Digg

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

DiggPolitics: Vote Down North American Union

govit.com — H CON RES 40 is actually written in such way as to prescribe what Congress should not do which, in this instance, is create a North American Union. I humbly suggest you vote "Yes."

Bury

cmccool 44 days ago

118 diggs
digg it

RogerStrong, on 07/24/2008, -3/+6With no credible evidence that Congress or anyone else in power in the US or Canada wants a "North American Union", it should be easy for them vote down.

The "NAFTA Superhighway" is harder to vote down - unless they include a specific definition of what the "NAFTA Superhighway" IS.

The NAU crowd tends to misrepresent things as part of The Conspiracy. Like claiming that the NASCO corridor (harmonized truck load and length regulations etc. on *existing* highways) is a Trans-Texas Corridor-style "four football fields wide megahighway to Winnipeg". Since this has had the "NAFTA Superhighway" label applied to it all along, they's need to ensure that it isn't blocked along with real targets, like the TTC.
WarSaw27, on 07/25/2008, -2/+330 seconds of research will lead to a truckload of documentation to counter rogers canadian liberalism. roger wants everyone else to dig up the facts for him. Do your own homework assclown
- RogerStrong, on 07/25/2008, -2/+1Funny how, despite your endless claims that this "documentation" exists, you've NEVER been able to provide it.
WarSaw27, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2again, do your own homework or shut up already. We get it you are a mindless assclown.
- RogerStrong, on 07/27/2008, -2/+1Your problem is that I HAVE done my homework. Lacking evidence or even a logical premise for your conspiracy theories, all you can do is fling insults and bile.
  - WarSaw27, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2If you didnt find anything you may just need to dig deeper. Or you can assume that you dug deep enough and just stop there and tell everyone about your findings. sounds like you may just be another establishmentarian drone feeding only off of govenment manna.
  - RogerStrong, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1So if this evidence exists, why are you incapable of showing it?
    
    I've always been on the record as being open to the NAU/Amero theories; I just want to see even a small amount of credible evidence - or even a logical premise - that anyone in power in the US or Canada is planning it.
    
    You've claimed that the evidence is out there countless times. Why not just post it already?
YeaOkWhatever, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3If I ever hear anybody talk about being in favor of this NAU, I will beat him down til he can't get up and call the police to come get em.
WarSaw27, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2then do your own homework or stop trying to act like an authority. Your objective is clearly to steer folks away from the awful truth, not cause deeper investigating
- RogerStrong, on 07/29/2008, -2/+2>> Your objective is clearly to steer folks away from the awful truth
  
  No, you're doing that jobe nicely, smothering genuine criticism of globalism with tinfoil hat theories, and bullying anyone who wants to discuss the real issues.
  - WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2lets discuss, I hate globalism. I want strong nations, I object to regionalism, globalism, and entangling alliance trade or otherwise. Lets agree on the agenda and hear your criticism of whats happening, not what might never happen. your head in the sand routine is neither productive, proactive nor offering of any real criticism at all. It does in fact aid the movement.... but you already know that.
  - RogerStrong, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1See my response to the same question, elsewhere in this topic.
  - WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2thats what I thought
  - RogerStrong, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1Wha...?
    
    You asked the exact same question three times in a few minutes, and even responded to my answer.
    
    Grow up.
  - WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2your do nothing approach is very canadian. dont worry the americans will fight the NWO without you.
  - WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3negative response from RogerStrong. See folks this is very typical of those who have never had to dirty their hands in the ugly business of making corrections to bad policy ie WAR. They do not understand the internal dynamics of freedom's preservation because the mechanics of it are completely foreign to them. They have never had to spend any time under the hood paying for their own ignorance!
  - WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3see hes frustrated but cannot deny my statement. I encourage all of you to allow that tiny part of you yet living, that dying instinct to feel and share in rogers new found anger, nurture it and let it grow. Then direct it at something productive and stop parroting the mainstream party line *****. There is a war on for your mind, your nationalism, and your freedom!
  - RogerStrong, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1As I just said in another topic, similar to the response elsewhere in this thread:
    
    You asked about 20 questions in 5 topics.
    The statement you expect me to respond to is dated "15 minutes ago".
    In that time I responded to several of your other messages addressed to me.
    Your declaration of "total silence..." in response is dated "7 minutes ago".
    You did this in other threads too.
    
    That's pretty pathetic, even by your standards.
    
    This isn't "new-found anger" I'm feeling towards you. It's pity.
  - WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2again, changes the subject and plays on emotion. The emotional whining I fully expect from a liberal. but what a slow typist for such a limp wristed chicken neck!
  - RogerStrong, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1>> changes the subject and plays on emotion
    
    YOU are the one who changed the subject from globalism to response times.
    YOU are the one who started talking about "new-found anger".
    
    >> what a slow typist
    
    8 minutes. You shotgunned about 20 questions all at once, then declared "total silence..." when I didn't respond to all of them within 8 minutes.
    
    >> for such a limp wristed chicken neck!
    
    This from someone cowering behind an anonomous screen name.
  - WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1still avoids the subject
  - WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1clever, lets make this about me and not the issue. Yeah the stupid reader will never pick up on that. totally off topic now
  - WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1frustrated and beaten Roger once Strong now retreats to smoke a joint and unwind to gay porn. best wishes little buddy;)
- RogerStrong, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1So you ask 20 questions in 5 topics, and waited 17 minutes during which I answered several of them. When not every single question is answered within 17 minutes (let alone 24 hours) you declare "negative response".
  
  That's pretty pathetic.
  - WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2and throws in the towel.
WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3lets discuss, I hate globalism. I want strong nations, I object to regionalism, globalism, and entangling alliance trade or otherwise. Lets agree on the agenda and hear your criticism of whats happening, not what might never happen. your head in the sand routine is neither productive, proactive nor offering of any real criticism at all. It does in fact aid the movement.... but you already know that.
- RogerStrong, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1Sure!
  
  I want strong nations, and I'm firmly against any EU-style North American Union.
  
  Globalism for me is like.... say.... the electricity in your home. Worth having, but you'd better be damn careful. Don't do anything stupid, like bypassing the circuit breaker or signing a free trade deal with a country with much lower wages and labor standards than your own. When a large volume of jobs head to China, it needs to trip a circuit breaker. Automatically. Without debate.
  
  The Canada-US free trade deal is an example of the good side of globalism: The resources of Canada combined with the manufacturing capacity of the US made for more jobs on both side of the border. The similar wages stopped any large flow of jobs in either direction.
  
  Add Mexico and you see the bad side: Jobs head south, and wages in the US and Canada are lowered in response. This isn't just NAFTA: The "Giant Sucking Sound" of automotive jobs heading south happenned *before* NAFTA. Check out the movie on the subject, "Roger & Me". It was produced before NAFTA.
  
  Far worse, look at US near-free-trade with China. Job loss to Mexico is tiny by comparison. And obviously, China is not part of NAFTA.
  
  I believe that protectionism is often a good thing. For example, as much as it's bad for Canada, I believe Europe *should* be able to subsidize and protect it's farmers. Surrendering your ability to independently feed your citizens is a Stupid Thing To Do.
  
  These are all things I've stated several times before. But you're not interested in real criticism, or real reasons to oppose the bad aspects of globalism. You want people to oppose the whole thing blindly, taking only your stance, only your word for it, and not ask why.
  - WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3Globalism is in no way worth having, that is stupid. National sovereignty is worth having. The right to remain armed enough to have revolution against tyrannical government is worth fighting for.
    
    Sticking head in sand and thinking bloody revolution is not needed is ignorant of almost 6000 years of human history. Global governance = global enslavement. Your free trade fantasies are about entangling alliances that cripple independent nations and encourage interdependency.
  - RogerStrong, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1>> Globalism is in no way worth having, that is stupid.
    
    That's depends on your definition of globalism.
    
    Global trade, within reason as stated above, is good.
    
    Global treaties, like the border waters treaty, extradition treaties, treaties allowing cooperation in the event of a cross-border viral outbreak, communications treaties that allow the global phone system and the internet - these are all demonstrably very good. And as Bush II demonstrated (with the ABM treaty and other treaties) at the beginning of his presidency, you can pull out of them when they no longer suit your needs.
    
    But Global governance? I oppose this too.
    
    Encouraging interdependency? See my comments above on protecting an independent food supply.
    
    Take ANYTHING good, and you can find something bad about it, a bad way to do it, or something about it that goes too far. That doesn't mean you don't do it - you simply do it properly.
  - WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3How do YOU oppose globalism? are you engaged in actively fighting those things that lead to global government? do you even openly admit the elite are moving in this direction?
    
    If so I would like to know what you might consider "too far" for protecting something you truly hold dear.
    
    I recommend a decisive proactive approach with immediate measurable results. What do you recommend? voting?
- RogerStrong, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1>> How do YOU oppose globalism?
  
  See above. I discuss the REAL problems of globalism based on evidence and reason.
  
  When people try to bury such discussion and criticism, by smothering it in wild conspiracy theories - theories they refuse to back up with evidence or even a credible line of reason - I provide facts and reason in response. I ask them for evidence - and their inability to provide it speaks for itself.
  
  Like most people, I do my part in voting out any party that tries to give away the farm. See the destruction of the old Progressive Conservative Party to see how this works. And look at how the current and previous Canadian governments learned this lesson: Staying out of the US "common security perimeter", staying out of US invasion of Iraq, staying out of the US missile shield, etc.
  
  Turnabout is fair play: How do YOU oppose globalism? You constantly bully people - those opposed to globalism - into not discussing the problems. You insist that they oppose by YOUR critierea, blindly, and no questions asked.
  
  Is this YOUR idea of opposing globalism? Is posting on Digg, using a Rambo avatar, and making chicken-hawk gun and rebellion references YOUR "proactive approach with immediate measurable results"?
- WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Great, so weve isolated that you oppose by discussing that should help. and you vote, that seems to be working well at slowing the march toward global government. calling all concerned citizens tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists helps too.
  
  Yep, this is all i do too talk and act tough. Im a pussy just like you. rebellion would be futile. nothing to see here back to sleep..... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2I didnt know digg was public. I assure you I dont cower. are you asking me to reveal my identity???
- WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1yes its all about me know and not the issues. the ole bait and switch
- WarSaw27, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1looks like folks are keeping him dugg down to thats terrific.
- RogerStrong, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1A standardized response to messages from WarSaw27 addressed to me:
  
  There's no point responding to WarSaw27. He only wants to fling insults and bile from behind an anonymous screen name, and has never been interested in debate.
  
  Anyone who disagrees with his Great Global Conspiracy theories - no matter how ridiculous - gets added to The Conspiracy. He starts stalking you, following you from topic to topic and posting insults and accusations in response. (Often with accusations of homosexuality. He has a real insecurity in that regard.)
  
  Defend your position with plenty of evidence and examples, and he'll simply dismiss them and demand more. But.... Not once will he ever provide any evidence whatsoever to defend his position. In post after post he'll claim that it's out there, but he's never been able to provide it. At best he'll change the subject, usually with a new accusation. And if you respond to *that*, he'll turn around and accuse YOU of changing the subject from the original topic.
  
  Fail to respond immediately to his messages - say, because you have a life and can't be posting at all hours - he'll systematically track down all your old posts for the last YEAR or two, and posts replies to THEM, full of insults and accusations about you being part of the conspiracy.
  
  And if you happen to be online and DO respond immediately, he'll shotgun 20 more posts to several topics, full of insults and accusations, and demanding that you answer a question that you've already answered several times before. Less than ten minutes later he'll shotgun a second round of posts - more insults and accusations - but this time accusing you of "silence....", calling you "frustrated and beaten" - for not having answered ALL 20 posts within ten minutes.
  
  He'll endorse violence against those in The Conspiracy (the same Conspiracy he accuses you of being part of), and then call you a coward if you don't immediately do the same. The irony of doing this from behind an anonymous screen name - to someone using his real name - is lost on him.
  
  If his Great Global Conspiracy were real he'd be doing them a favor - preventing honest debate and criticism of globalism and painting the entire cause as the ravings of a bunch of wing nuts.
  - WarSaw27, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Well I guess if cut and paste is what we are reduced to roger whatever. gosh a whole comment just about me... what about the issues??? I love our debate. Just like folks to look into things FOR THEMSELVES without being influenced by rogers rampant liberalism a blight that will no longer escape my comment and rebutal. a whole comment just about me. what about the issue? is that taboo now. ask yourself what his motivation is folks.
    
    I think my name tells enough about me. the irony of his last name given his politics is noteworthy however.
    
    so is it bad to be gay? what are you saying here??? oh trying to rib me back I see, well sounds like youve been watching to much American Beauty. So the only straight guys are the ones who are tolerant now right? and the gay basher is the closet *****. Right. UmHMM
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

DiggPolitics: Vote Down North American Union

Login or register to add a comment