See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: I have to say, I am very surprised at the number of 4um posters who are considering voting for Obama or any of the Establishment picks....
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 13, 2008
Author: Christine
Post Date: 2008-02-13 19:56:40 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 7591
Comments: 359
By voting for any one of them, you support and lend legitimacy to the fraud. Isn't it time we say no and no more?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-50) not displayed.
.
.
.
#51. To: kiki (#48)
One World Monopolists The 3 front runners; Hitlery, Hussein Obama and Juan McNorthAmericanUnion are all on the same page.
Our last hope for peace I'm neither. I just like guns. Come and get them Ooooooooooooooooooooobama.
I seriously believe you're a fraud from the word go.
Our last hope for peace I'm a hunter that's appealing for an Open Season on quislings...
Our last hope for peace me??? apologies to all
Your two cents was well written and without malice for anyone, I appreciate that. Forgetting that who is good, better or best, is needed in an effort to clear ones mind. Assign them letters and accept that they stand for nothing. All being on an equal footing, how would you vote? Does'nt it stand to reason that it makes no difference? Now back to the real world, realize that a relativly small number of people have preselected who the candidates will be, with that in mind, does it really matter who you vote for????
and that's it in a nutshell
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised! And you sir are truly an artist at the keyboard and a master of the short, angry, and unedifying comment.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Not wanting McCain or Hillary has a lot of posters here upset.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised! North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA Jerome R. Corsi In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health. SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de EconomÃa Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew. Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda: In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people. In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health. SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de EconomÃa Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew. Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda: In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people. This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight. Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed. And again, the June 2005 SPP report stresses: The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure. Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies. What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step. Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital. Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department. Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created and extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as “a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.” The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled “Building a North American Community.” The Task Force’s central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii) The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within: Its (the North American Community’s) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3) What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions: While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence. The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24) Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening. Our last hope for peace Did it make a difference in 2000?
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
How can you all be this naive? Hillary, McCain or Obama are ALL THE SAME! Support ANY of them and you're supporting the establishment's next America-wrecker...
Our last hope for peace A vote for Rutherford B. Hayes was a vote for peace and tranquility, and it was.
Sadly, I and mine will get what morons like you and yours deserve. How did that one rate?
Our last hope for peace iconoclast, you have to admit it's ironic that your #58 is a short, angry, and unedifying comment :)
While I'm thinking of it, I have some ocean front property in New Mexico I'm looking to unload...
Our last hope for peace it might matter locally? in my experience most people go and vote every four years for a president, and are surprised to find there are a lot more people and issues to vote for on their ballot that they really had given no thought to at all. maybe that's what they ought to be thinking more about.
Unfortunately your boy Jerome is another 100 year Arab War man. Well, nobody's perfect.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
It has not made a difference in a very long time... Back in the 1940s we had two parties, in the minds of the sheep. BOTH parties offered the candidacy to Eisenhower. Now, if we have two parties, and the sheep think they stand for different things, how come one man could run for either? That was my first clue that they were one and the same way back then. It makes no difference who you vote for.
I am hoping that Bush just cancels the elections and stays in office. Then nobody has to vote and Bush could pardon Larry Craig.
There's something to be said for voting for the biggest, baddest weed. It might strangle all the other weeds, leaving just one problem to deal with.
It was literally impossible for those with soft-cyber chips in their head to imagine evil of the Korozhet.
Candidates for presidency are arranged from the top down. Paul for an example from the bottom up.
Gee, McInsane sure had us all faked out last summer.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
I think kiki expressed the dilemma very well. Do you prefer a McCain presidency then? Would it be good for your real-estate endeavors?
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised! Well, nobody's perfect. No, he's the only one that said all along if there really is a terror problem Iran and Pakistan are bigger concerns than Afghanistan and Iraq which are diversions. Unfortunately, you've been deceived not once, but twice...
Our last hope for peace They could make a mistake. I've noticed that aren't that competent.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised! that sounds wonderful
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised! Any one of the 3 will give you the exact same thing. Hussein Obama will be given the reason for war and he'll do his lord's will. They're all going to give you Amnesty and the North American Union. Why support ANY of them? Just to be cool? I don't get it. There is no 'lesser evil' at this point. They're all pure wickedness. Why don't you people see this (I might not want to know the answer, it's occurred to me)?
Our last hope for peace It might strangle all the other weeds, leaving just one problem to deal with. We tried that. Now we've got problems in every direction.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
I do see a lesser evil. I could be wrong, but from what I've researched and read I believe he would cause the least amount of harm.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised! I meant worry more about who's running your city and less about who's running the country, as it's liable to impact your life more, and your vote probably has litle impact on the national scene anyway.
Any one of the 3 will give you the exact same thing. Why are we having this discussion? WAKE UP EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oh, excellent, but the vote for one of their preselected simply reinforces a belief in the fraudulent system and that we-the-people want more of the same.
The only solution to this mess is to dig a hole big enough to nudge them all in and cover quickly
Remember the "peace dividend" under Clinton and the ensuing 8 years of madness?? The politicans ALWAYS manage to screw it up.....
"There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America." - Otto von Bismarck
You're wrong.
Our last hope for peace For those in the Constitution State: If your hero isn't on the ballot, your write-in vote will be counted, but it will _NOT_ be considered valid; ie, you didn't vote for that position. Take it up with that stupid bitch Susan Bysiewicz. I do mean stupid. Or, perhaps not so stupid, but corrupt. I sent several emails regarding the first electronic voting machine choice and received back a totally erroneous reply relating the Fed approval of the contractor when the Fed agency had no members. More on this crap available at www.BlackboxVoting.org
I vote local and state but Federal is a different story. Local and state there is a modicum of accountability, once you go to Swampville, there is NO recourse.
so you advocate voting based on middle names? I really am not an obama supporter, but the more forwarded emails I get judging him by his middle name, the more I wonder about people.
Indeed... My point was and is that it makes NO difference who you vote for president. Withholding is a different story. I posted here somewhere tonite about there are many Americans that routinely do NOT vote for president, I added they were smarter than me.
Exactly! Are we the people really this stupid? (don't answer that)
Our last hope for peace 48 hours?! 'dis bitch ain't gonna keep no 48 hours. I ain't no cracker cannibal. Crazy crackers and der recipes.
It was literally impossible for those with soft-cyber chips in their head to imagine evil of the Korozhet.
Comments (92 - 359) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#52. To: FOH (#45)
"I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms
#53. To: iconoclast (#50)
I seriously doubt it ... but in the unlikely event that it is I hope you'll know who to blame.
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#54. To: Jethro Tull (#52)
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#55. To: iconoclast (#50)
I seriously doubt it ... but in the unlikely event that it is I hope you'll know who to blame.
#56. To: kiki (#44)
what we all should focus on while the dog and pony show plays out. my 2 cents :)
#57. To: kiki (#44)
if obama is the candidate against mccain, a vote for obama could be a vote *against* 100 years in iraq and a new war in iran. a vote for a third party candidate (I personally like cynthia mckinney) could be a vote that helps mccain, and promotes war.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson
#58. To: FOH (#53)
I seriously believe you're a fraud from the word go.
#59. To: Brian S (#2)
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson
#60. To: iconoclast (#50)
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#61. To: Cynicom (#56)
Does'nt it stand to reason that it makes no difference?
#62. To: robin (#59)
Not wanting McCain or Hillary has a lot of posters here upset.
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#63. To: robin (#59)
#64. To: iconoclast (#58)
And you sir are truly an artist at the keyboard and a master of the short, angry, and unedifying comment.
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#65. To: iconoclast (#58)
#66. To: robin (#57)
if obama is the candidate against mccain, a vote for obama could be a vote *against* 100 years in iraq and a new war in iran. a vote for a third party candidate (I personally like cynthia mckinney) could be a vote that helps mccain, and promotes war.
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#67. To: Cynicom (#56)
Now back to the real world, realize that a relativly small number of people have preselected who the candidates will be, with that in mind, does it really matter who you vote for????
#68. To: FOH (#60)
#69. To: iconoclast (#61)
Did it make a difference in 2000?
#70. To: christine (#0)
#71. To: christine (#0)
#72. To: kiki (#67)
it might matter locally?
#73. To: Cynicom (#56)
Now back to the real world, realize that a relativly small number of people have preselected who the candidates will be, with that in mind, does it really matter who you vote for????
#74. To: FOH (#66)
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson
#75. To: iconoclast (#68)
Unfortunately your boy Jerome is another 100 year Arab War man.
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#76. To: Cynicom (#56)
Now back to the real world, realize that a relativly small number of people have preselected who the candidates will be, with that in mind, does it really matter who you vote for????
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson
#77. To: Cynicom (#63)
a vote for peace and tranquility,
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson
#78. To: robin (#74)
Do you prefer a McCain presidency then? Would it be good for your real-estate endeavors?
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#79. To: Tauzero (#71)
There's something to be said for voting for the biggest, baddest weed.
#80. To: FOH (#78)
Why support ANY of them? Just to be cool? I don't get it. There is no 'lesser evil' at this point.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson
#81. To: Cynicom (#72)
it might matter locally? Candidates for presidency are arranged from the top down. Paul for an example from the bottom up.
#82. To: FOH, robin (#78)
Do you prefer a McCain presidency then? Would it be good for your real-estate endeavors?
#83. To: Cynicom (#56)
Now back to the real world, realize that a relativly small number of people have preselected who the candidates will be, with that in mind, does it really matter who you vote for????
#84. To: robin (#77)
#85. To: robin (#80)
I do see a lesser evil. I could be wrong, but from what I've researched and read I believe he would cause the least amount of harm.
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#86. To: christine (#0)
Zig for great Justice
#87. To: kiki (#81)
I meant worry more about who's running your city and less about who's running the country, as it's liable to impact your life more, and your vote probably has litle impact on the national scene anyway
#88. To: FOH (#78)
Hussein Obama will be given the reason for war and he'll do his lord's will.
#89. To: christine (#83)
oh, excellent, but the vote for one of their preselected simply reinforces a belief in the fraudulent system and that we-the-people want more of the same.
#90. To: christine (#83)
oh, excellent, but the vote for one of their preselected simply reinforces a belief in the fraudulent system and that we-the-people want more of the same.
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#91. To: Jethro Tull (#27)
Refrigerate, covered, for 36 - 48 hours, turning the meat occasionally.
.
.
.