Conquer Club

jay_a2j wrote:The NAFTA Superhighway is being pushed without consent of Congress or the American people. (not to mention Mexico and Canada) This is one of the steps to the formation of a North American Union...goodbye American sovereignty, goodbye US Constitution!

Amero..... same thing, another attempt at unifying North America. Goodbye American sovereignty, goodbye US Constitution!

But in all reality, as long as stuff like THIS is going on unnoticed, Ron Paul will never win.

My intention here is not to mock or insult you, Jay. You and I have discussed this before so I'm going to copy and paste what I found out. I'm really hoping that you will see how far you've gone with this stuff.

luns101 wrote:This North American Union conspiracy is rubbish, Jay. The very man that the conspiracists quote, Robert Pastor, has finally had enough of his work being used to fuel these crazy theories.

“Each of the proposals I have laid out represent more than just small steps,” Pastor proclaimed. “But it doesn’t represent a leap to a North American Union or even to some confederation of any kind. I don’t think either is plausible, necessary or even helpful to contemplate at this stage.” - Robert Pastor

Even funnier, Jay. HR 3074...the Transportation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008, prohibits the use of federal funds for participating in working groups under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (that secret little organization trying to merge us all into one big NAU), including the creation of NAFTA Superhighways. It has currently passed the House & the Senate and is just waiting for a conference committee. H.R. 3074 Let's go back and see who voted against it...it's good old Ron Paul himself!! He doesn't want it to pass so he can keep the conspiracy flames burning.

jay_a2j wrote:Where are you getting this information? The link to HR3074 doesn't even tell you what exactly it is! Looks like a transportation funding bill which Paul voted against. (probably falls under States responsibility) I'd like to connect the dots...but it seems there are no dots.

luns101 wrote:Duncan Hunter adds amendment to Transportation Bill. What I'm trying to show you, Jay...is that Hunter's Amendment specifically banned using federal funds for participating in working projects that involve the SPP (the agency which you're claiming is trying construct this superhighway). The bill has passed both the House & Senate with that amendment included. Bush has said he'll sign it. If there was a conspiracy to create this North American Union then that bill would prohibit federal funds being used because the SPP is involved. Also, why would Bush sign it if he's part of the plan to push for the development of some NAU? What I was trying to show you is that Paul knew that amendment was part of the bill so he voted against it so he could keep the conspiracy alive.

Jay, you don't have to worry about the Amero. Only Congress can coin money. There would have to be an actual bill on the floor of Congress in order to do this because Article 1, Section 8 says so. Don't worry, there is no North American Union.

Jay, you and I are both Christians, right? If there really was all this secretive collusion taking place and we're about to lose our freedoms, then wouldn't that be an even bigger incentive to live a life of service for others in the name of Christ? Poor people need help. Other people have been hurt through divorce, or broken homes/families. There's still people in New Orleans that need help after Hurricane Katrina. Are you going to waste your time with worrying about the NAU, NWO, and controlled explosions in the WTC or are you going to follow the scriptures?...

"Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?" Isaiah 58:7

"...and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday." - Isaiah 58:10

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." - James 1:27

Just something to think about, Jay. Micro-loans are a great way to get started helping people in need. I'm not saying that you should stop being interested in current events. I just think once you start focusing on other peoples' needs you'll start worrying less about what the govt. might be up to.

Serbia wrote:I'm not voting for him because he doesn't stand a chance, I'm not voting for him because I think he's got some crazy ideas, and is totally off my stance on the war, and national security in general. Vote how you want. If you really believe in the guy, vote for him, no one cares. What is annoying (or was annoying) were the constant "Ron Paul is teh bestest EVAH!" threads we had popping up at a rate of 4 a day about a month or two ago.

Quite agree...LOL! Too many threads (RonPaul, 9-11, Sports, Help Me With My Homework...) gets to be a bit much at times, I agree with you.

Neutrino wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Neutrino wrote:
Two other questions: Why is that big highway analogous to the devil?
Why is the Amero also pure evil?

The NAFTA Superhighway is being pushed without consent of Congress or the American people. (not to mention Mexico and Canada) This is one of the steps to the formation of a North American Union...goodbye American sovereignty, goodbye US Constitution!

Amero..... same thing, another attempt at unifying North America. Goodbye American sovereignty, goodbye US Constitution!

As long as it's not being built without Congress' approval, then I don't see the problem. Advertising is not a crime (as much as we would wish it to be).
As for the rest... whut? The US is the biggest player in North America. Why will it spontaneously become a political minority? The US out-everything's Mexico. What makes you think they're a threat to US constitution and sovereignty? If anything, Mexico will be under threat of being wholy absorbed by the US, both culturally and economically.

Did Germany lose cultural identity when the EU formed? Did France become a third world country? Did Italy become a province of Romania?
Really, I don't see where these fears are coming from.

I would encourage any European freinds to speak up on this issue, as we are Americans and do not have the experience (yet) of such an absorbtion.

silvanricky wrote:Since he has no chance of winning I will make you a deal DaGip. If I vote for him will you promise to go away forever? I think that's fair.

Are you wishing me death, sir?

Serbia wrote:You're right SolidLuigi, I've often heard that line "he's got no chance, don't waste your vote". But if that's what you really believe in, do it. I'd rather see Jay vote for Paul on principle, then some one else "just because". I'm not going to tell anyone not to vote for someone they believe in. But that doesn't mean I'm not sick of hearing about WHY you're doing it.

Ha, I spelled principle wrong! Sorry, guys. I never claimed to be a spelling ace...

SolidLuigi wrote:I love how people say you shouldn't vote for him because he doesn't stand a chance.

You shouldn't vote for him because, as DaGip previously thought, the majority of his policies are both unworkable and possibly very damaging to both the US and the state of the world in general. If you just look at the effect the US sub-prime crisis is having on other economies around the world at the moment you can see why his lunatic economic ramblings are a bad idea. His education policies may not impact so internationally but they would certainly cripple a generation of American academia. I'm a historian, I work within academic circles, and America has a hell of a lot to offer on that front. Put the minds of your children up for sale in the manner Ron Paul suggests and, quite frankly, you're gonna be learning about Burger King not King Henry VIII.

(queue 'Ron Paul is economic God' from Jay)

DaGip wrote:Click HERE for the sake of your children!

Write out your posts! For the sake of our sanity. We don't want to watch any more fucking Youtube videos. You categorically will not get your point across that way because. Write. Out. Your. Posts.

Guiscard wrote:

SolidLuigi wrote:I love how people say you shouldn't vote for him because he doesn't stand a chance.

You shouldn't vote for him because, as DaGip previously thought, the majority of his policies are both unworkable and possibly very damaging to both the US and the state of the world in general. If you just look at the effect the US sub-prime crisis is having on other economies around the world at the moment you can see why his lunatic economic ramblings are a bad idea. His education policies may not impact so internationally but they would certainly cripple a generation of American academia. I'm a historian, I work within academic circles, and America has a hell of a lot to offer on that front. Put the minds of your children up for sale in the manner Ron Paul suggests and, quite frankly, you're gonna be learning about Burger King not King Henry VIII.

(queue 'Ron Paul is economic God' from Jay)

Ron Paul doesn't oppose research funding, but rather a gradual implementation of free market forces in schools.
What's more, if Libertarian policies had been put in place by Bush II, the subprime crisis never would have happened.
Look at what's happening today...the US is getting fucked over for its piss-poor economic policies. Had they paid more attention to Reagan and Friedman...

Guiscard wrote:

DaGip wrote:Click HERE for the sake of your children!

Write out your posts! For the sake of our sanity. We don't want to watch any more fucking Youtube videos. You categorically will not get your point across that way because. Write. Out. Your. Posts.

Free Norse!

Napoleon Ier wrote: What's more, if Libertarian policies had been put in place by Bush II, the subprime crisis never would have happened.

Please explain.

DaGip wrote: I would encourage any European freinds to speak up on this issue, as we are Americans and do not have the experience (yet) of such an absorbtion.

Really it's no big deal. The EU doesn't actually hold a lot of power over most things the country does. Countries still have ultimate power over what to do (well at least the governments of the country), so that's why the Euro hasn't been adopted by the UK or Denmark.

Most of the things the EU does have to do with international trade and stuff like that. It's not a supergovernment where all countries are just provinces.

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: What's more, if Libertarian policies had been put in place by Bush II, the subprime crisis never would have happened.

Please explain.

Simply put, the CRA (Community Re-investment Act) forced banks to offer packages to subprime, major factor number one, and most importantly, the subprime lenders reckoned the govt. would bail them out if they got into trouble (like they did Northern Rock here). If you think about it, in a free market, there should be an equilibrium, banks should have enough diversity that the risks from subprime meltdown are minimized. But the govt. encouraged disproportionate investment toward riskier borrowers.
Hopefully we won't have the feared "systemic banking crisis" if the Fed play the game smart.

Snorri1234 wrote:

DaGip wrote: I would encourage any European freinds to speak up on this issue, as we are Americans and do not have the experience (yet) of such an absorbtion.

Really it's no big deal. The EU doesn't actually hold a lot of power over most things the country does. Countries still have ultimate power over what to do (well at least the governments of the country), so that's why the Euro hasn't been adopted by the UK or Denmark.

Most of the things the EU does have to do with international trade and stuff like that. It's not a supergovernment where all countries are just provinces.

80% of our laws are made in Brussels, which spends 1/2 its budget subsidizing farmers. And the BCE won't stop fucking with monetary policy.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Ron Paul doesn't oppose research funding, but rather a gradual implementation of free market forces in schools.

Free market forces in schools is not a good thing, Nappy.

Napoleon Ier wrote:80% of our laws are made in Brussels, which spends 1/2 its budget subsidizing farmers. And the BCE won't stop fucking with monetary policy.

So no facts again then...

Napoleon Ier wrote: 80% of our laws are made in Brussels,

No they're not.

luns101 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:The NAFTA Superhighway is being pushed without consent of Congress or the American people. (not to mention Mexico and Canada) This is one of the steps to the formation of a North American Union...goodbye American sovereignty, goodbye US Constitution!

Amero..... same thing, another attempt at unifying North America. Goodbye American sovereignty, goodbye US Constitution!

But in all reality, as long as stuff like THIS is going on unnoticed, Ron Paul will never win.

My intention here is not to mock or insult you, Jay. You and I have discussed this before so I'm going to copy and paste what I found out. I'm really hoping that you will see how far you've gone with this stuff.

luns101 wrote:This North American Union conspiracy is rubbish, Jay. The very man that the conspiracists quote, Robert Pastor, has finally had enough of his work being used to fuel these crazy theories.

“Each of the proposals I have laid out represent more than just small steps,” Pastor proclaimed. “But it doesn’t represent a leap to a North American Union or even to some confederation of any kind. I don’t think either is plausible, necessary or even helpful to contemplate at this stage.” - Robert Pastor

Even funnier, Jay. HR 3074...the Transportation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008, prohibits the use of federal funds for participating in working groups under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (that secret little organization trying to merge us all into one big NAU), including the creation of NAFTA Superhighways. It has currently passed the House & the Senate and is just waiting for a conference committee. H.R. 3074 Let's go back and see who voted against it...it's good old Ron Paul himself!! He doesn't want it to pass so he can keep the conspiracy flames burning.

jay_a2j wrote:Where are you getting this information? The link to HR3074 doesn't even tell you what exactly it is! Looks like a transportation funding bill which Paul voted against. (probably falls under States responsibility) I'd like to connect the dots...but it seems there are no dots.

luns101 wrote:Duncan Hunter adds amendment to Transportation Bill. What I'm trying to show you, Jay...is that Hunter's Amendment specifically banned using federal funds for participating in working projects that involve the SPP (the agency which you're claiming is trying construct this superhighway). The bill has passed both the House & Senate with that amendment included. Bush has said he'll sign it. If there was a conspiracy to create this North American Union then that bill would prohibit federal funds being used because the SPP is involved. Also, why would Bush sign it if he's part of the plan to push for the development of some NAU? What I was trying to show you is that Paul knew that amendment was part of the bill so he voted against it so he could keep the conspiracy alive.

Jay, you don't have to worry about the Amero. Only Congress can coin money. There would have to be an actual bill on the floor of Congress in order to do this because Article 1, Section 8 says so. Don't worry, there is no North American Union.

Jay, you and I are both Christians, right? If there really was all this secretive collusion taking place and we're about to lose our freedoms, then wouldn't that be an even bigger incentive to live a life of service for others in the name of Christ? Poor people need help. Other people have been hurt through divorce, or broken homes/families. There's still people in New Orleans that need help after Hurricane Katrina. Are you going to waste your time with worrying about the NAU, NWO, and controlled explosions in the WTC or are you going to follow the scriptures?...

"Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?" Isaiah 58:7

"...and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday." - Isaiah 58:10

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." - James 1:27

Just something to think about, Jay. Micro-loans are a great way to get started helping people in need. I'm not saying that you should stop being interested in current events. I just think once you start focusing on other peoples' needs you'll start worrying less about what the govt. might be up to.

luns, with all due respect, this is big. If I recall correctly "The National ID Card was bogus" too. http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... 7/03/72843


We are not being told the whole story, there is a subtle push toward a one world government. (as a fellow Christian you should see how that fits into end time prophecy) The question is, how many liberties are we going to give up in the name of "security from terrorism"?


The NAU is real, at least the notion of it happening is. But if you stand firm against such idea's occurring, I guess that's what they are hoping for. Question: If a nuke went off in 2 or 3 American cities what would happen? Martial law? Suspension of the Constitution? But that's not going to happen, which might even be said of the WTC being attacked, on say, 5/18/99 but then it did happen.


The thing that has really stood out in my mind is the pentagon being hit. I challenge anyone to fly a plane over the pentagon. You will never get anywhere close to it before NORAD has intercepted you, so why on 911 were they not there? It's almost incomprehensible what we are expected to believe, yet...... many do.


Well, people are called to do different things by God. To each his own. If me telling people at work and what not, to look at todays events and contrast it with what the Bible says will happen is a bad thing, I will stop when convicted by the spirit.

jay_a2j wrote:
The thing that has really stood out in my mind is the pentagon being hit. I challenge anyone to fly a plane over the pentagon. You will never get anywhere close to it before NORAD has intercepted you, so why on 911 were they not there? It's almost incomprehensible what we are expected to believe, yet...... many do.

.

The Pentagon is under the flight path of Ronald Reagan airport. Peopel fly planes over it all day it every day.



See? Right under the approach.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: What's more, if Libertarian policies had been put in place by Bush II, the subprime crisis never would have happened.

Please explain.

Simply put, the CRA (Community Re-investment Act) forced banks to offer packages to subprime, major factor number one, and most importantly, the subprime lenders reckoned the govt. would bail them out if they got into trouble (like they did Northern Rock here). If you think about it, in a free market, there should be an equilibrium, banks should have enough diversity that the risks from subprime meltdown are minimized. But the govt. encouraged disproportionate investment toward riskier borrowers.
Hopefully we won't have the feared "systemic banking crisis" if the Fed play the game smart.

The CRA may have stopped banks focusing their marketing efforts, but it didn't force anyone to loan anything. Banks lent to the subprime market because the US housing bubble showed no signs of abating and because they were looking to capitalise. Riskier customers meant high rates of interest, and anyway when customers defaulted, the bank gets a nicley appreciating house. Didn't happen that way though.
The crunch happened because house prices fell, interest rates went up, and the credit risk had been packaged up as financial instrumenstg known as CDOs and sold on the international bond markets. Banks (like UBS) that had large positions in these instruments took enormous hits as a result.
That is what happened. NR collaped because banks stopped lending to each other, which happened because no one knew quite where the CDO holes were going to open up.

I am not a fan of GWB but it's pretty short-sighted to blame it on him. Banks can lend to whomever they want. That's just about that.

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: What's more, if Libertarian policies had been put in place by Bush II, the subprime crisis never would have happened.

Please explain.

Simply put, the CRA (Community Re-investment Act) forced banks to offer packages to subprime, major factor number one, and most importantly, the subprime lenders reckoned the govt. would bail them out if they got into trouble (like they did Northern Rock here). If you think about it, in a free market, there should be an equilibrium, banks should have enough diversity that the risks from subprime meltdown are minimized. But the govt. encouraged disproportionate investment toward riskier borrowers.
Hopefully we won't have the feared "systemic banking crisis" if the Fed play the game smart.

The CRA may have stopped banks focusing their marketing efforts, but it didn't force anyone to loan anything. Banks lent to the subprime market because the US housing bubble showed no signs of abating and because they were looking to capitalise. Riskier customers meant high rates of interest, and anyway when customers defaulted, the bank gets a nicley appreciating house. Didn't happen that way though.
The crunch happened because house prices fell, interest rates went up, and the credit risk had been packaged up as financial instrumenstg known as CDOs and sold on the international bond markets. Banks (like UBS) that had large positions in these instruments took enormous hits as a result.
That is what happened. NR collaped because banks stopped lending to each other, which happened because no one knew quite where the CDO holes were going to open up.

I am not a fan of GWB but it's pretty short-sighted to blame it on him. Banks can lend to whomever they want. That's just about that.

Cola, free market economics solves all. You really have got to realise that government intervention is always a bad thing.

Guiscard wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: What's more, if Libertarian policies had been put in place by Bush II, the subprime crisis never would have happened.

Please explain.

Simply put, the CRA (Community Re-investment Act) forced banks to offer packages to subprime, major factor number one, and most importantly, the subprime lenders reckoned the govt. would bail them out if they got into trouble (like they did Northern Rock here). If you think about it, in a free market, there should be an equilibrium, banks should have enough diversity that the risks from subprime meltdown are minimized. But the govt. encouraged disproportionate investment toward riskier borrowers.
Hopefully we won't have the feared "systemic banking crisis" if the Fed play the game smart.

The CRA may have stopped banks focusing their marketing efforts, but it didn't force anyone to loan anything. Banks lent to the subprime market because the US housing bubble showed no signs of abating and because they were looking to capitalise. Riskier customers meant high rates of interest, and anyway when customers defaulted, the bank gets a nicley appreciating house. Didn't happen that way though.
The crunch happened because house prices fell, interest rates went up, and the credit risk had been packaged up as financial instrumenstg known as CDOs and sold on the international bond markets. Banks (like UBS) that had large positions in these instruments took enormous hits as a result.
That is what happened. NR collaped because banks stopped lending to each other, which happened because no one knew quite where the CDO holes were going to open up.

I am not a fan of GWB but it's pretty short-sighted to blame it on him. Banks can lend to whomever they want. That's just about that.

Cola, free market economics solves all. You really have got to realise that government intervention is always a bad thing.

I'm thinking about writing a musical based on free market economics. We've already had some interest from kevin bacon.

Guiscard wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: What's more, if Libertarian policies had been put in place by Bush II, the subprime crisis never would have happened.

Please explain.

Simply put, the CRA (Community Re-investment Act) forced banks to offer packages to subprime, major factor number one, and most importantly, the subprime lenders reckoned the govt. would bail them out if they got into trouble (like they did Northern Rock here). If you think about it, in a free market, there should be an equilibrium, banks should have enough diversity that the risks from subprime meltdown are minimized. But the govt. encouraged disproportionate investment toward riskier borrowers.
Hopefully we won't have the feared "systemic banking crisis" if the Fed play the game smart.

The CRA may have stopped banks focusing their marketing

efforts, but it didn't force anyone to loan anything. Banks lent to the subprime market because the US housing bubble showed no signs of abating and because they were looking to capitalise. Riskier customers meant high rates of interest, and anyway when customers defaulted, the bank gets a nicley appreciating house. Didn't happen that way though.
The crunch happened because house prices fell, interest rates went up, and the credit risk had been packaged up as financial instrumenstg known as CDOs and sold on the international bond markets. Banks (like UBS) that had large positions in these instruments took enormous hits as a result.
That is what happened. NR collaped because banks stopped lending to each other, which happened because no one knew quite where the CDO holes were going to open up.

I am not a fan of GWB but it's pretty short-sighted to blame it on him. Banks can lend to whomever they want. That's just about that.

Cola, free market economics solves all. You really have got to realise that government intervention is always a bad thing.

He's right, it's never a good idea to put laws saying how much who can be paid and what-not.

Yeah, the CRA sure isn't the whole story, but the bad banks t just count on the fact the govt. 's gonna bail 'em out. A decent bank that knows it needs market forces to balance it and will have more diversified assets, though. Which makes it easier to absorb this kind of problem.

Anyway, I resent Guissy ridiculing my economics. My history, perhaps, but frankly, its clear he's been brought up on a bad diet of anti-Thatcherite gunge which he's vaguely recollecting through subconscious association with what he read in the Guardian last week.

America rose to power on libretarian values and since government has taken a larger role in our lives its gone down hill. post ww2 government is some of the worst governning we have had in years