What is Digg?528 Comments
- Kent4jmj, on 11/08/2007, -72/+534Isn't that treason? Betraying the sovereignty of your country by secret negotiations with another country.
- reeder, on 10/17/2007, -12/+228Yet again, NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT WHO WILL RUN THE CURRENCY!!!
Money doesn't appear out of the blue. Central banks act as both the heart and mind of an economy. Whomever runs the central bank, runs the entire economy, and yet everyone in charge is avoiding this discussion. - TjLAXattack, on 10/15/2007, -3/+202They already agreed on the currency: Shrute Bucks and Stanley Nickels.
- ktrough, on 10/20/2007, -37/+175So Bush is secretly setting up a North American Union and subverting our sovereignty and currency, all the while he is publicly denouncing "illegal"immigration, directing military forces to arrest and detain non-threatening laundry and agricultural workers, breaking up families by deporting parents, and building a stupid and hella expensive wall...
Pretty much if Bush says it, you can bet money on the fact that the exact opposite is almost certainly much closer to the truth. I hope that a ring of Dante's inferno is being upgraded for Bush and company. I don't think the old hell is adequate for the nasty payback they have earned... - KMye, on 10/15/2007, -19/+117You're right that Fox never said Bush had agreed to a common currency, and of course, the "Amero" is never mentioned. Buried as inaccurate.
Here's the transcript: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art ... - Benrussell, on 10/15/2007, -56/+136What the hell? Did any of you idiots read past the headline?
Read the transcripts, watch the interviews, and bury the sensationalist retards posting "conclusive proof" for the thousandth bloody time.
You guys are worse that the truthers. - RogerStrong, on 10/20/2007, -28/+87Nope. Secret negotiations with another country are done all the time, including on trade. Treaties - like free trade deals - are even signed without much publicity about their contents. The key here is that all the cards are put on the table for everyone to see when it comes time for congress to ratify the deal. (Republicans seem to think that Clinton begat NAFTA. Actually Bush I negotiated and signed it; Clinton merely put the cards on the table for congress to vote on it.)
Keep in mind that, unlike what the article would have you believe, a look at the transcript shows that Fox and Bush have agreed on a possible trade union, NOT a common currency, and not a European style union which goes way beyond that.
Fox's statement that a common currency "would be long, long term", is a face-saving way of saying, "the others won't even talk about it." - rarson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+64Bush doesn't care about illegal immigration, and he doesn't want to stop it. Because he and his corporate buddies want to be able to hire cheap labor. That's the entire point of open borders.
It doesn't matter to him if the US turns into a third-world country because he can afford to leave. - pinchduck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52The way the dollar is falling, no need for the "Amero", we can just adopt the Peso.
- superfusion, on 10/17/2007, -26/+74a) Vicente Fox has zero power
b) Canada is absolutley unlikely to give up sovereignty ... especially to the U.S.
c) these absurdist conspiracy theories make Bush critics look silly -- focus on the fgact that there are real women and babies being blown up by the tens of thousands in Iraq due to G. Bush receiving a message from god! - bunkscene, on 10/17/2007, -6/+47Anyone who says "Mexico has declared war on the United States" cannot be taken seriously.
- mpn401, on 10/12/2007, -13/+45That sounds like a step to a worldwide government.
Time to run to Mars. - derforseti, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35It has been suggested that a new central bank be formed, with proportional representation from the USA, Mexico and Canada (read: USA pretty much pwns it). As a Canadian, I frown on this idea, very hard.
- KMye, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34Sorry for the bad link: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art ...
- pepperpotts, on 10/19/2007, -8/+38Whatcha gonna do when the NWO runs all over you brother??
Cause when your NWO, your NWO 4 life! - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/15/2007, -1/+30KING: E-mail from Mrs. Gonzalez in Elizabeth, New Jersey. "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"
FOX: Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea...
KING: It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?
FOX: Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA. - RogerStrong, on 10/20/2007, -1/+28Agreed. Proportional representation wouldn't work with North America - with the U.S. having 10 times Canada's population, it would have ALL the power. Even an alliance with Mexico wouldn't offset it. It's called "the tyranny of the majority".
- bono4u, on 10/12/2007, -18/+45uhm, does a combined currency automatically open the borders?
i think not, in Europe we have since 2001 a joint currency and there were no big migration.
As our border opened for Europeans there was no big migration, too.
What was happening but that was happening before only now a bit faster is that firms went there were the salaries where lower, meanwhile a lot of these firms go back to their origins because of language problems but mainly because of bad education and training and resulting bad quality products or mending .
So i would say, cool down, it's not as hot eaten as it is cooked. - mikes1, on 10/15/2007, -17/+40No, it's not treason. Read the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
- RogerStrong, on 10/12/2007, -14/+37Of course not - the whole idea falls apart when you take a serious look at it.
With the Euro, you had *several* larger countries, and several smaller countries who could band together. There was little risk of one country dominating the others.
With a North American common currency, the US would dominate the whole thing. Whether you divide power by population or GDP, the U.S. would control it. Canada would never join, as it would have effectively no control over it's own currency.
Or, you could make each country an equal partner. But this becomes unfair to the U.S. with it's larger population and GDP.
In any case, the record U.S. debt is getting worse and the U.S. dollar is in free-fall. You can spot a crack-pot when they declare this as part of a plan for a common currency. Canada had been paying down it's debt, and it's jobless rate is at a 31-year-low. It's not going to tie itself to a sinking ship. - stellarceltic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25"What's the ratio of Stanley Nickels to Shrute bucks?"
"Same as the ratio of unicorns to leprechauns."
OFFICE FTW! - theojanke, on 10/15/2007, -0/+22KING: E-mail from Mrs. Gonzalez in Elizabeth, New Jersey. "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"
FOX: Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea...
KING: It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?
FOX: Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA. - nukethewhales, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/08/lkl ...
Transcript of the interview. If you read near the bottom, this was the question asked,
"E-mail from Mrs. Gonzalez in Elizabeth, New Jersey. "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?""
So as you can see, this page distorted the question, let alone the answer. Vicente Fox never claimed to have made such an "agreement." And there was no talk at all about merging the North and South American countries under one currency. Just xenophobic, paranoid *****. Buried as inaccurate. - uptown, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Here's the transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/08/lkl ...
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -16/+32Apparently you've never been to California....or Arizona.....or Texas.....or New Mexico, or Chicago, or Las Vegas, or....you get the point.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17how bout we have congress run the money for just our country, and have it based on gold and silver, like the founding fathers designed
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -31/+46Prepare for fascism.
- jroll8481, on 10/15/2007, -1/+15I agree that the article was poorly written and was more of a scare piece than real journalism. But there is some truth behind it. There has been an effort since 2005 and possibly before to empower NAFTA with more political authority over the three countries. The facts are there and these meetings between the 3 leaders have taken place. I for one dont necessarily disagree with the idea of a NAU, it seems to be something that has worked out in Europe and it has strengthened the economy for those involved. My concern however has more to do with the fact that Pres Bush is involved for the obvious reasons, I just have a hard time trusting him. Also if this is such a good thing, why has the American public been kept in the dark about it. Yes Lou Dobbs has been on top of this for a while but that is it. No one else has said a word on it. So many media members and government officials attack the administration and accuse the president of being a criminal, yet not one word on something that would have such a huge effect on our lives. Just seems very odd, I honestly dont have a theory as to what I think is going on but something just doesnt seem right about all this. Either way, if you want to learn more about it, here are the links to the actual report and the website for the SPP.
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachment ...
http://www.spp.gov/
Also for those people who want to label things as conspiracy theory, please do your own research before you speak. Disscounting something when you have no proof to the contrary makes you look very ignorant and it comes off more like you have an agenda. We should encourage independant thought in this country, and we have the right to question things around us that we do not trust. Just because someone thinks that it is possible does not mean that its true, but it means that we should on our own do research so that we can then form an opinion. - icodebot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14rarson is correct, he doesn't care about illegal immigration. Bush was trying to push through the amnesty bill last summer, and he would not pardon the 2 border patrol agents that were wrongly imprisoned 10 years for doing their job. All of this leads back to his open border policy.
- chaosium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13It's a shame Bush's administration couldn't teach you to read while they were at it.
- DevilsLeftHand, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17I think the word you're looking for is "Sedition". Not the same as Treason as you can see by mikes1's defintion.
- aguy90, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19for people who don't understand why this is such a big deal, you need to understand a couple of things. the european union is what is known as an economic union. that basically means that there are no barriers to trade, a common currency, and a couple other things i can't think of off the top of my head.
the united states is what is called a political union. it takes the idea of an economic union one step further by having a central government for the member states. basically if you think of each state as a country, the federal government is the government for the many states.
it is believed that any economic union will become a political union as the body that regulates trade between the countries starts gaining more power. basically the eu will become the united states of europe. following this example if there is a north american union formed it will consolidate power into the hands of one body that will have power over the united states, canada, and mexico. meaning there will be people creating laws that will affect you that you will have no recourse to. they will not be your elected officials, they will not be answerable to "the voter" - addiktion, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Yeah I have a feeling the dollar will keep following and they will try to introduce the Amero to replace the dollar to help "save" the economy. Unfortunately most of American is to dumbfounded to even realize whats going on, not to mention the media won't even talk about it because most of them are for it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Wtf, the former president of mexico confirms that he and bush have been working on the NAU and you call it conspiracy garbage?
How ***** dumb are you?
/oh wait, you're a spook. - aguy90, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12EU countries are fairly similar, economically speaking. central and south america's economies are not similar to that of the us or canada, thus creating desire to leave central and south america and move to the us or canada. they are not just seeking a common currency, they are seeking an economic union (look it up, it's what the eu is), where free movement of capital can take place. that capital can be workers.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Why do idiotic comments like that get dugg up? It's not treason, period. It may be stupid, but it's far removed from treason as defined by the Constitution.
- CanMediaJunkie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I, as a Canadian, do not want Canada to be tied to American Fiscal Policy, which is inter meshed with everything, including Foreign policy. If this (NAU) were already in place before 2003, Canada would probably be in Iraq right now. Canada is a sovereign country and we want to stay that way!
- soheil33, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17what are you talking about "conspiracy theories"?! they have been trying to keep this out of the media so people wouldn't question it..it's a FACT. Both Harper and Bush and also the Mexican president have agreed to this and is in the process.
the only person that i've seen it cover it in the media is Lou Dobbs on CNN..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tlp-7zYbzNM
check that link.. they wouldn't cover conspiracy theories on cnn now :P - diggduggjoe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12The problem with a trade union is how far will it go? Will US businesses and citizens need to go to agencies external to the US for rules, permits, fees and such? Will the Supreme Court be the top judicial agent or will some NAU arbitration board be the final decision maker? If, Mexico and Canada wish to become part of the US, there are portions of the US Constitution which covers that. They can become states. If, we held true to the forefathers' vision, more nations would love to join for they would be sovereign states. They would only be joining us in areas of commerce and defense. Exactly what the NAU is supposed to do. We should not destroy our Constitution by offering up our sovereignty.
- inactive, on 10/22/2007, -0/+11they arent building the wall, thats *****
they paid mexicans to build a tiny 15 mile wall in the desert where no on crosses anyway - nbcaffeine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11remember folks, nickels is money too
paid for in nickels by the us department of treasury - Jerim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I think you are assuming the amero is name for the United States of America, when in fact it is named for North America. Adding Canada doesn't change the name, since they are in North America as well.
- Nantel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16We'll join with the US once you guys have paid off all of your debt. Alternatively we'll just wait for your dollar to crash and we'll just buy the good parts.
- fnaqzna, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Did you notice the part when they mentioned that FOX IS NO LONGER THE LEADER OF MEXICO?
- rarson, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22It absolutely does appear out of the blue. Most of the money the Fed creates isn't printed, it's a balance in a computer somewhere. And they have nothing backing it, it just comes from nothing. Which is why our money is devalued by the creation of further money.
But I see what you are saying. The Fed is the US's "central bank," so who will be the "central bank" for the NAU? People with already too much money, no doubt. Probably more US elites. Those people can truly do whatever they want. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11So when the EU was being created did you say that it was a "conspiracy theory"???
- neoform, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Canada has 1/10 the population of the US, if we used a NAU we'd be affected far too heavily by what happens in the US, which would mean we'd have to have a common government, and the last thing Canadians need is to be called Americans. American Liberals are like Canadian conservatives.. the values in Canada are way different than those in the US..
- beholder67, on 10/12/2007, -16/+25new world order.....
- glasnostic, on 10/13/2007, -5/+14When this inaccurately titled article came up the other day I said the same thing. The U.S and Canada are not part of Latin America. Larry king asked about a Latin American currency. Personally I think that’s a great idea for them. But it has absolutely nothing to do with our greenbacks.
RTFA -
Show 51 - 100 of 522 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is