Ezekiel
Member
"I couldn't agree more."
Nationalism and Isolationism are not Patriotism.
Tin foil hats, indeed...
North American Union
- Thread starter Hoploholic
- Start date
- Status
"I couldn't agree more."
Nationalism and Isolationism are not Patriotism.
Tin foil hats, indeed...
longeyes
member
Gotcha: YOU want the thread locked down because YOU'RE not buying it. Gotcha. This attitude, in microcosm, is EXACTLY what those of us "tinfoil hat" types are concerned about and see in the pretend-progress of the NWO, NAU, et al. My guess is, you work for the Federal Gov't, either directly or indirectly. Surprise me. (By the way, I've looked at APS: these topics are NOT on APS, my brother.)
No one is arguing for isolationism and against "trade." Maybe we are just arguing for NOT putting "economics" above political and social and moral values, especially an economic plan that scuttles American initiative and shreds the American middle-class. Yeah, that means giving priority to the Bill of Rights, which is oddly silent about international trade agreements for the alleged good of the American "consumer." Of course, the Founding Fathers were too backward and too dumb to know the word "consumer." Or maybe they were just too distracted by other, more important matters.
As for nationalism, that's another story. If you believe America has something unique to offer, if you believe in American "exceptionalism," you understand that nationalism, rightly understood, is not only positive, it's ESSENTIAL. Placating the "world community," with its ragtag band of fascists and tribalists and know-all mesmerists, is about as regressive as you can get.
Gray Peterson
Member
I work in the private sector, and they don't have any federal or state or local or any sort of government contract. I'm just a skeptic.
Previous thread on the NAU, closed as off topic by Preacherman
I've made my point.
Hoploholic
member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2003
- Messages
- 219
And what exactly did you read that so riled you that you had to be rude to a long time THR member and also grossly misrepresent the content of the original post? It was not my post as all I did was supply a link, state my displeasure at current trends and ask for input from others.
Quote from Art:
"Separate the physical project from the political issues. I'd like to see some reasonable demonstration that sovereignty and civil rights would actually be affected."
Art, try this: How about a President who feels he can sign a treaty with two foriegn government representatives in secret, without approval from 2/3 majority in the Senate, as the very first step in this process?
Does the entire system of government set forth in the Constitution of the United States count as a sovereignty issue?
How about the Constitution disallowing Texas (or any State) to enter into any agreement with a foreign power or treaty with a foreign power (the company building it is owned by the King of Spain, and TXDOT is acting per the Texas Legislature and Rick Perry's edict, although without consent of 2/3 majority in the Senate) so that is without consent of the Congress isn't it?
You can call it a simple contract with a builder, however, allowing a foreign company to determine how many United States citizen's ranches will be seized for the good of a FOREIGN countries citizens, rather than the good of AMERICAN citizens, is a GUT STOMPER of a constitutional rights violation, if you are the American whose house or ranch is taken just so Jose Cuervo can zip through Texas to haul some more dope up to New York.
It is simply evil.
Here is another more clear example: Mexican troops travelling up I-35, fully armed with .50 caliber machine guns on their vehicles, toting fully automatic rifles (which even a United States Citizen must have a Federal license for) driving next to Texas Drivers travelling down I-35 even previous to this marvelous "Trans Texas Corridor" "Kings' Highway" being built by the King of Spain's company even being completed. that happened during Hurricane Katrina. Imagine how often we will see them in the future, should the wind reach gale force in Terlingua?
I promise you, America can get allong famously without having Mexican Army Soldiers/drug runners driving up I-35 with machine guns pointed at my truck.
The reason I point out the Mexican Soldiers will be even more visible doing this in the future, is due to the "trilateral network law enforcement arrangement for the protection of officers and judges" that the Prez describes in his letter, available for viewing at www.spp.gov.
Since Mexico allows troops to enforce law by the way, that gives us a little problem with the Posse Comitatus deal, if they are enforcing "protection" in Lakeway, Dallas, and Roanoke with those mounted .50's.
I find it to be a rather large sovereignty issue from my perspective sitting under my little Reynold Wrap Sombrero. I believe that the idea of having the most noteworthy drug runners in the world tooling up our highway armed to the teeth, not even being questioned as to what the hell they think they are doing by our law enforcement agencies while U.S. citizens get pulled over so the DPS can write them a ticket for going 71.5 miles an hour in a 70 mph zone, is a pretty stupid, assinine idea. It is also dangerous. It is also a huge violation of our sovereignty. And if they decide to disarm you, you will think the same folks in New Orleans probably thought, that this whole assinine idea, is a civil rights violation, a constitutional violation, and a sovereignty violation all in the same little box full of horse-$&*(>.
Remove traffic congestion? Provide for easy travel?
"Separate the physical project from the political issues. I'd like to see some reasonable demonstration that sovereignty and civil rights would actually be affected."
Art, try this: How about a President who feels he can sign a treaty with two foriegn government representatives in secret, without approval from 2/3 majority in the Senate, as the very first step in this process?
Does the entire system of government set forth in the Constitution of the United States count as a sovereignty issue?
How about the Constitution disallowing Texas (or any State) to enter into any agreement with a foreign power or treaty with a foreign power (the company building it is owned by the King of Spain, and TXDOT is acting per the Texas Legislature and Rick Perry's edict, although without consent of 2/3 majority in the Senate) so that is without consent of the Congress isn't it?
You can call it a simple contract with a builder, however, allowing a foreign company to determine how many United States citizen's ranches will be seized for the good of a FOREIGN countries citizens, rather than the good of AMERICAN citizens, is a GUT STOMPER of a constitutional rights violation, if you are the American whose house or ranch is taken just so Jose Cuervo can zip through Texas to haul some more dope up to New York.
It is simply evil.
Here is another more clear example: Mexican troops travelling up I-35, fully armed with .50 caliber machine guns on their vehicles, toting fully automatic rifles (which even a United States Citizen must have a Federal license for) driving next to Texas Drivers travelling down I-35 even previous to this marvelous "Trans Texas Corridor" "Kings' Highway" being built by the King of Spain's company even being completed. that happened during Hurricane Katrina. Imagine how often we will see them in the future, should the wind reach gale force in Terlingua?
I promise you, America can get allong famously without having Mexican Army Soldiers/drug runners driving up I-35 with machine guns pointed at my truck.
The reason I point out the Mexican Soldiers will be even more visible doing this in the future, is due to the "trilateral network law enforcement arrangement for the protection of officers and judges" that the Prez describes in his letter, available for viewing at www.spp.gov.
Since Mexico allows troops to enforce law by the way, that gives us a little problem with the Posse Comitatus deal, if they are enforcing "protection" in Lakeway, Dallas, and Roanoke with those mounted .50's.
I find it to be a rather large sovereignty issue from my perspective sitting under my little Reynold Wrap Sombrero. I believe that the idea of having the most noteworthy drug runners in the world tooling up our highway armed to the teeth, not even being questioned as to what the hell they think they are doing by our law enforcement agencies while U.S. citizens get pulled over so the DPS can write them a ticket for going 71.5 miles an hour in a 70 mph zone, is a pretty stupid, assinine idea. It is also dangerous. It is also a huge violation of our sovereignty. And if they decide to disarm you, you will think the same folks in New Orleans probably thought, that this whole assinine idea, is a civil rights violation, a constitutional violation, and a sovereignty violation all in the same little box full of horse-$&*(>.
Remove traffic congestion? Provide for easy travel?
longeyes
member
No, you haven't, I'm sorry. Not to belabor this but some of us fervently feel that issues like NAU, illegal immigration, globalism, et al. are emphatically related to our civil liberties and RKBA. That isn't going to change because a thread gets padlocked by a moderator.
It is unfortunate that you feel free discourse should be quashed because you don't care for the topic.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Hoplophile said:
My comment was directed to Ira and not you. In fact, since your post is pretty much a perfect example of the first type of post I mentioned, I am at a loss to see how it could be interpreted as being directed at you.
As to rudeness, it was factual and not intended to be rude. Ira did make that claim in a separate thread discussing the spp.gov website and in my opinion it colors how people perceive the rest of his comments, especially when the link offers no support for that claim.
Finally, I am not an L&P mod so I try to keep my nose out of their business unless there appears to be a pretty clear cut violation of the Forum Rules. Where the off-topic line should be drawn is up to them and my participating in a thread doesn't necessarily mean it is relevant to L&P.
Hoploholic
member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2003
- Messages
- 219
My apologies Bart. I hope you can forgive my mistake.
sparx
Member
Well, before this thread, too, gets hijacked and closed, Ira Aten, would you please make sure that what you spout as fact is indeed factual? Failure to do so really does nothing but turn people away from your concerns, as they don't see a valid concern when it's polluted with emotional and fact-less diatribe.
Case in point (as seems to be the popular saying):
I'm not happy with a lot of things going on with our country, or our elected politicians either, Ira, but you are perhaps causing more harm than good when you fail to provide factual information and continue down the fiction-friction road (which is actually a ditch since it's so low).
Case in point (as seems to be the popular saying):
I don't know about California, but I believe the "Corpus" you are referring to was actually New Orleans (which is in Louisiana) right after hurricane Katrina. Please visit the NRA, GOA or SAF web sites for more factual information on this. As a fellow Texan I'm sure I would have heard anything like that going on in Corpus Christi, and doubt very seriously if Texans would have allowed such a thing to happen (without a lot of bloodshed or a repeat of Waco-like scenarios).
Actually, it wasn't a treaty. It was a non-binding agreement. Besides the fact that a treaty and an agreement are two different animals (though both can be dangerous), at least it was a non-binding agreement. I had started a thread about this and mentioned that fact, but it wound up getting hijacked and closed. (I wonder why?)
I would like to see some published facts on this, as a big deal was made about how the trip the Mexican Army volunteers made to San Antonio was made without any armaments or weapons whatsoever, and in fact was the first time since 1849 that the Mexican Army had been (officially) found on US soil. All they brought was food and supplies for the victims and volunteers working in the Katrina aftermath, no weapons.
I'm not happy with a lot of things going on with our country, or our elected politicians either, Ira, but you are perhaps causing more harm than good when you fail to provide factual information and continue down the fiction-friction road (which is actually a ditch since it's so low).
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
longeyes, several points:
1. This basically is off topic for THR, from the git go.
2. I have no axe to grind in this deal; my ox isn't being gored.
3. I was a state employee at one time; an engineer with the Texas Water Development Board from late 1964 until June of 1975. I spent the next four years in engineering-consulting. After that I was entrepreneuring, hustling coins, guns and cars. Buy/sell/trade, most anything of value. Lived by my wits, as it were. After 1983, I was Terlingua's sand/gravel guy, with backhoe and dumptruck.
4. The reason this particular subject won't be here any more is because there is no discussion. All I see is venting and ranting--not to mention dragging in such irrelevant trivia as what the governor of California said to the Prime Minister of England. (Clue: It's no different from what governors of Texas have been saying to vaious muckety-mucks from Mexico for some forty years that I know of. It's a photo-op, sort of a cross between "We luv ewe." to "I feel yore pain.")
5. I note that sincerity, repetition and volume do not create fact.
So, if anybody wants to DISCUSS this subject on APS, start such a thread there.
Art
1. This basically is off topic for THR, from the git go.
2. I have no axe to grind in this deal; my ox isn't being gored.
3. I was a state employee at one time; an engineer with the Texas Water Development Board from late 1964 until June of 1975. I spent the next four years in engineering-consulting. After that I was entrepreneuring, hustling coins, guns and cars. Buy/sell/trade, most anything of value. Lived by my wits, as it were. After 1983, I was Terlingua's sand/gravel guy, with backhoe and dumptruck.
4. The reason this particular subject won't be here any more is because there is no discussion. All I see is venting and ranting--not to mention dragging in such irrelevant trivia as what the governor of California said to the Prime Minister of England. (Clue: It's no different from what governors of Texas have been saying to vaious muckety-mucks from Mexico for some forty years that I know of. It's a photo-op, sort of a cross between "We luv ewe." to "I feel yore pain.")
5. I note that sincerity, repetition and volume do not create fact.
So, if anybody wants to DISCUSS this subject on APS, start such a thread there.
Art
- Status