Your animosity borders on psychosis.
Posted By: Topaz on 2009-04-07
In Reply to: I only have animosity - Patty
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I only have animosity
towards the behavior you have chosen. It is very difficult to separate a behavior from the person committing it when that person is defending the behavior so staunchly. I have great disrespect for those who engage in homosexual behavior. And that's something I do not now or will ever regret.
Again, awful generalization. Your animosity toward anyone
again goes against your other posts. Plus, you're basing some of your own opinions on hearsay from others? Lest you forget, it's the person, not the money. Look at Angelina Jolie, someone we all know has plenty of money. She might not have food sitting out by the mailbox on food drive day, but that might be because she's "walking the walk" in a poor third world country. You don't want to be judged, yet you are doing an awful lot of judging yourself.
You really should not harbor such anger and animosity sm
It's over now, he is our new President. It takes so much more anger to carry around versus embracing history and what has happened. Why would you even call him such a name as a *****. So many people are still amazingly ignorant. He is not a muslim, if he was he would not be attending a baptist church because the Bible and Curan do not mix. OMG, how people make me crack my side laughing with some of the ridiculous things they say.
Protecting borders?
We went to Iraq to protect our borders? That is a new one! Why did we go to Iraq? WMD? There werent any. Getting Saddam (heaven knows why..there are terrible leaders in other countries that are much more threatening..i.e., N. Korea, Iran). Well, we got him. So, why are we still there? We are there because our goal has always been to control the Middle East and it's oil. Of course, the American people would not have sacrificed their children in war for those reasons, so Bush had to scare the American people into war. We walked right into the terrorists web by invading Iraq. Gave them a reason to fight us. We are in a country where we dont belong. We need to leave. Set a time table, train the Iraqis to take care of their own country and leave. Protect our borders? How about protecting the border from USA to Mexico. Or USA to Canada. Those are borders that will affect us right here on our soil. The Iraq invasion was a major mistake. This murderous administration knows it but, of course, Bush never backs down on anything, even when he is dead wrong and forget about ever admitting he made a mistake about anything or apologize for something. This war is wrong and history will show this and Bushs legacy will not be kind.
You don't need military at our borders.....
that's against our constitution. That's what our National Guard is for, to protect OUR borders. Combat military is not supposed to be involved in this country. I do not want our troops on the borders of my country; I want our national guard sent down to do what they are supposed to do, protect our country against foreign invasion.
I am sick to death of paying for illegals and their anchor babies by the thousands and thousands....
Good question.....why is our country allowing this and then punishing our agents to shoot one of them. Maybe more shooting would stop a lot of their illegal trespassing into our country if they knew they would be shot.
This explains why Bush won't secure our *borders.*
![src=http://www.humaneventsonline.com/images/header-print.gif]()
The Plan to Replace the Dollar With the 'Amero'
by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted May 22, 2006
*If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero,” we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election.*
The idea to form the North American Union as a super-NAFTA knitting together Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political and economic entity was a key agreement resulting from the March 2005 meeting held at Baylor University in Waco, Tex., between President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin.
A joint statement published by the three presidents following their Baylor University summit announced the formation of an initial entity called, “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The joint statement termed the SPP a “trilateral partnership” that was aimed at producing a North American security plan as well as providing free market movement of people, capital, and trade across the borders between the three NAFTA partners:
We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our borders.
A working agenda was established:
We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.
The U.S. Department of Commerce has produced a SPP website, which documents how the U.S. has implemented the SPP directive into an extensive working agenda.
Following the March 2005 meeting in Waco, Tex., the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published in May 2005 a task force report titled “Building a North American Community.” We have already documented that this CFR task force report calls for a plan to create by 2010 a redefinition of boundaries such that the primary immigration control will be around the three countries of the North American Union, not between the three countries. We have argued that a likely reason President Bush has not secured our border with Mexico is that the administration is pushing for the establishment of the North American Union.
The North American Union is envisioned to create a super-regional political authority that could override the sovereignty of the United States on immigration policy and trade issues. In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Pastor, the Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, stated clearly the view that the North American Union would need a super-regional governance board to make sure the United States does not dominate the proposed North American Union once it is formed:
NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continue to govern and irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems.
This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements.
Pastor was a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report “Building a North American Union.”
Pastor also proposed the creation of a Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment with the view that “a permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” The intent is for this North American Union Tribunal would have supremacy over the U.S. Supreme Court on issues affecting the North American Union, to prevent U.S. power from “irritating” and retarding the progress of uniting Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into a new 21st century super-regional governing body.
Robert Pastor also advises the creation of a North American Parliamentary Group to make sure the U.S. Congress does not impede progress in the envisioned North American Union. He has also called for the creation of a North American Customs and Immigration Service which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security.
Pastor’s 2001 book “Toward a North American Community” called for the creation of a North American Union that would perfect the defects Pastor believes limit the progress of the European Union. Much of Pastor’s thinking appears aimed at limiting the power and sovereignty of the United States as we enter this new super-regional entity. Pastor has also called for the creation of a new currency which he has coined the “Amero,” a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso.
If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero,” we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election. Pursuing any plan that would legalize the conservatively estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States could well spell election disaster for the Republican Party in 2006, especially for the House of Representative where every seat is up for grabs.
|
