Posted on 05/19/2006 6:56:03 AM PDT by Dark Skies
I don't care if what I say amuses you.
The fact remains the articles I've mentioned I've posted, as has hedgetrimmer, calcowgirl, and numerous others, and additional articles besides. That you choose to feign ignorance of them is not my issue, problem, or fault.
http://www.cec.org
The official web site of the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation.
http://www.naalc.org/
The official web site of the North American Commission on Labor Cooperation.
http://www.nadbank.org/
North American Development Bank
http://www.intermodal.org
Intermodal Association of North America
As for your concerns about groups of people writing documents that influence government policy...that is nothing new in American history and is actually a vital component of our democracy. And nobody is labeling or mocking people for disagreeing with what any document says. As evidenced by this thread, I have been doing my best to get anyone to actually discuss the document. My ridicule and disagreement is reserved for people who make broad and unsupportable statements about conspiracy theories that don't exist.
I'm not ignorant that they exist. I am just aware that they DO NOT say what you claim they do, and you can't provide any support to prove otherwise. I have little doubt, that if you could...you would.
We're not in grammar school any longer. Choose what you wish to do. I already gave instructions once.
BUMP!
Wouldn't it just be easier to support your points? I mean that sincerely. Do you not think your arguments would be a little more convincing if you offered specific evidence to support your statements when you make them, rather than just making a broad statement and then telling the person you make it to to go Google up support for it. If you stand behind your convictions, support them. Don't expect others to find support for them for you. They won't.
Rokke, knock off the chicanery. You're convincing no one with your tactics. I posted articles immediately above and below your own posts, as well as directly to you.
Search the words in the articles (posted oftentimes all around your own posts) which I previously posted and told you look for. You will find them. It's really not "top secret."
No, they are labeling and mocking them for taking the original article under consideration and for agreeing with what some of the documents say (What was that cute little reference to Sisyphus again?) Others just want to dismiss the whole thing because CFR is made up of "good men".
It is the job of the People to hold Government accountable. Some seem to resent them for doing so.
I agree that Rokke is well versed regarding the CFR and his posts are well written. And although I disagree with his take on this subject, I never felt the need to post to him until he wrote...
"Who is advocating integrating with corrupt socialist and communist governments? What is your evidence that this country has been or wants to be?"
Once I read that, the word AGENDA splashed accross my computer screen. So our President, Senators, US Corporations and their lobbyists are not complicit with Mexico in selling out the US Taxpayer. Where has Rokke or you been the last 6 months?
BTW, I never called Rokke naive or stupid. If I did, please show me.
And then you said they said this...
"The goals are to remove the sovereignty of the United States and of Canada, take their wealth and distribute it to Mexico, even moreso than has been the case. It is to encourage migration from Mexico to the United States."
And this...
" Encouragement of migration is plainly spelled out. Focusing on the borders of the North American Union is plainly spelled out. Reducing focus on internal borders, i.e., Canada/USA and USA/Mexico, is plainly spelled out. Encouraging interdependence and/or assimilation between and among Canada/USA and USA/Mexico is also within the texts."
Of course they say no such thing. So I asked you to reference where you found support for your statements... and you tell me to "get google, type in the words "migration", "border", "dependent", and "assimilate" and you'll find those terms." And you think THAT is "convincing"?
The fact remains, you continue to make statements you cannot support. You can post every document the CFR has ever written, but if you say they've said something they haven't said, you are no more correct than you are now.
Sigh. Here we go again. Can you point out where that has happened. Honestly, is it too high a standard to expect people to back up their claims with facts?
"What was that cute little reference to Sisyphus again?"
What would you call an effort to get someone to engage in a discussion they initiated, only to have them dodge to some other topic everytime you get close to getting a real discussion going?
"It is the job of the People to hold Government accountable. Some seem to resent them for doing so."
No. What people like me resent are people who make things up and then expect the government to respond to their fantasies. The government has a tough enough job just handling real world problems.
Similarly, just as your non-denial denial that you have "no horse in this race," or that you are not "conflicted" to even be discussing this document objectively, even though your relative is in CFR and may have had a hand in designing the very document about which we speak, does not make your claims factual. Unless we believe what you say just because....well, you said so.
And neither does your claim that the "reason I didn't post I have a family member in the CFR is because that fact is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the discussion" make that fact, well, irrelevant at all. Trust me.
THEN PROVE IT!!!
I already gave instructions. For the second time, you may choose to do whatever you wish to do. But it's pretty obvious to me you're choose "not."
Does the Sisyphus comment make any more sense to you Calcowgirl? I'm dealing with people who think directing someone to Google is supporting their own false claims.
Now you're taking what I said out of context.
What a surprise.
Now beyond all better judgement, I'm going to ask you to explain where I did that. I'll be happy to correct myself if I did.
I assume you do know how to read? Encouragement of migration is plainly spelled out. Focusing on the borders of the North American Union is plainly spelled out. Reducing focus on internal borders, i.e., Canada/USA and USA/Mexico, is plainly spelled out. Encouraging interdependence and/or assimilation between and among Canada/USA and USA/Mexico is also within the texts. Interdependence, btw, takes away from Independence, a necessary ingredient to sovereignty.If you're too lazy to find the words by reading, get google, type in the words "migration", "border", "dependent", and "assimilate" and you'll find those terms. If you need help with reading comprehension, there are online helps for that.
On this thread, or in those particular documents about which I have referred at least a half dozen times on this thread, if you type each of those words on your google toolbar, your mouse will be brought to those particular words.
Since it is you who claims how clever you are, I really didn't think I'd have to explain to you how to find a word on a thread or in a document using such simple "find next" tools on a tool bar. It appears I overestimated your abilities. For that I apologize.
when you typed this did you have a straight face?
Fair enough. I will take you at face value then. When I read the phrases above in context, I thought you were being ironic in an attempt to discredit his response. I apologize if you were being sincere and I misunderstood.
On the substance of this debate...I think the more important question is, where have these conspiracy theories been the last sixty years? The truth is EXACTLY where they are today. As footnotes in the margins.
I do not believe that President Bush or the star players on his team are particularly influenced by organizations such as the CFR. He is influenced by people who are members, as are all Presidents, but I believe the evidence shows that the President is much more likely to be influenced by experience with people like his housekeeper or an Iraqi who lost part of his family under Saddam, or someone who lost his wife in the WTC than he is the elites.
You may still not like the results, but to fit his behavior into some secret one world government plot is actually a complete misunderstanding of the man and his character—and imo the characters of many of the people who are members of the CFR.
Again I apologize for my mischaracterization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.