent attempts to privatise and break-up monopolies and the resultant economic success?

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 1:18 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/20/2006 1:13:37 AM

you know whats funny

there is discussion going on in a salisburyboy thread

all it takes is him not being here

classic

5/20/2006 1:16:03 AM

i would also like to remind everyone that the EU is the embodiment of perversion and evil something or the other and people from Europe smell and also, support out troops.

5/20/2006 1:16:24 AM

Quote :

"thats actually a quite lame comparison when gauging the difference between the two countries (mexico to u.s) to ANY countries in the EU. None of them can present a decent comparison."

ummm, actually that's a damned fucking GOOD comparison. Some of the reluctance to the EU by european powers *cough*England*cough* is that they didn't want the shithole soviet bloc nations bringing down the powers' economies. how is that any different from your comments about Mexico and the US?

5/20/2006 1:17:42 AM

and if you want to discuss cultural differences

turkey

5/20/2006 1:21:16 AM

and now that theyve let Poland and Lithuania and Hungary in, the EU is crashing!

OH, WAIT

5/20/2006 1:21:23 AM

^^^ooohhh so England shares a border with a country poorer than Mexico with a fairly similar pop?

Damn I forgot about that...

well I guess that is a good reliable comparison.

on the other hand, the eu is no more than a freaking club with merits. You cant just join for the hell of it. Even if you arn't a "poor country". And what reason would Mexico have to be apart of any Union with the U.S?

dont scream resources either.....

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 1:48 AM. Reason : .]

5/20/2006 1:30:12 AM

Quote :

"Blood was shed creating this place we call America."

Blood was shed to do a lot of things that I don't expect to see you rush to defend.

America is a lot of things, but "the Holiest of Holies" is not one of them. Quit acting like the American nation and its sovereignty are self-evidently sacred.

Quote :

"o really...then what the hell are you doing?"

Trying to elicit arguments more complicated than "But we're Amurrrrikah!!!1one" for why a union would be bad. My guess is that you don't have the first idea why a merger would be so terrible, if in fact it would be. Prove me wrong.

So far, all I'm seeing is that 28 Days Later line: "This is a really shit idea. You know why? Because it's really, obviously a shit idea." Which is funny, but not really an argument.

Quote :

"thats actually a quite lame comparison when gauging the difference between the two countries (mexico to u.s) to ANY countries in the EU. None of them can present a decent comparison. Its like night and day."

If you compare the difference between Luxemburg and Spain or Ireland, you'll see numbers that imitate the disparity between the US and Mexico remarkably well. It ain't perfect, but it ain't "night and day," either. Here's a perfect example of you not having any reason to believe what you do.

Quote :

"An then the EU is fairly young in general. Who's to say it won't fail?"

Other than all of the evidence up to this point? Nothing.

Quote :

"If we were to merge with that country I guarantee you the U.S would absorb over half of that countrys' pop."

That's a mighty bold claim. You seriously think that sixty million people will up and abandon their homes, their land, their history, their jobs (the Mexican unemployment rate isn't 50%, you know) and move up here? That would be the largest population migration in human history. It is completely unprecedented. There is no evidence in all of human existence to point to such a thing. And yet, you said it.

Quote :

"True, but from our perspective the representatives we have aren't implimenting perfect policies either."

Fine and dandy, but the point is that an influx of immigrants won't make your situation particularly worse. Hell, I'd say that a national statement of, "No, government, you can't tell people where they can live" would be a possible boon to Libertarianism, as far as that goes.

Quote :

"It doesn't hurt to know ahead of time that this nation's defenders of liberty are going to be facing a very steep uphill battle for awhile."

Let's not get silly here. It isn't as if socialists, by definition, hate liberty. They might defend it in stupid ways, just like anybody, but I don't think that being stupid makes you any less a lover of liberty than anything else.

Just in general, yes, it's obviously in any party's best interest to forsee future changes, but it's no more true for the immigration situation than for anything else.

Quote :

"These aren't Bolivians"

Pretty much everything I said applies to Bolivians (and anyone else) just as well. Bolivia is a different political culture than the United States. People would vote differently in either place as a result. If it were possible to clone you with all your experiences intact and leave one of you here and ship another to Bolivia, I would bet huge on the two you's voting very differently in your respective countries after a couple of election cycles.

Quote :

"ooohhh so England shares a border with a country poorer than Mexico with a fairly similar pop?"

France is next to Spain and Germany is next to Poland, not that sharing a physical border matters, because, as you would know if you weren't a twat, all the EU countries have open borders, so the poorest people from any place in the EU can move to any other place.

And yet, no massive economic/societal collapse.

Quote :

"the eu is no more than a freaking club with merits."

BACK THIS UP


[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 1:49 AM. Reason : ]

5/20/2006 1:48:39 AM

from top to bottom, since you know everything o great one

Quote :

"America is a lot of things, but "the Holiest of Holies" is not one of them. Quit acting like the American nation and its sovereignty are self-evidently sacred."

first of all, I never said that. I SAID blood was shed CREATING this place we call america. Insinuating that people died creating borders, identity, etc. You condescend america as if you are unhappy living here, im lost. Sure there are moments when we are not proud to be Americans, but there are just as many more reasons to be proud.

Quote :

"My guess is that you don't have the first idea why a merger would be so terrible, if in fact it would be."

Because we are not Europe. Mexico's large size and relative poverty. many many more!

Quote :

"skippin over most of your pointless bullshit, and my point is better than yours rhetoric"

all
the
wayyyyyy
down

Quote :

" There is no evidence in all of human existence to point to such a thing. And yet, you said it."

so that ultimately means that it wont happen?? or can't happen?? by your logic it does. Everything has to go according to history by your means.I can just hear you now Gumbo gop saying "if it hasnt happended, it wont ever happen"- in a sissy voice.

Quote :

"o the poorest people from any place in the EU can move to any other place. "

yeah, the poorest of the poor can afford all means of travel across sea

Quote :

""the eu is no more than a freaking club with merits.""

ummm hello Turkey. Oh, its because Islam damn. No EU for you. You prove me wrong.





[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 2:23 AM. Reason : .]

5/20/2006 2:13:18 AM

Quote :

"I SAID blood was shed CREATING this place we call america. Insinuating that people died creating borders, identity, etc."

Right. So what? People died creating the Third Reich, too. People died creating and defending Mexico. People died to create, propagate, and defend pretty much everything, good and bad.

I love America. I wouldn't live anywhere else. But the fact that our national birth and life have been violent doesn't make us special. In short, the fact that people died to create modern America has no bearing on what we should do with that America.

Quote :

"Because we are not Europe. Mexico's large size and relative poverty."

The first one is not a reason by any standard. We should not do something because we are not Europe? What the fuck is that?

And the second thing you offer is, at best, a nascent reason. It has a long way to go before it actually belongs in an argument. Mexico is kind of big. OK. How big is too big? If Mexico had eight people in it, would you be so worried? How poor is too poor? And so on. Just saying, "It's big and poor" isn't really saying much at all.

Quote :

"so that ultiamately means that it wont happen?? or can't happen??"

No. It means there's nothing warranting a "guarantee" that it will happen.

You're the one claiming that something is going to happen that never has before. I'd say you've got the ol' burden of proof on this one.

Quote :

"yeah, the poorest of the poor can afford all means of travel across sea "

What places in the EU would you have to travel across sea to get to? England? First of all, that ain't the most expensive trip in the world -- it's just a fucking train ride nowadays, you know. Second of all, England isn't the only well-off country in the EU. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not the most well off. Anybody who could manage to get from Mexico to the US could damn sure get from Spain/Poland/wherever to anywhere else in the EU.

Quote :

"ummm hello Turkey. Oh, its because Islam damn. No EU for you."

These aren't even sentences. I honestly and sincerely have no idea whatsoever what you are trying to say here. I can't respond to babble.

---

I want it noted for the record that you dismissed numerical evidence regarding wealth disparity as "pointless bullshit" and "my point is better than yours rhetoric" instead of responding. I also want it noted that you have offered nothing approaching a reason as to why we should expect the EU to collapse. Thank you.


[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 2:28 AM. Reason : ]

5/20/2006 2:26:21 AM

now you are just tryn to be cute. But the truth is your just a makes you a presumptuous cock. there is no need for me to go into detail when you know exactly what im talking about.

Quote :

"The first one is not a reason by any standard"

okay what the fuck standards are you going by?

Quote :

"We should not do something because we are not Europe?"

you said, we should do it because Europe did it! Now what the fuck is that?

Quote :

"These aren't even sentences. I honestly and sincerely have no idea whatsoever what you are trying to say here. I can't respond to babble."

what the fuck are you on kid? some kind of dope??

You're an idiot on so many levels, that I feel almost overwhelmed. My point in that last statement was: why would an asshole like you argue for Mexico to be apart of some union, when a county like turkey has trouble getting in the same union that you argue for? Obviosly, theres more to a union than you think (a fucking club). YOU PROVE ME WRONG.

Quote :

"I want it noted for the record that you dismissed numerical evidence regarding wealth disparity as "pointless bullshit" and "my point is better than yours rhetoric" instead of responding."

the only reason you want me to do this, is so you can find a way insert your stupid fucking economic babble into this conversation. "MY DADDY IS AN ECONOMIST" blah blah blah, fuck your stupid cock sucking daddy and his economics.

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 2:53 AM. Reason : .]

5/20/2006 2:41:52 AM

Quote :

"okay what the fuck standards are you going by?"

I said "any standard," and I meant it. Our not being Europe is not a reason for us to do anything.

Quote :

"you said, we should do it because Europe did it!"

I never said any such fucking thing. I said we shouldn't rule it out as impossible and ludicrous because Europe did it. That's a very, very different thing.

Quote :

"My point in that last statement was: why would an asshole like you argue for Mexico to be apart of some union, when a county like turkey has trouble getting in the same union that you argue for?"

First of all, that last...thing...that you said does not qualify as a statement. None of them were even sentences.

Second, I'll repeat myself: I'm not arguing for a N. American Union. I'm arguing against ruling it out. Two different things.

Third, even if I were arguing for such a thing, I have not yet argued against letting Turkey into the EU.

Fourth, even if I had done that, I could still use the EU as an example when talking about Unions, because something doesn't have to be absolutely, 100% perfect before it can be used as an example.

Fifth, Turkey has run into problems joining the EU for more complicated reasons than "Unions are bad." Even if I thought and could prove that a NAU would benefit everybody, there would still be all kinds of problems with implementation that would have to be handled as we came to them.

Quote :

"Obviosly, theres more to a union than you think (a fucking club)"

How? And what proof have you offered at all that Unions are clubs? On the one hand, you're saying they're more complciated than I think, and on the other hand, you're saying that they're less complicated ("clubs with merits"). Which is it?

5/20/2006 2:58:56 AM

Quote :

"the only reason you want me to do this, is so you can find a way insert your stupid fucking economic babble into this conversation. "MY DADDY IS AN ECONOMIST""

1) My dad is an electrical engineer with no knowledge of economics beyond how to handle his own checkbook. I'm not related to any economists. I don't know any personally.

2) I'm not an expert in economics by any standard. Hell, I got a B- in the intro course. So I'm not going to throw any jargon at you, trust me.

3) Showing that two numbers are similar is not "economic babble." It is a comparison that a child could recognize.

4) You have failed.

There are similar economic disparities between European countries as there are between North American countries, and yet we see no drastic economic harm done to the wealthy nations of Europe. You claimed otherwise. You were proven wrong, and blamed your problems on my dad. You have failed.

5/20/2006 3:02:31 AM

Quote :

"And what proof have you offered at all that Unions are clubs"

mah daddy sez the union is full of spades.

5/20/2006 3:02:58 AM

grumpy, watch out arguing with this paddywack guy... he'll start stalking you.

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=406453



[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 3:11 AM. Reason : ]

5/20/2006 3:09:15 AM

Quote :

""Just look at the European Union, which looks like the perfect testing grounds for all your theories.""

This is the english language.......correct?...this isn't fucking neanderthalese!!!

Quote :

"First of all, that last...thing...that you said does not qualify as a statement. None of them were even sentences"

so lame

Quote :

"why would an asshole like you argue for Mexico to be apart of some union, when a county like turkey has trouble getting in the same union that you argue for?"

is this not a sentence, better yet a question? <--is that even a fucking sentence you moron?It's really baffling to me that the subtle suggestion your making within your lame/corny insults, is that you're an English prof now, and you only respond to grammatically correct posters. At the end of the day, you're no more than another shit head troll without a cause.

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 3:21 AM. Reason : ^hahahahaha, that was just me making fun of his homophobia. yal must be friends]

5/20/2006 3:20:13 AM

Quote :

"This is the english language.......correct?..."

It is the English language. Try reading it. I said the EU would be the testing ground for his theories, not for Unions in general. If he thinks uniting rich and poor countries will have a certain effect, he should be able to point that effect out in the EU.

Quote :

"is this not a sentence, better yet a question?"

That was, or at least, close enough. I was referring to the "Hello Turkey. Muslim damn. No EU" bit, which was not only a bunch of fragments -- that much I could handle -- but it was a bunch of incoherent fragments. They weren't tied together by any idea at all. This isn't a question of English grammar, it's a question of you being able to articulate ideas.

Quote :

"you only respond to grammatically correct posters."

Hardly. I've responded to many things you've said that were grammatically nothing short of barbaric. But those three things were just incoherent. You've made yourself clear by now, and I've responded to the comprehensible version of your point, and instead of responding to that response you're still going on about how I called you out several posts ago.

In the meantime, you have managed to avoid so much as referring to the majority of my points.

---

Let's be frank here. At this point, I'm just batting you around like a cat with a wounded mouse. There's not really any point to my continuing this -- you've been soundly beaten by any objective standard. But I keep doing it anyway for the sake of my own amusement. And I suppose that I am being an arrogant shit at the moment, but being an arrogant shit does not make me wrong. You are possibly the most inept debater I have ever encountered on this board, and I've encountered quite a few. At least salisburyboy has tenacity and a basic grasp of literacy. You've got nothing. You exist to give competent people an ego boost and to temper an optimist's faith in humanity.

And then you'll say, "Oh look at all the name calling," and I'll say, "Why bother with actual points, when you aren't responding to them anyway?"

5/20/2006 3:33:00 AM

Oh yeah, you really are batting me around like a cat with a mouse
The fact that you actually take arguing on a message board serious is really astonishing to me. I do it merely for entertainment, not to convince or persuade people. I don't know why you do it. But I did this just to fuck with you along with providing my view on the topic. Really, I could care less about this. It will never happen. I just wanted to attack you for the hell of it, and because you think you're always right no matter the subject. Its amusing/and annoying to me how you always dart into a good conversation/thread with your "IM RIGHT ALL THE DAMN TIME" attitude. Its like, who the hell do you think you are?

Even if I had a lapse in judgement and considered reading to your bullshit, I would suddenly awaken after the first few pathetic lines of your arguments.

Quote :

"you've been soundly beaten by any objective standard"

who's keeping score? Is this a trial or a game or something? Your arguing against ruling it out *wink wink* whupdie damn dooo. Okay you can go to bed now.

Quote :

"grasp of literacy"

Im lost. Maybe im getting sleepy. The EU is exactly how many countries??????And how many countries would this NAU be???? So its crazy to me how you can say the effects would be so similar, just pure insanity. Yet you still back your argument with this premise. 25 member states dispersed in comparison to 3. Wow....just wow.

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 4:03 AM. Reason : im going to bed now]

5/20/2006 3:55:41 AM

The insults and counters are subpar even by n00b standards. At this point you're proving my own point better than I ever could.

5/20/2006 3:58:55 AM

you never had a point. so i guess you're correct.

5/20/2006 4:04:00 AM

Alright, I'm back, and your both wrong.

Grumpy, I can rule out creating an "American Union" because the benefits are few and the costs are quite sizeable. Add to that, all the benefits can be acquired through regular treaties among nations, no need for unity to have them enforced. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Huge factors are rated 3, large factors are rated 2, negligible factors are rated 1.

Benefits: (5)
(1)A Universal Currency - would reduce cross border transaction costs, eliminate the possibility of currency crises, not very helpful because the economies are very large and not inately prone to currency crises outside government failures
(1)Elimination of Trade Restrictions - a major boost to economic efficiency, making everyone better off in the long run, but this same benefit has already been acquired, to a degree, thanks to NAFTA.
(2)Elimination of Travel Restrictions - again, a boost to economic efficiency and human wellbeing, can be acquired through lax immigration policies
(1)Elimination of Regulatory Differentials - makes cross border activities easier to understand, but the real efficiency benefits are small compared to other factors

Costs: (9)
(1)A Universal Currency - Would reduce cross-border flexibility, not much of a cost because thanks to NAFTA we allready share recessions to a large extent
(1)Elimination of Trade Restrictions - Will somewhat harm unskilled labor in the U.S. and Canada
(1)Elimination of Travel Restrictions - Ditto

(3)Elimination of Regulatory Differentials - A loss of political experimentation as all three countries are forced to endure the same bad policies instead of competing to find good policies that will attract citizens (if legalizing gay marriage in Mass. causes chaos in the streets, then it is good that we didn't do that on a national level).
(3)Elimination of Political Independence - As representative bodies represent more and more people the gulf between representatives and the represented grows to the detriment of policy and perceived justice (democracy works best at a local level, some say this is why the U.S. Congress is dysfunctional).

Of course, if you could make the supra-national body constitutionally restricted, thus preserving Regulatory Differentials and Political Independence, the benefits would outrun costs (4-3), but as said before almost all of these benefits can be had through voluntary international agreement, no need to unify, leaving actual unification with a Benefit-Cost scale of 2 to 7.

5/20/2006 9:29:52 AM

oh man, nubs go home

5/20/2006 9:30:44 AM

boils down to racism.

the eu is full of white people. the main veiled point to this argument and salisburboy's every argument, is that OMF THEY'RE NOT WHITE.

5/20/2006 10:18:33 AM

LoneSnark, that's all well and good, but I think you've read me wrong. All of those are very mechanical things that would be wrong with a NAU. None of them are things that are inherently wrong with the idea of political union in general, with the exception the last two, the details of which strike me as incredibly biased by libertarian ideology and as ignoring many of the possibilities for a Union.

Whatever body was in charge would almost certainly not be as active in legislating the minutiae of government as, say, Congress. Look at the EU. It's not as though its governing bodies are passing seat belt laws, ya know? Whatever entity was at the top would only be in charge of the largest policy issues. Everything else would be left up to the Congress that you already know and hate. Federalism would survive, but it would have one more level. Political experimentation would survive. Political/economic union is not the same thing the sudden imposition of a unitary government.

Quote :

"but as said before almost all of these benefits can be had through voluntary international agreement, no need to unify"

As it happens, I generally agree. There isn't much reason to unify here, simply because (at the moment) we're talking about so few countries, and of the three, two are already incredibly similar. In Europe it was rather more pressing -- a lot more borders, currencies, languages, governments, much harder to deal with. All that aside from the fact that Europe has a rather bloodier history and so strong, codified cooperation would pose some very tangible benefits in preventing another European war.

But, again, my original intent here wasn't to ask for the specific problems the NAU would encounter, but rather what the inherent evil is in Unions. And now you've given Salisburyboy things he can say as though he came up with them on his own. Thanks a lot.

5/20/2006 1:51:58 PM

Quote :

"you know whats funny there is discussion going on in a salisburyboy thread all it takes is him not being here classic"

5/20/2006 2:31:22 PM

there is absolutely nothing wrong with a global government, it's the people spreading their new world order horseshit that want you to be scared and worried about it. look what individual countries do on their own in terms of technological/educational/humanitarian progress. now imagine what all of these countries working together could do, ESPECIALLY with the beuocracy cut out of the middle. we're citizens of this planet above all else. i mean christ, we're all humans, what is wrong with that?

5/20/2006 3:25:39 PM

A Summary of Page 3.. for those that missed it:

GrumpyGOP: No really, here is the breakdown for the shit I was talking about on page 2. This is how they'll vote.

padowack:I want GrumpyGOP's cock in my mouth. Really! I mean, we're a city on a hill. This shit is holy, because some niggas died here. If we bow to anyone, we'll cease to exist.. i have proof. Oh, and the EU is a worthless comparison to any form of NAU. No two Unions could possibly have any similarities. At all. None. Totally, 100% different.

aaronburro: Acutally, I do believe you're a tard, and that's a good comparison. Here's an example as to why.

padowack: NO! Nonono! That's a shitty example because ONE country is an ISLAND!! Hahahahaha... that totally and completely invalidates EVERYTHING you said in your post!

GrumpyGOP: Umm.. yeah, big tard. America is great, but you gotta do better than yell "We're American! We have a divine right to beast the world!" I'm trying to argue a point here.. participate or stfu.

In fact, here are some more examples that the EU is a good example to compare the differences between the US and Mexico.

You can't just say it'll fail, you gotta back that shit up. Also, prove that the situation exists that would merit a population migration so large, it's never happened EVER.

Oh yeah, and here's all these other valid points I have that go above and beyond in proving you're full of shit and baseless claims.

padowack: Oh, so you're some sort of smart guy. Well I never said EXACTLY that.. what I MEANT was I have a tiny penis and I'm gonna spin the meaning of my orignal post.

btw, we not Europe! Mexico BIG! No have Union, they POOR! Me no likey!

Hang on.. I'm gonna skip all those valid points you made.. they're all clearly bullshit.

Yeah, just because its never happened.. and there is no evidence that it will happen.. doesn't mean it won't.. watch.. it'll happen. I got this feeling!

GrumpyGOP: *sigh* You're fucking retarded. But ok.. I'll roll with this. Maybe God will grant you a clue.

People died creating the 3rd Reich, and obviously that was worth saving

and uh, could you post in sentances? I'm trying to have an intelligent argument and you're talking like a 3rd grader.

But I'll try to interpret and make some more valid points. Here they are.

padowack:COCK! you're a big P33n! I don't have to argue! There are no standards in the SB! I can argue like a 3rd grader if I want! HA!!

Oh, and lemme spin some of your statements.

And wtf? WHy can't you understand what I'm saying!? Clearly my arguments are both solid and valid, not to mention constructed with understandable grammar. You can't understand gibberish?!

Here.. this.. this is you!! "OOohh look at ME!!! I'm DumpyGOP! My dad is a economist!!! I've got a big swinging dick!!!"

....


I actaully want to suck you cock..

I'm serious.

GrumpyGOP: What the fuck is wrong with you? Yeah, there is a standard for argument here. And I'm trying to have an intelligent one with you. Obviously you lack the capacity for intelligence...

but what the hell, I'll try one last time.

Here's a few more valid points which back up my claim. Maybe you'll see the light and acutally argue.

padowack: Me know english! LOOK! I can take a statement you made eariler, and turn it into something completely out of context! I'm da spin MASTER! DUUURRR..

This no sentance? Me speaky well? See?

btw, please.. I'm dying for your cock. Can I just lick it? Just once?

GrumpyGOP:GOddamnit! Get off me! Fucking sick dude. If you want to actually have an argument, post like you're an adult. You've got the intellectual capacity of a gerbil, and that's insulting to gerbils.

Look, you've been owned to the point of begging me for my cock. Please do the world a favor and cut off yours. The gene pool will be better for the effort.

padowack: I have a cock?

GrumpyGOP: *slaps forehead* noob

padowack: No really, I want you cock in my mouth.

LoneSnark: Geezus this thread has gone to shit. You're both wrong. Here's why. *lists reasons*

GrumpyGOP: (under breath)Thank fucking God.. someone with a functioning brain.

Ok, I see what you did there. But I think you're wrong about this stuff here. And, here is why.

padowack: (under breath)Thank fucking God.. more cock to chase...

---

Summary:

Go read another thread... you'll lose less braincells.

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 5:28 PM. Reason : too many damn tags]

5/20/2006 5:15:48 PM

^ heh

5/20/2006 5:25:16 PM

Okay, that was terrible. Can we please get back to topic, and cut this stupid shit out. So not funny anymore, I actually want to hear some decent feedback. Go to chit chat already with that garbage dude. ^^, padowack, and anyone else who wants to discuss cock sucking and lame 4th grade humor.

Please do us a favor and shut the fuck up. Thank you.

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 6:27 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2006 6:03:59 PM

actually, wouldnt it be more like:

LoneSnark: "Democracy hinders Libertarianism b/c people vote against my views that only economic models matter on anything and thus should be banned"
GrumpyGOP: lots of angry stuff about something or the other that his party associates dont agree with
aaronburro: *throws a yellow flag over the border with Mexico and runs away*

5/20/2006 6:43:53 PM

Quote :

"Okay, that was terrible."

Hi. Yes, that was terrible. That was the point.

It was an illustration to the rest of the readers that the last 40 posts were a one sided discussion between GrumpyGOP and padowack, in which GOP was doing a fine job of trying to carry forth a discussion, and PWack was acting like a child.

Some people don't want to read all that shit word for word, and would rather settle for a brief summary of the action.

5/20/2006 7:54:24 PM

i'd support this. we'd probably get a cool new flag.

5/20/2006 8:05:27 PM

A bigger union sounds pretty good to me. Guarded borders are silly. We can't do it yet, but going from Texas to China should be just as easy as going from Hawaii to Maine.

5/20/2006 9:28:45 PM

sweet...
we could even keep the name United States of America... it'd be accurate still...
manifest destiny bitches, who says it has to stop at the west coast, we could covertly incorporate Canada and Mexico under this "NA Union" guise and totally take them over without firing a gunshot..
would solve the immigration problem
if only i could believe taht the Bush Administration had the balls to try something like this

5/20/2006 9:31:43 PM

if i have learned anything from abstract terms and concepts like "liberty" and "freedom", its that unions are bad for everyone and should be abolished, or something like that.

5/20/2006 9:41:08 PM

Quote :

"None of them are things that are inherently wrong with the idea of political union in general"

Of course, you're absolutely right. My statements had nothing to do with the prior discussion and was directed entirely at the title of the thread, "hello North American Union" and the only problems I find with such a theory are technical. Political unions on average are good things, but trying to join together very large existing unions is not beneficial in most instances. If I was writting human history, I'd bring the number of countries on planet Earth down to less than 20. Unification of Europe isn't a "no-brainer," but it is an obvious candidate. However, I do not for one second believe we are preventing WW3 by forming the E.U., quite to the contrary, I suspect it has made civil war MORE likely. Without the E.U., in the event of an insoluble policy conflict both sides could at least decide to go home and cease dealing with each other, in other words forcing a tie. Thanks to the E.U., one side is bound to lose the vote or court case and now must either accept a loss or call out the troops (just ask the south how it acted when it lost the battle over tarriffs in 1860)

Oddly enough the Federalist Papers speak deeply about the formation of such Unions. And your statement "It's not as though its governing bodies are passing seat belt laws, ya know?" is quite telling. As in America, it is only a matter of time until some politically active group or national tragedy "demands action at the highest level" and any national legislature able to do so will act. As time passes, 200 years or so, these "acts" add up until the necessary system of Federalism ceases to be. Alexis de Toqueville found out the secret to American Democracy, it was local. Democracy just works better on a small scale, so any system which engenders the destruction of local control over policy is to the detriment of the whole.

This isn't libertarian ideology, in fact libertarians are often against "tyrants of all kinds" and often local democratic control tends to be anything but libertarian-esk.

Quote :

"Federalism would survive, but it would have one more level. Political experimentation would survive. Political/economic union is not the same thing the sudden imposition of a unitary government."

Yea, that's what the founding father's thought when they added the "one more level" that is congress. I'm affraid history is against you on this one. Regulatory experimentation has been all but killed in perhaps the most important activities of government: the environment, safety, employment, taxation, etc. While you are right it is neither sudden nor unitary, after 200 years you will see the U.S. Congress as we today see State Governments, regulators of the margin. And State Governments will be relegated to mere executioners of policy, as Alexis de Toqueville predicted, and feared, would be the ultimate result of American experiments with national democracy.

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/20/2006 10:08:45 PM

that's right.

confederations are so much better.

5/20/2006 10:09:22 PM

Well, it looks like the Senate has signed on. 100 million immigrants over the next 20 years = People's State of Amexica.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm

Maybe Karl Rove can recruit some illegal aliens to vote Republican this november. I can't imagine why anyone else would.

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 11:24 PM. Reason : -]

5/20/2006 11:07:08 PM

oh god....not another one of you conservatives who give conservatives a bad name (not that i care)

so whats your excuse for not wanting mexicans here? dont hold back anything now.

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 11:27 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2006 11:23:38 PM

Before I say anything, I want it noted that I am sloshed, hammered, trashed, smashed, obliterated; in point of act, I am drunk as a monkey, a skunk, a red Indian, an Irish dock worker, and everything else it is possible to be drunk as.

If anyone can tell me what book I am paraphrasing, they will have my respect. But still, it's true, so on this one occasion I will ask you to pardon my mistakes regarding the English language.

Quote :

"Political unions on average are good things, but trying to join together very large existing unions is not beneficial in most instances"

I don't think you're really qualified to say this, because it simply hasn't been tried. The only major international union that has been attempted is the EU, which does not involve "very large" countries as yet. Still, it is the only example we have to point to. The Soviet Union also works, to some extent, although the reasons it collapsed are almost entirely separate from anything involving the "Union" part, as even Kris will agree.

Quote :

"Thanks to the E.U., one side is bound to lose the vote or court case and now must either accept a loss or call out the troops (just ask the south how it acted when it lost the battle over tarriffs in 1860)"

These are almost entirely separate situations. The EU has much greater recognition for national sovereignty than the US did for state rule at the time. For another thing, the EU isn't really facing so divisive an issue at the moment, or any time in the forseeable future.

Not that it matters. I think history as a whole is forced to excuse a civil war for any developing nation. As the EU consolidates, it may well run into some kind of conflict. That sort of thing is, in my opinion, necessary to form a truly functioning state.

Quote :

"As in America, it is only a matter of time until some politically active group or national tragedy "demands action at the highest level" and any national legislature able to do so will act."

What I said is telling, but so is your phrase: "a matter of time." By the time any truly radical change could have come into its own, the Union as a whole would most likely have come much closer to the moderate point of view.

The fact is that you and yours would have plenty of time to try to sway people to your viewpoint. If, at the end of all that time, people don't totally agree with you...well, that's it's own Libertarian conundurm.

Quote :

"Alexis de Toqueville found out the secret to American Democracy, it was local."

Local democracy has been a failed effort for a while now. I commend your determination in barking up that thoroughly dead tree, but you'll have to pardon me if I quit paying attention to such a while ago.

You may, at some point, be forced to accept that democracy is not the end-all of human government.

Quote :

"I'm affraid history is against you on this one. Regulatory experimentation has been all but killed in perhaps the most important activities of government: the environment, safety, employment, taxation, etc."

You all had your chance with the anti-federalists. You lost. And because of your loss, America is great among nations. Because of your loss, we defeated our enemies, we became an economic powerhouse, and, for a brief time, we were hegemons over all the Earth.

I'm sorry -- all of this is largely beside the point, which is to say, all of what you're saying and what I'm responding to is beyond the point. You are by now arguing things that are almost exclusively Libertarian ideology. Such a discussion belongs in another thread.

---

Mangy Wolf is a bastard, and his like will be made to pay when the time comes. I need say no more than this. The course of history demands it; nothing I say will prove necessary for the inevitable to come to pass.

5/21/2006 1:39:27 AM

^ plz stop being a conservative and join my likes

5/21/2006 1:42:22 AM

It's been a while now since I really identified myself with Republicans.

However, it's been a much longer while since I identified with Democrats or anything left thereof.

The real killer is that I hate people who just say, "well, neither side represents me perfectly, so I'm an independent." I don't want to be an independent. I want to form a new party. I want a brave new world.

[Edited on May 21, 2006 at 2:03 AM. Reason : best I can figure, I'm a radical moderate, with positions on all sides, all of those extreme ]

5/21/2006 2:02:17 AM

it baffles me that someone who obviously appreciates things such as this also appears to be a racist, or something.

oh shit, european pride and racism...dont tell me youre in the national vanguard?

as for the union issue, the only thing i wonder about is how current trade agreements will exist in that system. will nafta be rendered obsolete by increased unity or will sovreignty remain such that a free trade agreement is still needed? I would think that with the exception of a somewhat more unionized canadian system might clash somewhat w/ the southern regions, but i digress.

real discussion, please. no libertarian bullshit, its ruining good discussion by simply eliminating the issue that needs debating in some cases.

^i hear radical moderate and think radical centrist and nader comes to mind and so does the reform party...thats where i thought i stood, but i stopped trying to define that.

[Edited on May 21, 2006 at 2:06 AM. Reason : .]

5/21/2006 2:05:38 AM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP : best I can figure, I'm a radical moderate, with positions on all sides,"

i give you two years. two years tops...

...before you find yourself a daily listener of NPR and regularly attending fundraisers of local democratic politicians.

you might as well quit prolonging the inevitable.

5/21/2006 3:10:04 AM

Quote :

"I don't think you're really qualified to say this, because it simply hasn't been tried"

Age old argument, irrelevant on it's face. You havn't try to fly by jumping off a building either. But you are right, it has never been tried.

Quote :

"These are almost entirely separate situations. The EU has much greater recognition for national sovereignty than the US did for state rule at the time."

At the time? At what time? When the U.S. was founded? Look, it is the nature of government to grow. It takes a massive mobilization of people and political pressure to get anything done, stuff that is easy to do in a crisis or national event. After the fact, when people realize it was perhaps best not to do anything, or it hasn't fixed the problem, who is going to waste time and treasure eliminating old acts of congress that harm everyone a little bit but help a tiny minority a whole lot? Eliminating Sugar quotas would help everyone and only hurt a few hundred people, but it will never happen because each of us is only being harmed by a few dollars a year, clearly not worth the effort to get the law repealled.

Quote :

"For another thing, the EU isn't really facing so divisive an issue at the moment"

Yea, because the E.U. legislature is too busy getting set up. After things settle down and it actually starts trying to wrestle ever more power out of the hands of the national legislatures, it will come.

Quote :

"As the EU consolidates, it may well run into some kind of conflict. That sort of thing is, in my opinion, necessary to form a truly functioning state."

Right, and if the E.U. loses that civil war, then what?

Quote :

"If, at the end of all that time, people don't totally agree with you"

Right, again with the libertarian references. I'm not talking about libertarianism here, I'm talking about national vs. supra-national. It runs both ways, the conflict might arrise if the E.U. decides to reduce unemployment by outlawing state restrictions against layoffs. You saw what happened when the French government tried to do that, what's going to happen when the E.U. decides to do the same, 10 years hence? Just because the conflicts of America have historically been against small-government types, doesn't mean Europe will be the same. Odds are any conflicts will come the other way as places such as France often can't get any more regulated than they already are.

Quote :

"Local democracy has been a failed effort for a while now."

When did that happen? If by "failed" you mean usurped, then you're right. I don't remember there ever being a crisis of local governments in American history, perhaps you can point me towards it?

Quote :

"You all had your chance with the anti-federalists."

Odd, supporters of local-government claim our loss was in 1913 when the U.S. ceased to be a republic and became a directly elected democracy. Was America not "great among nations" before 1913?

5/21/2006 9:49:36 AM

I dont understand why people try to have an intelligent argument with salisburyboy

5/21/2006 9:54:39 AM

Quote :

"You havn't try to fly by jumping off a building either."

Jumping off a building would, I think you'll agree, be a rather simpler process than unifying several large nations, and a lot fewer of the consequences would be debatable.

At the end of the day, you said "in most instances," which certainly seems to imply that you think you can point to examples somewhere.

Quote :

"At what time? When the U.S. was founded?"

Take your pick of whatever you think the "glory days" of states' rights were. Except the Articles of Confederation. If you start singing their praises, I will literally just spend the rest of this thread laughing at you.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rest of your post. It seems to be a fine condemnation of various special-interest laws while saying nothing about political unions.

Quote :

"After things settle down and it actually starts trying to wrestle ever more power out of the hands of the national legislatures, it will come."

I'm not buying it. Every EU nation has been watching its sovereignty like a hawk. And you might do well to learn a bit here and there about the structure of the EU; national governments, rather than directly-elected or appointed officials, have a fair amount of sway in who gets in there. Much as you don't like most national governments, do you see them letting people get in who will corrode their power?

Quote :

"Right, and if the E.U. loses that civil war, then what?"

We start all over again, and, eventually, the EU doesn't lose. I can afford to take the longview of history.

Quote :

"I don't remember there ever being a crisis of local governments in American history, perhaps you can point me towards it?"

Shays' Rebellion. Next?

Quote :

"Was America not "great among nations" before 1913?"

First of all, I suspect there are about eight points in America's history that one could point to as the death of local government. I'm also surprised to see you so anti-direct-democracy. But, whatever. Let's say 1913 is (and it isn't) the death of local government. Before 1913 we were, at best, a middling power with plenty of problems that have since evaporated. We were perhaps noticeable among nations, but not great.

5/21/2006 2:00:53 PM