It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Startling new developments on North American Union!

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
The big nation is getting bigger. Is this a real problem, or an opportunity?




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Its not about getting bigger. Its about destroying america in favor of the Tri country Union.

My problem with out of control illegal immigration is 1) they dont pay taxes to support their 2) added strain on the infrastructure which was built by hard working over taxed americans and 3) dont assimilate and dont give a damn about america. They dont even speak english. Everybody else that emmigrated here before learned to speak english and joined the american culture. These immigrants are not and hence are destroying american culture.

Illegal immigration is encouraged to help destroy america and further along the NAU.

Mexican government officials have declared "war on america by migratory tactics." They are attempting to take over the south west and declare it mexico.

This is part of the plan to help bring about NAU by destroying our borders.

These two films are SHOCKING!

Immigration by numbers


Google Video Link


The Line in the sand - Literally as well as figuratively, because our border is nothing more than an imaginary line in the sand with no fence. This film shows how the US govt actually helps convicted RAPISTS and DRUG DEALERS and other CRIMINALS illegally sneak into this country through TUNNELS built by the BORDER PATROL!!! These poor US CITIZENS on the border are gettin shafted. Aliens steal their stuff, wreck their property, leave disease laden feces all over the place, and all around destroy this country.


Google Video Link



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
Are you really suggesting that if the rich werent so rich this whole country would fall apart? Do you have any historical precedent to back this up?

Absolutely, it's a little experiment called The United States of America. Historically in America, the wealthy ALWAYS hold the nation together, ALWAYS keep the economy afloat. The middle class, the consumers, merely facilitate cash flow, moving money from one hand to the next. If the wealthy closed their coffers, nobody in the middle class would have paychecks, nobody in the middle class would be able to take out loans, nobody in the middle class would even have jobs.

And don't give me that hooey about small business being the backbone of America, or that redneck line of crap about "bustin' mah ass" somehow being responsible for America's dominance of the world economy. It's the wealthy who make America what it is, and the middle class are just users of that wealth.


Originally posted by sp00n1
Seriously, if instead of the income gap being sooooo wide, what if the distribution were a little more like this: Instead of the top 1% having 90% of the wealth, the top 10% have 90% of the wealth? ...How about if the breakdown were like this; top 50% have 60% of wealth?

And how do you propose to facilitate this illegal, Robin-Hood-like redistribution of other people's wealth? There's a reason that the "top 10%" and the "top 50%" aren't in the "top 1%," and it's because they haven't EARNED it. What part of earning your wealth do the Democrats (I mean Libertarians) fail to understand? Why must the Grand Plan always include a raid on other people's wealth to appease the seething masses?


Originally posted by sp00n1
The current wealth accumulation of top 1% having 90% of all wealth is UNPRECEDENTED!!! Trying to argue that it is somehow good or necessary for the rest of us to perpetuate this theft is preposterous!!

Before we go any further with this Libertarian/Marxist propaganda, I'm going to put you on the spot and ask you for your source on these ridiculous and indeed mythical statistics about the "richest 1%" of Americans owning 90% of the wealth. See, I've gone over the statistics of the U.S. Census Bureau, and no where do I see the math that adds up to your claims. The number fluctuates yearly, but the most recent U.S. Census data seems to indicate that the "richest 1%" own and control about 35% of this nation's wealth. Which is still a considerable amount, but it sure as hell isn't over 90%.

Meanwhile, let's look at global wealth... The richest 1% of people in the entire world own about 85% of the entire world's wealth.

Now, that is a major disparity — but, you know what? This tells me that the "inequality of wealth" in the United States is not nearly as great as it is in the rest of the world. In fact, the distribution of wealth in America, while not equal across the board, is more than TWICE as fair as it is anywhere else in the world!

Meaning, the middle class in America already has it pretty good compared to the glaring inequality of wealth elsewhere — but that's what any honest observer already knows. This propaganda about the capitalist pigs in their ivory towers, leeching the lifeblood of America's downtrodden middle class, is pure and unadulterated Marxism.

Call yourself what you will — Libertarian, Democrat, left-leaning Republican or whatever — but if you endorse redistributing America's wealth, then you're a spokesman for socialist totalitarianism, my friend.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I am opposed to redistributing wealth unnaturally, whether it be from the rich to the poor, or the poor to the rich.

And what we are seeing is the unnatural redistribution from the poor to the rich, and you keep trying to make it seem like the rich are the victims.

I can show you the differential equations computing the natural, organic and exponential growth of the population right next to the unnatural decay of wealth distribution, but that math would be way over your head and you just claim its some liberal, conservative, marxist, facist, communist red-neck conspiracy.

If you really think that the rich are not getting richer at the poors expense, then the GAO, leading universities around the world, and a number of economist must also be in this massive right-wing / left-wing communist conspiracy.

If you really think that the wealth inequality has not changed, then you should just go back to rush limbaugh and let him keep blowing pixie dust up your ass.

www.econ.utah.edu...

I have no problem with people being rich, so long as they dont steal it. The problem is rich people buy influence and rig the game more in their favor. Eventually they make so much money that they can eliminate tariffs on imported labor and ship our jobs over seas.

JUST LIKE THE NAU!!!

Yes, they do soooo much to help us out, now dont they?



[edit on 3/3/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
It wont be long untill mexico and the us will be using the same currency. Then canada will join in and we will have our own version of the euro. I just wonder if canada will be still using free health care. or if the us and mexico will adopt free healthcare. then the north american currency and the euro will merge and soon the mark of the beast and the one world government will be arriving.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
NAU has all sorts of ramifications. Joining with Canada will undoubtedly mean that the U.S. will also adopt socialized health care and stricter gun control. Joining with Mexico will mean we get more oil, less wages and a total annihilation of the American way of life. The more serious issue with a NAU is the one regarding our constitution. Will Canadians and Mexicans be willing to live under the constitution of the U.S.? I sincerely doubt it. Our constitutional rights are on their way OUT! It's anyone's guess what we'll be left with in it's place.
To the poster who wanted to reclaim America for Democracy, I have to point out that ours is supposed to be a constitutional republic form of government. Not sure when we degraded into a democracy or when people quit understanding that there is a difference in the two but it seems to have paved the way for acceptance of a NAU where our constitution is to be trashed in favor of god knows what.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   
A representative republic is a form of democracy, it is an indirect democracy. It is not a direct democracy. A democracy does not need to be direct in order to be democratic, it can vary in its levels of democracy. Some may argue it is not a 'true democracy', but it is still 'democratic' in nature.

www.indirectdemocracy.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Why is it that all you Yankies see to have cotton wool between your ears, for your arrogance has reached Himalayan scales. Just because the Bush administration is pushing ahead with the North American Union doesn't mean that Canada will accept it and, without Canada, all it amounts to is the takeover of Mexico.

It was the PREVIOUS Liberal Prime Minister who was agreeable to it. The current Tory one under Harper sends representatives along to the meeting, nods in the right palces and then junks any such propostiions on the most minor technicality once they get back to their office.

The Harper Adminsitration up here has NO INTEREST in the NAU and only went a long so far in the meetings so as not to piss off the Yankies and ensure that we can sell our soft wood lumber down there. With that now secure, they will be gently backing our in a sort of slow, first gear reverse.

And as for all these "scret meetings" of industrialists, no-one here gives a monkey's about them because the state up here is so blockheaded that it is almost entirely deaf to anyone in private business.

You Yankies are so dumb to think that your northern neighbours would buy the Brooklyn Bridge from you. Remeber, teh Cnadians are reasonable about everything, but when it comes to the crunch, they told you where to get off in 1776, 1812 and joined both world wars long before you did. And with a President who is viewed by about 90% of the Public as being about as popular a eating a dog turd, the Yankies seem hardly likely to get their hands on "Canukistan" do they?

Furthermore, if any of you wanted to stop the NAU, you would see that a "scorched earth" defence was the best way to bring it down... namely convince the Canuks to dump it rather than bashing your head against a brick wall with Bush.

Finally, I do know what I am taling about her. My girlfriend actually works in the Ministry associated with this and NO-ONE there and I mean NO-ONE there wants it and they really do just go along to the meetings to nod in the right places jsut to keep the Yankies happy so they'll buy our lumber,but back at the office are working flat out to see how to sabotage it.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Like you seem to have an excellent understanding, US has a stranglehold over canada. Canada economy depends on america in so many ways. Canadas military relies on US arms and a general ally stance with the states.

If they are pushed into 'feigning' interest in this proposal now, what happens later when the time comes to move forward?

If they have to play along now, what leverage will they have then?

How will they stop it? Will they suddenly give up their reliance on the American market? Will they give up their reliance on the american military?

I think you guys have been smoking too much of that decriminalized 'soft lumber'.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join