Posted on 06/24/2007 1:11:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
*crickets*
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you said I “refused” to read them.
But, you are, aren’t you?!
There’s nothing there I haven’t read already. So any time you’re ready, proceed with your argument.
Why don’t you start by attempting to explain away what the documents clearly state?
Why don’t you post something which refutes any of this besides your personal opinions?
Why don’t you post something which could lead one to credibly believe that the U.S. government is not incrementally positioning itself to align with the goals and agenda set forth in Pastor’s Building a North American Community.
I’ve shown you how it is. Post something, besides your opinions, which could lead one to believe anything but what a sane person could.....that this government is positioning itself to NAU goals.
BTW, saying I’m “full of crap” isn’t a credible or persuasive argument, lol.
After a rather extended foray into red-herring territory, i.e., your insistence that I allegedly "refuse" to look at the evidence, we have now arrived at the stage where you think you've posted "evidence." I place the word "evidence" in quotation marks because I have a more [ahem] conservative understanding of the word.
So here we are. I am looking for evidence that George W. Bush has an insidious plan to create the NAU. If his "plan" is being undertaken with other "gobalists," as you suggest, then it can correctly be described as a "the conspiracy to create the NAU" (in the future, just "the conspiracy").
Now we come to your comment #155 (that you thought I "refused" to read the first time it was posted, you think, in 2006). Your confusion (again, predictable) stems from my observation that you haven't posted evidence of the conspiracy at all. Let's take your first three examples (that I pick simply because they are the first three--if you wish to discuss the others you'll need to point to which specific ones you care to discuss, and how they represent the evidence you claim they represent). The first is a joint statement by the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Nope, no evidence of conspiracy to create the NAU there. The second is a link to the SPP's website. No evidence of the conspiracy there, either. The third is a link to paper written* for a thinktank. Evidence of what, exactly? God only knows, since you won't tell us.
The important lesson you should take from this exchange is that, on a conservative website, folks tend to be sceptical of outlandish claims, and look askance when others fail to deliver evidence that they are true. Hours ago, (days? was it even on this thread?) I gave you examples of the cooperation (under the SPP) between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. They included work on preparing for an outbreak of avian flu, standardization of civil aviation beacons (which Corsi yowls about in his latest "advertisement" for his book), telecommunication standards, and energy. One would expect that you could explain why the above are evidence of the conspiracy. Instead, you give me what amounts to a document-dump with no commentary. It's tiresome.
_____
*Even Pastor has stated he does not wish to see the borders between Canada, Mexico, and the United States dissolved, insisting that he simply wants to see more "cooperation." I don't care what he says either way, but it was humorous to see the usual suspects on this website portray the statement as more evidence of, you guessed it, the conspiracy.
It wasn't an "argument" (here I go with the English lessons, again). It was a response to your claim that I "refused" to read your "evidence." Your claim was crap when you said it the first time, remained crap when you continued to say it, and will be crap from now to eternity.
That is what magicians call "slight of hand". You're listening to what he says to your face, not watching what his hands are doing right in front of your face....you're also a fool if you think he's going to come straight out and ADMIT he wishes to dissolve U.S. sovereignty, because, as you know, that would wake up the sheeple.
Nice try, also at dodging the contents of the documents and the context of what they say in sum toto. My post was not about going to websites, they were about READING the documents, the blueprint laid out by the Council on Foreign Relations, and seeing how governments are aligning their policies and agendas to fit within the CFR scheme.
And all you posted to “refute” what I posted was your opinions, and your conjectures.
You posted absolutely NOTHING of any substance to show that the argument I put forth, backed by various and multiple documents and actions taken, official and corporate, is more than substantiated and credible.
That's what your feeble mind is incapable of comprehending . . . I'm not disputing any of your "proof." That is, I accept your documents (remember? the ones you thought I initially refused to read?) as provided. I'm waiting for you to actually make your argument. Show me what in those documents is evidence of your conspiracy.
It's not a surprise you initially thought I "refused" to hear your "proof." In reality, I must've heard it and found it of no substance whatsoever. C'mon, you post a link to spp.gov and expect a refutation? Of what?
My “arguments” are made within the post.
You apparently decided to not read ANYTHING in that post.
I’m not surprised; you just want to spout and spew.
The fear you would like to project onto others is irrelevant. The desires and intentions if the folks who wrote the cited paper are what they are. I’d like to think that the extent to which those desires are realized depends upon the will of the governed.
>>Look out, there’s a Free Mason under your bed.
The Free Mason’s are harmless. Most of the founding fathers were masons. I believe the fear associated with them is rooted in people’s ignorance of them.
>>Or is it a Rockefeller.
Ah now, I was wondering what that foul oder was. I assumed a rat had died under the floorboards. Same thing, I suppose - Rockefeller / Rat, it’s so hard to tell the difference.
You're not afraid? Well that's a relief.
The desires and intentions if the folks who wrote the cited paper are what they are.
Desires and intentions don't make the world go 'round. Why don't you post the Communist Manifesto and tell me how those desires and intentions worked out?
I’d like to think that the extent to which those desires are realized depends upon the will of the governed.
But they do. That's why until I see this union being voted into reality, I'll leave the worrying to you and Corsi.
Yawn. That’s like worrying about Hugh Heffner stealing my 80’year old granny. The Mexican reserves were never as grand as she was in her prime and they will probably be dry before she passes on.
Besides, if we did want that low grade sulfur ridden crud... well, I understand folks are doing amazing things with slant drilling technology these days.
But you cannot summarize them, nor point to which specific "arguments" prove your conspiracy. I guess that leaves you with the argument that I "refused" to read your material a year or so from now.
You didn’t read what I posted, had you done so, you wouldn’t be claiming that I didn’t say anything IN the post.
READ IT.
you must have difficulty reading anything past two sentences....because what I WROTE WAS MORE THAN TWO SENTENCES.
And I’m not talking about linking to documents. I linked to documents IN THE POST to back up WHAT I SAID IN THE POST.
That's the point, my friend. I'm not claiming you didn't say anything, I'm claiming that you haven't established your conspiracy.
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.