Bush sneaking North American super-state without oversight? (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

In the Senate, Richard Lugar introduced a bill which would establish a Security and Prosperity Partnership between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The bill promptly died in committee as it did when Katherine Harris introduced the same bill in the House. However, this did not stop President Bush from creating the entity by way of executive order (royal decree?).

Now here is where this all gets very interesting:

[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American Union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]
[/FONT]

 

[Billo_Really]

This is just one more example that we do not have a representative government.

 

[TheNextEra]

This is just one more example that we do not have a representative government.

ACtually we do, the problem is the majority of Americans are either stupid or just don't care enough to care.

Think about, our representatives in congress are some of the most corrupt people in the government (On all sides) and how do the majority of Americans punish these corrupt people? By voting them in again of course.

People are more concerned of voting along party lines or they vote (As I like to call it) one-topic wonders (i.e. abortion for or against, gay marraige for or against etc.)

If the majority of Americans really cared about their government and cared about the corruption, then we wouldn't have the corruption. The sad part is, the majority of Americans would rather continue to vote along party lines and continue to "punish" these corruptors by allowing them to continue the corruption.

IMO, we should have a "none of the above vote" and if "none of the above" wins the election all candidates are prohibited from running again that term and we get new candidates. Afterall awhile, these people in congress would realize that we aren't going to take this corruption anymore. Sadly, I doubt it would happen, because it would require the majority of people to actually care about politics and vote for whats right and not for whats convenient.

 

[ProudAmerican]

ACtually we do, the problem is the majority of Americans are either stupid or just don't care enough to care.

Think about, our representatives in congress are some of the most corrupt people in the government (On all sides) and how do the majority of Americans punish these corrupt people? By voting them in again of course.

People are more concerned of voting along party lines or they vote (As I like to call it) one-topic wonders (i.e. abortion for or against, gay marraige for or against etc.)

If the majority of Americans really cared about their government and cared about the corruption, then we wouldn't have the corruption. The sad part is, the majority of Americans would rather continue to vote along party lines and continue to "punish" these corruptors by allowing them to continue the corruption.

IMO, we should have a "none of the above vote" and if "none of the above" wins the election all candidates are prohibited from running again that term and we get new candidates. Afterall awhile, these people in congress would realize that we aren't going to take this corruption anymore. Sadly, I doubt it would happen, because it would require the majority of people to actually care about politics and vote for whats right and not for whats convenient.

while I agree.....I will also add that not only do people vote along party lines.....we also have so many people that vote due to an entitlement mentality.

who cares if they are corrupt, as long as I get my welfare, food stamps, farm subsidie, education grant, tax break, business loan, etc.

 

[TheNextEra]

while I agree.....I will also add that not only do people vote along party lines.....we also have so many people that vote due to an entitlement mentality.

who cares if they are corrupt, as long as I get my welfare, food stamps, farm subsidie, education grant, tax break, business loan, etc.

I agree fully, that's why I said people don't vote for what's right, they vote for what's convenient.

Our government, the way it is set up, has many checks and balances but it requires the active participation of all it's citizens for it to work correctly.

The way it stands now, our government is only corrupt because the citizens allow it to be corrupt.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TheNextEra
ACtually we do, the problem is the majority of Americans are either stupid or just don't care enough to care.

Think about, our representatives in congress are some of the most corrupt people in the government (On all sides) and how do the majority of Americans punish these corrupt people? By voting them in again of course.

People are more concerned of voting along party lines or they vote (As I like to call it) one-topic wonders (i.e. abortion for or against, gay marraige for or against etc.)

If the majority of Americans really cared about their government and cared about the corruption, then we wouldn't have the corruption. The sad part is, the majority of Americans would rather continue to vote along party lines and continue to "punish" these corruptors by allowing them to continue the corruption.

IMO, we should have a "none of the above vote" and if "none of the above" wins the election all candidates are prohibited from running again that term and we get new candidates. Afterall awhile, these people in congress would realize that we aren't going to take this corruption anymore. Sadly, I doubt it would happen, because it would require the majority of people to actually care about politics and vote for whats right and not for whats convenient.

If your going to sit there and tell me that it is We the People's fault for the crap we have in Washington, then I just have to tell you, I couldn't agree more.

I used to think if we voted out all the incumbants that would send a pretty good message to our supposed leaders. But after thinking this through (and I still like the idea), we would be left with an all-rookie government with no one being able to show how the system works on a daily basis. We need some journeyman politicians there to demonstrate the mechanics of government. It's unfortunate though that those mechanics are what we need to overhall.

Lastly, I can't stand these posters that break everything down to a battle of liberal vs conservative or democrat vs republican. How about American citizen vs Corporate American?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
while I agree.....I will also add that not only do people vote along party lines.....we also have so many people that vote due to an entitlement mentality.

who cares if they are corrupt, as long as I get my welfare, food stamps, farm subsidie, education grant, tax break, business loan, etc.

I guess this is my conservative side talking, but I believe everyone that can work, should work.

 

[TheNextEra]

I guess this is my conservative side talking, but I believe everyone that can work, should work.

Hope I'm not going too offtopic with this, but that is why I think those on unemployment (that can work) should work for the state doing whatever small jobs that need to be done or they don't receive a check.

 

[TheNextEra]

I used to think if we voted out all the incumbants that would send a pretty good message to our supposed leaders. But after thinking this through (and I still like the idea), we would be left with an all-rookie government with no one being able to show how the system works on a daily basis. We need some journeyman politicians there to demonstrate the mechanics of government. It's unfortunate though that those mechanics are what we need to overhall.

You bring up a very good point. However I would ask you to Keep in mind though, while they may be rookies, the good ones will continue to be voted in and eventually we would have some really good politicians that.......drumroll........work for the people.

The only sure thing I can say is that we need a complete overhaul of congress and the ones in there now are simply not working for the people.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TheNextEra
Hope I'm not going too offtopic with this, but that is why I think those on unemployment (that can work) should work for the state doing whatever small jobs that need to be done or they don't receive a check.

Unlike the people sneeking into the country or Bush sneeking around trying to prevent them, I had a friend a while ago that was complaining why he couldn't get this job or that job. I finally got so sick of hearing him make these constant excuses for not working, that I told him, "You know, people who really want a job, usually have a job!"

 

[Stace]

I guess this is my conservative side talking, but I believe everyone that can work, should work.

I disagree. Take me for example. I'm perfectly capable of working, and yet, I choose to stay home to raise my child. I am still a productive member of society, in that I will be around to instill good values and ethics into my child, rather than passing off the job of upbringing him onto childcare providers and teachers.

 

[TheNextEra]

I disagree. Take me for example. I'm perfectly capable of working, and yet, I choose to stay home to raise my child. I am still a productive member of society, in that I will be around to instill good values and ethics into my child, rather than passing off the job of upbringing him onto childcare providers and teachers.

If you are raising a child, you are working, don't sell yourself short. I think he was meaning those that are capable of working but just choose to sit on their butts and collect some sort of check for it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stace:
I disagree. Take me for example. I'm perfectly capable of working, and yet, I choose to stay home to raise my child. I am still a productive member of society, in that I will be around to instill good values and ethics into my child, rather than passing off the job of upbringing him onto childcare providers and teachers.

I find your statement a bit ambiguous. Because you are working! Tell me that's not a full time job.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TheNextEra
If you are raising a child, you are working, don't sell yourself short. I think he was meaning those that are capable of working but just choose to sit on their butts and collect some sort of check for it.

That's exactly what I mean. Job search is a science. There is no crystal ball. No magic. Just logical deductive reasoning and desire.

Oh yes, and a splash of discipline.

 

[Stace]

I find your statement a bit ambiguous. Because you are working! Tell me that's not a full time job.

It is, but unfortunately, many people don't see it that way. Then again, I'm also not collecting any checks from the government, other than my husband's paycheck (city government, since he's a cop and all ) But I don't need any sort of paycheck for myself to know that what I'm doing is valuable and worth every minute.

 

[oldreliable67]

It is, but unfortunately, many people don't see it that way. Then again, I'm also not collecting any checks from the government, other than my husband's paycheck (city government, since he's a cop and all ) But I don't need any sort of paycheck for myself to know that what I'm doing is valuable and worth every minute.

You have one of the most important and most difficult, but at the same time, the most underpaid jobs in the world today.