i dont read news from a site named something like "humaneventsonline.com"

5/21/2006 2:33:13 PM

Quote :

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

5/21/2006 2:33:34 PM

Quote :

"national governments, rather than directly-elected or appointed officials, have a fair amount of sway in who gets in there."

Tis true, the E.U. as laid out is far more republican-esk than today's United States. In so far as this feature of control is retained by Europe's member states I suspect the E.U. will remain limited and, thus, stable.

Quote :

"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."

There is an inflection point, but as before, you are confusing cause and effect. Around the start of the 20th century the U.S. suddenly had a larger population than any nation in Europe, even Germany, a population that kept growing much faster than it's rivals. Given this feature of our country we would have to be communist NOT to become a world leader economically, politically, and militarily speaking. It had nothing to do with the abandonment of our Republican style of government.

Hell, you seem to think a lot changed after 1913. The big American policies are culturally derived, it doesn't matter what form of government we have when it comes time to fight and win WW2. This is kinda shown in south America where the introduction of democracy hasn't benefitted government policy all that much.

Either way, my argument is that checks and balances are good, the E.U. has them, that is good. It has another very large check in that it must be voluntarily joined, just like the U.S.A.

5/21/2006 3:50:20 PM

Quote :

"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?"

What's wrong with european pride? Don't you think europeans have something to be proud of? We made Europe what it is, and we're responsible for virtually all of what people find attractive about America. No, I don't belong to any of the fringe groups.

The senate bill threatens our way of life here in America. We cannot assimilate 100 million 3rd world immigrants into our culture in 20 years. I have a good-paying private sector job and I own a home. The level of taxes I will be subjected to when these people are allowed to vote is frightening.

[Edited on May 21, 2006 at 10:26 PM. Reason : -]

5/21/2006 10:25:22 PM

Quote :

"we're responsible for virtually all of what people find attractive about America"

what a stupid fucking thing to say. everything people find attractive about america? most (hell, just about all) of the popular culture we export draws inspiration from the birth of the jazz/rock age. now who started that? sure wasnt a white guy.

and by "euopean pride", i primarily mean that as it is used by white nationalists and supremacists as a term to hide their prejudice.

so youre self-centered and a racist, great.

5/21/2006 10:29:58 PM

Quote :

"It had nothing to do with the abandonment of our Republican style of government."

Well, in my original post (as I said), I thought the inflection point to be after the triumph of Federalism, an assessment I will stick to. I don't think much of America's success stems from the direct election of Senators, no. I do think it stems from our rejection of a system centered around local government, at least in part.

5/21/2006 11:49:34 PM

Quote :

"We made Europe what it is, and we're responsible for virtually all of what people find attractive about America."

we? we who? you?? a racist peckerwood from Lake Park, NC? youre the one who made Europe "what it is" and America "attractive"?

well, goddamn. thats pretty fucking big of you.

Quote :

"The senate bill threatens our way of life here in America. ... The level of taxes I will be subjected to when these people are allowed to vote is frightening. "

wow. demonize much?

you can take the white trash out of the trailer parks, teach em to be beancounters, and move them into the Charlotte suburbs... but funny thing is, they're still white trash.






by the way you welfare queen, when you gonna pay the state back for your taxpayer-subsidized education?




[Edited on May 22, 2006 at 12:51 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on May 22, 2006 at 1:18 AM. Reason : ]

5/22/2006 12:51:07 AM

Quote :

"I thought the inflection point to be after the triumph of Federalism"

Then you would be incorrect, in my opinion. The U.S. constitution strikes a balance between what is local and what is national and uses a system of checks and balances to maintain separation. As such, local autonomy was preserved until the last remaining link between national and state legislators was cut in 1913. After this point, the only check on Federal Encroachment upon state matters was to first sway voters, in effect rendering state governments of equal influence relative to "the Association of American Hog Farmers."

By rendering both chambers elected in exactly the same way it makes them both subservient to the same corrupting forces. For why this is a threat to Federalism and the nation's good governance, I suggest James Madison's Federalist Papers, #10 and #51.

Quote :

"I don't think much of America's success stems from the direct election of Senators, no."

Then you wouldn't mind giving it up, would you?

A 2002 write-up on CNN about calls to repeal the 17th Amendment and why
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/09/17/fl.dean.17th.amendment/index.html

5/22/2006 1:30:15 AM

REASONS WHY THIS THREAD BLOWS NOW

A) The past two pages have been filled with worthless chatter/ quote bombing/ ass kissing unoriginal responses from LoneSnark and GrumpyGOP that has ultimately served two purposes; tunning out salisburyboy's highly aggressive troll bound audience. And just flat out boring the fuck out of us.

B) salisburyboy isn't even here. And hasn't been here for the past three days. He hasn't answered your question Gumpy. Not because he dosn't like you, but b/c your question wasn't worthy of an answer. Don't be offended.



[Edited on May 22, 2006 at 1:51 AM. Reason : just wait until this guy gets back.....damn]

5/22/2006 1:50:42 AM

C) has deviated sooooooooo far from the original purpose that its a shame. Certain individauls take over and begin discussing if the idea of a NAU is good or not?!?!?! News Flash, NOONE FUCKING CARES

I want to hear about how the bush administration is "secretly persuing a globalist agenda" not your idiot opinions on rather if it will work or not. You guys should go and rotate playing the role of Nostradamus in another fucking thread. GOOD FUCKING GRIEF GRACIOUS, IVE HAD ENOUGH ALREADY. WHAT THE MOTHER FUCK

BORE ME TO DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111

[Edited on May 22, 2006 at 2:11 AM. Reason : .]

5/22/2006 2:06:21 AM

Quote :

"After this point, the only check on Federal Encroachment upon state matters was to first sway voters, in effect rendering state governments of equal influence relative to "the Association of American Hog Farmers.""

I'm not buying it for a second. State matters were quite thoroughly put down (and, in this case, not without reason) in the Civil War. Federal dominance was asserted then, not when we decided that people could elect their own fucking legislators.

Quote :

"By rendering both chambers elected in exactly the same way it makes them both subservient to the same corrupting forces."

Oh yes, because having our senators suck up to State Legislators is so much more preferable than having them suck up to us. Or do you not think that the influence was transitive? When Body A selects the members of Body B, any force that exerts influence on A will inevitably influence B.

Quote :

"James Madison's Federalist Papers"

...never struck me as being nearly so good as Hamilton's, but then, I guess that's no surprise.

Quote :

"Then you wouldn't mind giving it up, would you? "

Matter of fact, I would. Matter of fact, I like being able to elect as much as my government as is feasible, and I don't particularly care to let one pack of crooks appoint another pack of crooks. Just because direct election didn't make us great doesn't mean it has hurt us tangibly, and in the less tangible area of better liberal democracy, I think it has helped us.

5/22/2006 4:01:13 AM

Quote :

"Matter of fact, I would. Matter of fact, I like being able to elect as much as my government as is feasible, and I don't particularly care to let one pack of crooks appoint another pack of crooks. Just because direct election didn't make us great doesn't mean it has hurt us tangibly, and in the less tangible area of better liberal democracy, I think it has helped us."

Ignoring the infuence of states, the purpose of having different means of election of the two houses was to cut down on the influence of special interest groups. How has its elimination worked out?

Federalist No 51:
"In republican government, the legislative authority, necessarily predominate. The remedy for this inconveniency is, to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them by different modes of election, and different principles of action, as little connected with each other, as the nature of their common functions and their common dependencies on the society, will admit."

According to the founding fathers, it didn't matter how the two branches were elected, all that mattered was that it was substantially different from each other. Thus, by having a senate elected by state legislatures it cut down on the influence of special interests able to exert influence over the ballot box. Of course, as per your statement of "Influence on A will inevitably influence B" then it doesn't matter if they are directly elected or not, right? We'll get the same people, according to you.

Quote :

"I'm not buying it for a second. State matters were quite thoroughly put down (and, in this case, not without reason) in the Civil War."

Institutions matter, nothing structurally changed after the Civil War except public opinion (and thus the opinion of legislators). But it bears noting that state influence got stronger after the civil war (as a percentage of public expenditure) because the age of liberalism cut down the size of the Federal Government (without an income tax it couldn't reduce trade barriers without first cutting spending). but that is neither here nor there.

5/22/2006 8:42:16 AM

Quote :

"We'll get the same people, according to you."

That's not quite what I said. I do believe the influences will work transitively, but that doesn't mean I expect it to turn out exactly the same result. Honestly, I would expect a bigger and more corrupt bunch of bastards in the Senate if that august body were chosen by state legislatures.

Look, there are certainly problems in Congress and elsewhere, but I hope to God there's a more effective way to fix them than repealing the 17th.

Quote :

"Institutions matter..."

...and so do precedents. In a country where institutions can change so easily in their workings without actually changing structurally, I daresay the precedent matters moreso.

5/22/2006 2:12:41 PM

Here's another recent article on this subject from a conservative website/publication:

http://www.sierratimes.com/05/04/21/adamo.htm

Quote :

"Ominous Rumblings of a *North American Union* 04. 21. 05 Christopher G. Adamo Among the greatest ironies of history is that during the first part of the twentieth century two World Wars and a "Cold War" were fought on the European continent, for the specific purpose of preventing its consolidation under one governing authority. Yet by the end of the century Europeans had acquiesced to just such a fate. Though not imposed with the imperiousness of the Kaiser or the brute force of the Reich, the concept of the "European Union" runs contrary to traditional ideas of nationalism or patriotism. Such crass sentiments are the realm of commoners, thus making them counterproductive to the new order. [...] Though the signs of a growing acceptance of this mindset have become glaringly obvious, most Americans remain reluctant to believe that their leaders would even contemplate the forfeiture of this nation's sovereignty to such a degree. Yet the behavior of high placed individuals, including President Bush, raise extremely disturbing questions as to just how willing they might be to copy the Europeans. [...] The perceived "benefits" of this blurring of national boundaries might initially sound attractive, particularly to individuals whose primary impetus is monetary. But America stands to lose far more than it could ever hope to gain by compromising its freedom and independence. Although indispensable to national security, an able military is not the key to a strong nation. Such strength lies within its culture. America cannot remain strong or great if it is overwhelmed by people who uphold neither its society nor its laws, but instead seek only after its wealth. Despite the establishment of the "European Union" that continent's vibrancy and greatness continue to decline as a result of its own cultural erosion. America may soon follow."

5/22/2006 2:33:38 PM

Oh good, you're back, maybe now you can answer some of my questions, Salisburyboy.

I'll save you the trouble of tracking them down:

Quote :

"[Lowing the quality of life of Americans] 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 :

"How do you figure [that laws regarding freedom of religion/speech/etc would change]? 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."

5/22/2006 5:08:58 PM

Quote :

"by the way you welfare queen, when you gonna pay the state back for your taxpayer-subsidized education? "

i learned long ago that this never gets a response, unfortunately. then again, why should it?

and this thread has taught me one thing:

1) zionists like mexico
2) padowack is a fucking retard

5/22/2006 7:32:58 PM

kekekekekekekekeke

5/22/2006 8:26:54 PM

it always makes me laugh that none of you ever do address that little "state subsidized education" thing

5/22/2006 8:30:22 PM

why should anyone respond to it? They'll be subsidizing someone else's college education somewhere, so it all works out in the end, right?

5/22/2006 8:57:24 PM

Quote :

"and this thread has taught me one thing: 1) zionists like mexico 2) padowack is a fucking retard "

Thats actually two things little buddy, but you get points for being soooo close. And don't get pissed at me because he hasn't responded to ya'lls never ending slew of trolling questions. Maybe the questions just arn't worthy enough.

5/23/2006 12:26:10 AM

Quote :

"Woodfoot:it always makes me laugh that none of you ever do address that little "state subsidized education" thing"

Quote :

"aaronburro: why should anyone respond to it? They'll be subsidizing someone else's college education somewhere, so it all works out in the end, right?"

wow aaron, i didn't realize you support the democratic policy of redistribution of wealth, for the greater good. as it "all works out in the end" and everyone is the better for it.

isn't it great how we can all get along?




[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 12:38 AM. Reason : ]

5/23/2006 12:38:12 AM

^^do you do anything but complain?

5/23/2006 12:42:17 AM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Oh good, you're back, maybe now you can answer some of my questions, Salisburyboy."

are you kidding? i dont know whats more pathetic. salisbot-boy's endless cut and pasting from Aryan Nation websites, or you thinking you're so clever as to have any sort of debate with him.

here's all you need to say to salisbotboy:





[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 1:08 AM. Reason : ]

5/23/2006 12:43:14 AM

^he defeated his own purpose b/c he said he already knew what the response was going to be. Hence

Quote :

"I expect him to respond, but I am almost totally certain I know what his response will be."

made himself look like a total jackass. But thats his "im smarter than everyone else mentality" to think that he actually formulated a better question than everyone else. Its like, screw everyone elses question, and answer mine.

Quote :

"But if you want to hear my prediction, I'll PM it"

And what the hell kinda shit is that?!?!!

i'll pm it...wow...you people

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 1:05 AM. Reason : .]

5/23/2006 12:58:56 AM

Quote :

"padowack: salisburyboy isn't even here. And hasn't been here for the past three days. He hasn't answered your question Gumpy ... b/c your question wasn't worthy of an answer. Don't be offended. just wait until this guy gets back.....damn"

and who the fuck are you? salisbot's press secretary?

dont be such a fanboy.





[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 1:26 AM. Reason : ]

5/23/2006 1:20:03 AM

Quote :

"i dont know whats more pathetic. salisbot-boy's endless cut and pasting from Aryan Nation websites, or you thinking you're so clever as to have any sort of debate with him."

It's easy to let Salisburyboy's own commentary paint him, it's a bit harder to let someone else actually trounce his ability to make himself look foolish. I may not succeed, but I might as well try.

5/23/2006 2:02:40 AM

okay, joe_schmoe just what the hell do you want? Im curious. You subtly agree with my characterization of GrumpyGOP in this statement

Quote :

"or you thinking you're so clever as to have any sort of debate with him."

Which makes me correct on him. And we all know that you just love me(doesn't everyone). You call salisburyboy's style of cut and pastery pathetic. All this and yet you still continue to post here

If you're so pissed of at the world, then just leave. What is it that you seek in this thread? I want to be indulged on how this threory is taking place. But if I were to raise a question, and don't get a response, you won't see my pants gettin wet and me ready to cutt throats. Quit your damn cryin you fuckin sissy!

5/23/2006 2:41:58 AM

I honestly think that this is a fairly plausible theory,unlike some that are a bit hard to grasp. But asking questions of this nature

Quote :

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

dosn't count as refutation. I see this as more of an attempt to ridicule, if anything. And you honestly wanted an answer. And you're the one to speak of making someone look foolish? The audacity of you...Then this whole discussion (majority of the thread) goes into if it would be a good or bad idea. Everyone just totally forgot about the fucking theory itself!!!

Quote :

"I may not succeed, but I might as well try."

AHAHAH AHHAHAH AHAA HFHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAHAH

*breathe*

aAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHH AHA AHAHA AHAHAHHAHA AAHAHAHHAHAHAHA


[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 3:18 AM. Reason : .]

5/23/2006 3:16:28 AM

we have a new asshat folks

great

5/23/2006 9:45:36 AM

Dear padowack,

I have a question I would like you to answer. I don't care if it doesn't 100% relate back to the original post of the thread. I'm just curious to see if you can acutally formulate an educated response without sinking to the level of name-calling, trolling, or immaturity.

Quote :

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

It would be great if you could answer that for me.

Thanks,
Sayer

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 9:58 AM. Reason : .]

5/23/2006 9:57:25 AM

is this guy salis's cousin or something

5/23/2006 10:17:38 AM

gay edomite lover

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 10:28 AM. Reason : gotta throw in edomite!]

5/23/2006 10:28:29 AM

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15017

Quote :

"The Plan to Replace the Dollar With the 'Amero' by Jerome R. Corsi Posted May 22, 2006 The idea to form the North American Union as a super-NAFTA knitting together Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political and economic entity was a key agreement resulting from the March 2005 meeting held at Baylor University in Waco, Tex., between President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin. [...] Following the March 2005 meeting in Waco, Tex., the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published in May 2005 a task force report titled “Building a North American Community.” We have already documented that this CFR task force report calls for a plan to create by 2010 a redefinition of boundaries such that the primary immigration control will be around the three countries of the North American Union, not between the three countries. We have argued that a likely reason President Bush has not secured our border with Mexico is that the administration is pushing for the establishment of the North American Union. The North American Union is envisioned to create a super-regional political authority that could override the sovereignty of the United States on immigration policy and trade issues."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/building_a_north_american_community.html

Quote :

"Building a North American Community Council on Foreign Relations Press May 2005 [...] When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it."

5/23/2006 10:54:16 AM

hmmmmmm

2010

i wonder wonder wonder

what could happen before 2010

i know something happens in 2008

but i can't remember what

hmmmmmmmm

5/23/2006 11:01:53 AM

the Amero?
i mean...
i'm fine with the making shit up...
but you'd think they could make up something a little less cheesy sounding than that...
it's almost like they're TRYING to look like a parody site...
seriously, it all sounds like something The Onion would come up with

5/23/2006 11:02:10 AM

Quote :

"the Amero? i mean... i'm fine with the making shit up... but you'd think they could make up something a little less cheesy sounding than that..."

I guess you've never heard of the Euro then?

5/23/2006 11:03:34 AM

(i think thats the point, its a blatant rip-off which actually lends less credibility to it)

5/23/2006 11:06:53 AM

yeah... next there's going to be the Indio, the Asio, the Pacifico, and, of course, the Afro

5/23/2006 11:16:10 AM

Yeah.. the word Euro can acutally be derived from the name of the continent, Europe. I believe there is no 'O' in America. Trying to suggest a name for a currency that sounds so closely to that of one already in existance comes off as a parody.

5/23/2006 11:17:11 AM

Call the article a "parody" and try to dismiss it if you want.

But NAFTA, the European Union, the CFR plan to create a "North American Community", and this overall movement towards globablism is NOT a "parody." It's very real.

5/23/2006 11:27:50 AM

i'd like to see the use to this thread

or

the majority of users who browse tww would like to read this

5/23/2006 11:28:45 AM

AND IT'S FUCKING TERRIBLE, PEOPLE

WHY?

HE DOESN'T KNOW

BUT IT'S FUCKING TERRIBLE

5/23/2006 11:28:58 AM

call the article real if you want.... but NAFTA, the European Union, the CFR do NOT plan to create a "North American Community" ...you have no proof of this....its not real

5/23/2006 11:29:44 AM

another attack by the SB trolls

5/23/2006 11:29:55 AM

who's the crying bitch now, asshat?

WAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

5/23/2006 11:30:25 AM

Quote :

"the CFR do NOT plan to create a "North American Community""

OH, REALLY?

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/building_a_north_american_community.html

Quote :

"Building a North American Community Council on Foreign Relations Press May 2005 [...] When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it."

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 11:31 AM. Reason : ```]

5/23/2006 11:31:32 AM

Quote :

"OH, REALLY?"

YES REALLY

ohhh....i have an article with that phrase in it...PROOF!!!

i dismiss that article because it comes from the MSM and therefore was probably written by zionist pigs....that article is what they want you to believe....come on salis...you should know that

5/23/2006 11:34:02 AM

blah, blah, blah

you're wrong...face it

5/23/2006 11:38:13 AM

propose != concrete plan being set in motion

furthermore, the proposition was made by the taskforce of the council. Not the actual leaders present at the council.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

5/23/2006 11:38:21 AM

live in denial at your own peril

5/23/2006 11:39:26 AM