I really cannot see how you can say there is "no story" to a North American Union (NAU) noyhauser, especially when it is all around you if you will just do a little googling and weeding out the crap. Look at how the European Union was formed and you will see the same exact steps being implimented in North America. This is not a put-down, but I used to think exactly the way you do now, but I learned there is more to what is going on around us than the BS we are being fed on a daily basis from the media and educational institutions. However, you (and myself in the past) remind me of the clergy that refused to look into Gallileo's telescope when he wanted them to to look in and see the moons of Jupiter and that Jupiter was round and that moons did in fact revolve around it. They refused, forbade him from using his telescope or reporting his findings, and placed him in jail until he recanted. Mankind, therefore, remained ignorant to the fact that the earth was not flat and was not the center of the universe for hundreds of years. Finally I decided to look, and sometimes wish I hadn't, as the truth really is stranger than fiction.
So people are ignorant. Did you ever consider the fact that you might be more ignorant than others? The best we can do is to examine the evidence we have and evaluate it. I've tried to do that over and over in this thread. You have done nothing of the sort, as you're about to see again in the following reply.
If you truly believe "there is no story", please download
this PDF file from the Council of Foreign Relations entitled, "Building A North American Community". Read it fully, and I mean really read it if you seriously believe what you do and then tell us what you think. Tell us that it is a no story and that it is not happening under your very nose and that this PDF file is just nothing and means nothing and that it is just taken out of context when the full context is here! Then please e-mail Lou Dobbs of CNN and tell him he is full of it and spreading mistruths as he recounts here concerning a NAU:
And here is an update from Lou Dobbs concerning the SPP that bakakandajin alluded to and you fail to believe:
Is he as nuts as I or bakakandajin?
In short, yes.
So you cite a study by the CFR. Its a study, which advocates something. It doesn't mean it will happen or that people will accept it. This is just a think piece, proposing something to show that an alternate way is possible. It doesn't mean its going to happen; typically they don't.
Still you ignore the fact that EVERY single indicator shows north american integration has been decreasing over the past decade. Next spring you're going to need a passport to get into the United States. Each day more checkpoints are being established along the border and security measures are increasing. And you have influential members of congress calling for MORE to be done. Yet there is an economic reality here, an Mexican thinktank estimated that border inefficiencies cost the US and Mexican economy 40 billion dollars a year; not exactly chump change. The whole reason why a CFR did a study was to mitigate some of these problems which have crept up since 9-11. It doesn't mean its going to happen, particularly when most of american wants MORE restrictions on the borders, not less; and they are getting them. How you can go and say there is going to be a North American Union, when the majority of Americans want mexican workers out of the country and walls to be erected is beyond me.
Thats the reality.
Are we all making this stuff up and believing crap that really doesn't exist? Or, do we just have a better handle on what is going around us than others and trying to spread the word to the "handicapped individuals" and the ignorant?
Seriously, given all the times I've shown your arguments to be absolutely false, I can't believe you'd even begin to claim you "have a better handle on whats going on." You're not even responding to many of my posts, you're just talking through them.
I also noticed how you politely ignored, and had no comment concerning my quote above from the NY Times Editor and the quote from the congressional record about the control of newspapers and media. Do a little research and you too will discover that ALL major media, in ALL industrialized countries, ARE owned by financial institutions who have a vested interest in not letting this news out ands ONLY let out what they deem is necessary or will do no harm.Do a little more digging and you will see that the financial interests are owned by the wealthiest families in the US and Europe and that these families go back hundreds of years.
This is exactly the utter crap you spew forth. First off your contention is false, you have a wide range of ownership in the media industry illustrated by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation the Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Post. The first is State owned and highly independent, The second one is a trust, and the third is owned by a single family that has few other interests. Hardly what you would call the "oldest wealthiest families." The same goes for the Manchester Guardian, one of the most successful news companies in the world today because it is free.
I politely ignored it because its a quote from 1910 because its one quote and one perspective. Thats not proof of anything. You don't know anything about the context the speech was given, or what his actual perspective was. You're just using it as proof. Yet there have been serious changes in society that make the two claims suspect. Media has changed as have society in the last 40 years. Journalistic integrity has changed, certainly for the better, partly because of the societal changes in the 1960s. No trend better illustrates this than the coverage of Vietnam by people like Neil Sheenan and David Halberstam, or Watergate by Woodward and Bernstein. Moreover the proliferation in media "eyes" because of the internet has just added even more accountability to the mix.
Most of the journalists I know today are driven by a personal commitment to getting the truth out. As I said earlier, they often risk life and limb to do so. Editing does change the message somewhat, but its less than you would suspect. And if anything, Scandal and intrigue sell, so having more of it actually increases the profitability of news organizations.
Please, look into the telescope, or would you rather prefer to stay in your own safe cocoon and heed when you are told to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?" (Wizard of Oz reference). After all, we have no facts to back up our claims and are just a bunch of conspiracy nuts.
Oh seriously? If anything you're the one who lives in the cocoon. I've travelled to many of the places you've talked about, and spoken to the people you consistently denigrate. All you do in these posts is come up with poor evidence or no evidence to back up your points. You stab at shadows in your posts with vague theories and even vaguer evidence. I can point to hard evidence and concrete explanations.
If what is printed and said is NOT true, why aren't the authors held for libel and slander? Could it be that there are many thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people like yourself who do not believe it anyway and to start a lawsuit would just draw attention of the masses to the truth and they just might start looking into it? To ignore it is the better course of action as most people believe, "Well, if that were true it would on the evening news and in the newspapers." Exactly my point.
Actually you're proving mine. Newspapers are sued for libel all the time, though moreso in European States than in the United States because of the 1st amendment. You see it all the time in Europe on a whole range of issues.
You see similar issues in Canada, recently with the depiction of muslims. So yes there are legal limits on what can be published in Canada/
Another point debunked.
I would venture to say that there are some people who enter public service out of a duty and forthrightedness, but they are naive and do not last long. Maybe one term. They soon come to learn how the game is played and, if they do not play the game, they are not re-elected as their funding is cut off in favor of someone who may be tempted to "play the game" and, without funding from outside interests, one will NEVER be elected. Jesse Ventura proved that as did some other former governors, congressmen and women, and local elected officials....
If it was not greed or a lust for power, why on earth would someone spend millions of their own money for a position that pays far less than they would ever earn as a representative even if they spent 20 years there? Because they want to do good? HA! The truth be told, the perks of government service today far outweigh the millions they would spend to get elected and if they "play the game", they will reap far more than what they invested to get elected if they agree to vote this way or that way on a bill before congress or the senate. The lobbying power of the major corporations today and the funding and money under the table is far greater than anyone realizes.
Spoken like a person who knows nothing about the reality of politics. Its astounding to me that you can come on here and say that you're an arbiter of truth when you say such a thing. The people that I know personally would laugh you out of the room for claiming such a thing. Part of the problem with public service is that it doesn't have competitive rates, that good people with real ability don't enter into government because its not lucrative enough for them. They can make far more working in the private sector, with far less stress.
So why do people work for government, whether it be in the public service or as a politician? Many, if not most do it because they feel they have a sense duty to the public. That may encompass a whole range of perspectives about what the public good may entail. Its somewhat the same reason why people serve in the military. You don't go into the military for making money; most do it to protect the loved ones and the country. ITs a duty to a higher purpose.
Thats not to say that people don't do it for egoism or other forms of self engrandisement. You have to be self assured and often possess a predatory sense to be effective. And yes understanding the system is a key part. Much of it requires "horse trading" to get your way on some issues. Politics is a difficult profession. You have entrenched interests, with often contradictory aims. One of the finest books I've ever read that describes this process is
Eric Raymond's book "The Dance of Legislation." I'm not saying its pretty. Its tough, the impetus is for no action to occur. Some might balk at how difficult it is to get some sort of movement, but many appreciate it, and work for the small victories that are in their interests.
However its not about making yourself rich, by a long shot; you don't go into public service for money. And corruption doesn't exist in the same ways as it did. Corruption was far more widespread in the past, partly because people could get away with it due to the lack of oversight. However the rules have changed significantly since the 1960s, and corruption is nowhere near where it was. Government has just become that much more transparent in the last few decades. Even personal lives of public servants are no longer held as sacrosanct.
Seriously though, I suggest you go and really talk to people who do what they do and get to know them before launching your lazy claims about people's behavior. You did it about journalists and now politicians. You've shown no understanding about these things, except a willingness not to move out of your little cognitive world where everything is bad and that you're the arbiter of truth.