America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a Democracy
 

Mexico Sends Troops to US Border
http://infowars.com/?p=1122

North American Army created without OK by Congress to be used against AMERICANS
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?...ew&pageId=57228

Call For New 9/11 Investigation Reaches Crescendo as experts speak out against the fed facts
http://infowars.com/?p=1120

Media Finally admits New Evidence:CIA Played Role in Robert F. Kennedy Assassination
http://infowars.com/?p=1115

"Victory" Declared as Second Amendment Is Systematically Destroyed
http://infowars.net/articles/march2...08Gunrights.htm

And our government is going around the world establishing governments just like ours. Our government is no longer for the people, it is against the people.

Prepare for the end of the world, I'm glad I don't have to walk around with a repent sign, but the North American Union is in attempt to be established, and it's not because we're such "great friends" with those people across the border. You proud Canadians, proud Mexicans, and proud Americans, you won't have your country soon enough. There isn't a force in our countries to stop it except for the people, but do you expect Canadians, Americans, AND Mexicans to rise up against their governments in the name of their heritage and existence? No.

We will all be connected soon, there is nothing to stop it, the bible's prophecies will be fulfilled, and there WILL be a third world war soon.

Probably starting between America and Iran.

What was originally George Bush's axis of evil: North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, is now simply "Iran", North Korea was taken off of George Bush's hit list, and Iraq was destabilized by our military. Iran is the last one standing and even though their president foolishly supports Democracy, our president and our media ignores the fact, and threatens to attack them.

A series of events will unfold that will have one word in description if that happens: Terrible

War, The End Times, and Death is upon us. I'm surprised you read all of this, and I highly doubt you read all of the articles. Educate yourself, it's your best defense. You're living history. Peace.

r u gonna do something to make change or just keep whining...shut the fuck up...just get money and fuck bitches and be happy

You're a genius example of fixing our dilemma.

Please shut the fuck up about politics.


Forever

i didnt say one thing about politics fagsexual...i said something about you...all you do is whine about how bad our country is....RACK EM

...What if I took action?

I would get murdered and you would go on getting drunk out of your tiny purposeless mind while I would be in a coffin, another victim of our organized nazi government with a man called scheme as the dictator.

sounds perfect....
your demise
i continue to fill my body with hard liquor...
win win situation

Just so you all know, I'll be upping this about once a day until it has about... 1,000 views.

Word.

I spent time in posting this and presenting this, I expect you educated fuckers to at least read part of it. Get it through your heads about this country...


One more thing,



This is a political thread. You posting here is talking about politics. Me whining is talking about politics. You countering my whining with whining about whining has one description word in the English language: Politics

Stop posting. Thanks!

This is a rap forum, not a political forum.

Damn... coulda swore I was on PoliticalVerse.com ...

Fagsexual... that was quite clever. [/sarcasm]

I expected some witty response from you 2. This is subpar.

Damn... didn't know I was on SubParVerse.com ....


no though, really, would you respond to the thread instead of shutting up about it?

Actually...People can pass laws if they get a certain # of signatures.








1

Lets see where to start..

I'll start with the links you posted.

Mexico sends troops to the border.
"The Mexican government has ordered 2,000 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border in response to a wave of drug-related violence that is blamed for 200 deaths since January, officials announced Thursday."
From the article itself.

This act by the Mexican Government is a form of peacekeeping within the country as the looming military presence is a deterrent to any ILLEGAL drug trafficking acts and any violent acts. I'm sorry but if I lived in Mexico and the violence was taking place, I would want my government to help out and deter these individuals. Do you want the government to go up to these cartels with a nicely worded letter politely asking them to stop murdering people and stop the drug trafficking? Sorry but I would want a powerful presence to deter these individuals not some pussyfoot actions.

Onto:
North American Army created without OK by Congress to be used against AMERICANS

This is a bad thing?
Sorry but signing a treaty to help both countries in their time of need whenever that may be.
Quote from the article
"Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering an mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment."
Sorry, I didn't know that assisting one another is a bad thing. So if you're in need and suffering.. you wouldn't want any form of assistance form anyone at all? You'd rather suffer and/or die? Surely you would take any form of support you possibly could.
This has already happened in Canada the Canadian troops were used against the FLQ in the October Crisis where the War Measures Act was enacted by Trudeau. The military helped in the ice storms in Quebec and Montreal where there was a large natural disaster bringing suffering to many citizens. The army helped out.


Next:
9/11
Hasn’t this been happening SINCE the attacks virtually day 1/2?, its basically a game of choosing sides.
Either
A) You realize what had happened and those behind it
B) You question the happenings and question who is behind it.

This happens throughout history not only with the WTC / Pentagon attacks
Look at JFK, there are conspiracies and theories about this too
Look at the other link you posted about RFK it’s a theory that has had doubt cast upon it already as the people recognized in the film are not the CIA operatives they were once labeled as.

It’s a theory.

The fact that you can get celebrities and big name people to question the happenings on sept 11 is nothing special. Cool you can drop big names to support your point. You can make films like loose change etc to help try to prove your theories about 9/11.
Although I have seen the loose change films and others regarding the WTC and Pentagon attacks and they do bring up several questions about the day’s events. It is a theory with a lot more factual evidence that opens up a lot of questions.

Next:
RFK Assassination
Educate yourself, this information you posted in the link has already had doubts cast upon it from O’Sullivan himself. If you had done more research into this incident, maybe even a Google search you would have found this quote regarding the “new evidence”
“After further investigation, O'Sullivan produced the feature documentary, RFK Must Die. The film casts some doubt on the earlier identifications and ultimately reveals that the man previously identified as Gordon Campbell was in fact Michael D. Roman, a now-deceased Bulova Watch Company employee, who was at the Ambassador Hotel for a company convention. O'Sullivan ultimately expresses his doubt that the "Morales" in the film footage at the Ambassador Hotel and the man positively identified as Morales in later photographs are the same man.”

Unfortunately I was unable to open the last link as it would not show up for me but I would definitely have liked to read it. It looks like someone had some spare time and searched through "infowars.com" and pasted some links

I do not see how Our government is not against the people. It may not appeal to every single person, but it appeals to the majority in the country. Granted I do not live in the states and do not thoroughly follow their politics, in Canada our government helps us out. Although there may be some hastles and some problems, in the long run, the Canadian government has helped its citizens. I bring up the ice storms in montreal, the government helped, the october crisis, the government helped, the government has helped its citizens and is for the majority.

Id like you to explain how "we wont have our countries soon enough"... Why would I rise up against Canada to preserve our heritage when the Canadian government has allocated funds and support to help support it for us. The cultural mosaic of Canadian society allows all traditions and heritages to be preserved.

You go on from this to preach a third world war will be soon etc. The end is near etc. Please realize George Bush is soon to be out. Problems that sprouted with Bush Sr. have followed Bush into the office and actions have been taken. When Bush is out, many problems will be solved or cease to exist.

Although you state Iran supporting democracy I suggest research to gather all points of view. One link I have found is
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06...nion/ediran.php
Entitled Iran's Sham Democracy.
I do however believe that promoting a proper democracy is important.

I do not see a full fledge third world war taking place in the very near future. We will see what the future holds.

As for your statements on the government being against the people, I'd like to see further information on this and proof. Although yes the government seems to be against "the people" in certain cases, in the majority it is for the people.

Yeah, that's true, but that precise number I'm unsure about, it's in the millions.

And there sure as hell aren't a percent of politicians that number that many. The articles mentioned state that our president did most of it within his jurisdiction and outside of the view of congress.

I don't see how what you said changes anything.

That's all fine and dandy, dude, but it said RIOTS. When a police force cannot handle a riot, the most harshest form of protesting, the army of Canadians will come in with military force and will have the legal right to shoot and kill anyone they wanted to in the midst. That's against the American people. Surely you don't believe it is for them?

To Say That It's A Theory That 9/11 Was Fake Makes It A Theory That 9/11 Was True. Case & Point.



The two candidates for our country that are coming in next, want to attack Iran. Both Barrack Obama, AND John Mccain. That's why I say we'll war with Iran, and if you knew how world politics have been working since about 1950, you would know what that would cause. Nothing short of a third world war my friend.

get a job bum..........................

Riots will be easily controlled by the military, I dont see where it says the military has free right to shoot who they please, and I am pretty sure that this is not the case. The military in itself is a powerful deterrent to rioting. I dont see anywhere in the article where it says the military will be used to come in and shoot civilians to end a riot. Granted civilians causing other civilians bodily harm / threatening death or brandishing weapons with the intent to injure / kill will be dealt with accordingly. Im pretty sure its FOR the people (as a majority) not the people as a whole.....

A theory is a theory I agree with you, you can believe which ever theory you want and as I said (or maybe didnt say, I dont feel like re-reading my book) there are several questions that remain unanswered that do need to be answered and these separate theories that bring them up need to be looked at.

I understand where you're coming from but these "attacks" on iran will not be immediate and will not occur unless several other pre-requisites for lack of a better term are met, these attacks may never even occur.... Its speculation and interpretation from speeches etc. everyone has their own opinion on these issues.

I do support a reasonable debate on this though as you seem to be inviting it.. as for the other individuals posting they need to actually research and formulate an adequate response and participate rather than trash talk and joke... although as I said before this is a rap forum not a political forum...

when the fuck did obama EVER say he wants to go to war with Iran???

If they attack the Jews??

You take shit WAY outta of context and fix them into this fucking distorted jackass view, just becuase of you being paranoid.

You should just shut the fuck up. Your whole arguement, is of course...one sided. You state all the time that no one is willling to change for this bullshit 'movement' becuase we aren't ready to listen. Dude, you are a fucking hypocrite. You dont listen to ANNNYYBOOODDYYY else. So shut...the fuck....UP.

shut up with the politics 2v its pointless to even argue with u anymore,you switch sides on every topic all the time..

You're a cool guy.

There is absolutely nothing to argue with in that post. You're completely right, only because I believe there will be some lame grounds to start a war, like our theory of 9/11. It just pieces the puzzle together that Iran is a one-man Axis Of Evil.

If a peaceful protest came to impeach our president, it would be met by a force of cops. The cops would block the protesters, and as protesters pushed the cops backward, the cops would bring out night sticks, or in modern day, tazers. The protesters might or might not defend themselves, if they do, they would be asking for death.

Justify this and we'll make this a debate.

I could see where you would come from with your protest idea.. and it is true, it could happen.

Though primarily police forces are brought in to "keep the peace" so to speak, I've seen several protests take place and the police involvement is to ensure safety among the protesters and the other civilians in the area. In Toronto, there were several protests in which police blocked off roadways to sort of rout the protesters, but also to keep them safe from traffic and any conflict with people against the protest. The main goal for the police force is to protect and serve, offering protection for the public and serving the public, which is what their involvement in protests would be.

If the protest turns violent which it is possible it could, a stronger force would be utilized to help protect others and contain the conflict to a certain area. Realistically if violence occurred, as a citizen not participating in the protests, I would want the police forces to use some form of force or tactic to contain and deter the violence.

If the deterrent is not effective, the common riot police would be utilized with tear gas and riot gear to help contain and stop the problem from continuing.

I see where you are coming from with the snowball effect, but there are various systems and processes put into place for these exact situations in which a quiet protest turns to violence.

The police are there to protect and serve the public and they will do so

Military forces have access to a mass amount of supplies and weaponry and that is why they are best suited for protecting against disasters and forces of riots.

the police force, as I was going to say last night, are built up and made up of CITIZENS of the country itself, a riot which also involved police, where the police could not handle it because it was going against itself, would have the new availability to be attacked by a side-military group, which is not part of the actual military.

It is in my opinion that a person would not want to bring chaos to their own area, but if the area NEEDED chaos (Rare but a case in periods) then a person should be able to commit chaos. Now, that would be prevented.
-

New subject:

A connection of the 17 countries which are now the European Union would de-establish rules for the countries themselves to put in it's place a wide range of rules allowed for the countries involved known as the European Union. Upon becoming the 17 countries they are, they also established (ECJ) or the European Court of Justice. It's a high-Court for all of those countries put together. Their official laws were broken to create a new mandatory for all of their countries under the name of (EU)

Meaning that if Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.A. combined, I lacked a good term to describe it before, but we would not lose our direct blood line heritage as you conceived, we would initially lose everything we inherited from the forefathers that created our countries and put us into the place we are now.

The constitution, Bill Of Rights, everything that makes America the First and Famous, will be thrown out the window, so we can bring a Mexican and a Canadian to the table to write a new set of rules.

That, is repulsive. Not because it involves other races, but because everything that makes us American will be destroyed, and we'll have every reason to call ourselves North American.

Tell me why this doesn't piss you off.

I realize the european union is a bond of 17 countries, though these 17 countries are not as independent as say Canada or the United States. They're power is minuscule in comparison and a connection such as the Union would be a positive step forward for their countries.

Here are some links to the benefits of the European Union
http://culture.polishsite.us/articles/art60fr.htm
http://www.berr.gov.uk/europeandtra.../page22676.html
"The perceived benefits of becoming a member of the EU act as an incentive for both political and economic reform in states wishing to fulfil the EU's accession criteria, and are considered a major factor contributing to the reform of former Communist countries in Eastern Europe."

Now it seems the European Union is a strong incentive based connection in which countries would benefit from joining.


I see no real benefit of a NAU, therefore it wouldn't happen. Countries in Europe benefit from the Union in regards to their economic well being and various other aspects. Sure various common laws are created for the countries participating in the Union, but each individual country also most likely has their own set of laws on top of the common ones. Their history is not forgotten at all as history is all from memorization and facts / stories... I see Mexico gaining the most from the Union if there was one, as their economic well being would raise exponentially to be someone on-par with the Canadians and Americans.

A union of sorts would not realistically benefit Canada or the United States, though bills like the one mentioned in your first post about the military movement (i dont know what it was called and cant be bothered to look it up) but the treaty signed enabled free movement between countries, which is a beneficial thing when each country has their time of need and need aid and support.

More bills and treaties for support in time of need and ones which help the economic factors of each country through the cross border trading would benefit each country more than combining countries.

Although yourre statement about the Bill of Rights etc is true, you have to remember that you're not adding two countries to the United States, youre creating almost an entirely new country itself, it does seem kind of prehistoric in logic as a new country forms, laws, bills, etc need to be created to keep justice and regulation throughout the country. Although each country will have their own history and heritage still preserved, they will undergo "slight" in the case of Mexico "large" law treaty and bill changes.

Frankly a North American Union will not happen, the EU had benefits for countries to join, but an NAU would have little benefit to the countries involved.

I agree with you "throwing out" everything that makes you American would suck.... BUT.. you do realize that is a Melting Pot mentality which the United States conform to. Unlike the States, Canada utilizes a Cultural Mosaic which represents all nationalities beliefs traditions as their own as well as the fact they are Canadian.
If this mentality is brought forward and utilized by all countries involved the worries of losing everything that makes you American will not exist.

We have two different mind states I suppose, I believe in the cultural mosaic that is Canada, while it seems you conform more to the Melting Pot mentality which what you had said. Correct me if I'm wrong of course, thats just how I view it right now.

No, it's true, America has always been a melting pot of source, a bunch of thrown in different cultures and until it's ALL OVER America, is it not American.


But realize, the European Union would not exist today if America did not create 50 states. It was our idea, now the (EU) has it in place, where of course they have a wide-spread mandatory set of rules, but as you said, they get their own for their own country, as long as it's not against their main Religion, Christianity.

For example, if Muslims ruled where Westerners lived and that was our main ideology basis for our laws, we would be marrying 6 year old girls who call themselves Muslim.

So you have these 17 States, which is part of a whole, they conflict and they have a supreme court. Sounds like an over-seas America to me. America will lose all 50 states if we connect with Canada and Mexico. Don't you realize this? We have MUCH MORE at stake than Canada or Mexico. You have provinces. We're not going to split Canada and Mexico into 50 states by their selves and call us the 150 States Of North America. Are we? We might split into large provinces and maybe have a basis of SOME American rules, but the American way will be as I said, out of the window.

Please respond. Oh and, quit acting like it will never happen, your Prime Minister, President of Mexico, and George Bush Junior already signed the paper to break borders and connect countries in 2005, under the noses of our Congress.

The date it is scheduled: 2010.

There will be a Super Highway built from Mexico to Canada. Catholics are supporting this highway, calling it a "Holy Highway", and if you've read my intellectual discussion thread, scholars of the Bible say that the "Great Whore" which threatens all nations will be a Religious Church, and it is most likely Catholicism of Christianity. That's beside the point, you don't have to comment on the highway part if you don't want to.

I'm going to make this short itself as I'm working on a paper but think of the NAU this way

The United States will be one part as a whole, all 50 states combined will make up 1 / 3rd of the union. these states dont become separate entities. Its not like the EU separated their countries states (although there isnt a good example for sake of argument) but they allowed each country to join as a separate entity to the Union. For example when Sweden joined the union they did not lose the title of Sweden or any "states" if they had any.. What i'm getting at is primarily this quote
"The European Union is composed of 27 independent sovereign countries"
The NAU would not remove the states from America, it would keep them intact, much like the provinces in canada would be intact. There is little separation of the countries intact.

The "American way" will still thrive in the United States.

"For example, if Muslims ruled where Westerners lived and that was our main ideology basis for our laws, we would be marrying 6 year old girls who call themselves Muslim."
I take this quote from your statement and it is true, if that were actually the way the EU system was run than you would be correct in the outcome, though the system in which the union is run through a supreme council etc prevents one person / belief to run the Union. Much like the house of commons in canada where all political parties have the ability to earn seats and have their voices heard in parliament.

The religious stuff I will not get into as I do not really follow nor participate in much of it at all.

Overall the NAU (if it would ever occur) and yes I am doubting the occurance due to the gain and loss of each nation. overall the NAU would not separate the united "states" it would combine what the United States brought to the Union as one entity, or 1/3rd of the Union. Canada's provinces would be 1/3rd of the union and Mexico would be 1/3rd of the union. Although proper weighting towards the council / supreme powers of this union would have to be taken into account as mexico probably would not get as much representation compared to Canada or the United States.
Thats just how I see the union.

Actually America has really never been a democracy... A democracy entails the vote of all citizens.. therefore when minorities were disenfranchised it wasn't a democracy. so if this left wing, extremeist propaganda is completely true.. it hasn't digressed too much.

And the RFK and JFK assassinations are speculatory in the nature of the "true" assassin. Did Sirhan Sirhan shoot 8 bullets at RFK? Yes.. Did he hit RFK and several bystanders? YES.. however.. if the "other gunman" was a memeber of the CIA, their main task would be the preservaion of the miliatary industrial complex (and therefore preservation of the CIA's nearly unchecked power when headed by Dulles during Eisenhower's terms) not a plot to prevent "true" participation.

^^^^^please excuse 2v he is a moron..

lol @ saying that the 'Great Whore' would be the Christian relgion itself.

So by that logic.....

God creates the church....then the church is the one who puts the revlations into motion by being 'the great whore'

lol...hahahahahah.....amazing

Two questions

Do you think one world government is a grand idea? That's the reason that the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) wants to connect these countries.. They connected the Europeans, They want North and South America connected, Asia, and the Middle East.

4 World Entities, later to come together into 1 world entity.

That's question one.

Question two,

How are you going to honestly say that our states will be preserved with no proof? You know damn well you aren't creating the situation, lol. All of our states could easily break up and we'd become a new country. It's too early to say, but logic dictates that we would NOT keep our states. Do you know any way we possibly could if we broke borders? I sure don't.

The European Union did not create a new country out of it. I am basing my statements off of what has already occured through the EU and then translating them over to what an NAU would entail.

Canada would be one country including provinces and territories. The United States would be one country including all 50 states. Mexico would be another country. Its simple logic if you look at the EU and compare, did any country that join lose their "country" did any country that joined lose their major cities / provinces? No. They are independent sovereign countries. However in the EU these countries come together as states. So if we use the same logic, the NAU would have 3 states, USA, Canada, & Mexico. That is what I am basing my statements off of, as it seems logical. Why would the US enter a NAU and give up their 50 states, why would Canada enter the NAU and give up their provinces and territories.... it seems like a ridiculous idea in my mind if the NAU was constructed that way and it would not work, nor would anyone agree to it, especially the united states.

back to your first question as I dealt with them in opposite order,

I do not believe one world government is even possible. Not to venture off into a religious debate, but look at the religious wars and conflicts that have been taking place for decades, look at the conflicts between the US and Iraq / Iran etc. A utopian society where everything is run by one government is just not possible. I could not see it ever happening in my lifetime. First of all you'd have to get every country to agree to join said unions and then every union must agree to merge and recreate laws an everything. It just wouldnt be possible to do so. Creating one general law consensus would not be able to be enforced, as the western world is quite different from the eastern world / middle eastern world. I dont see it happening, nor do I think it would be a good thing.

As I previously stated, in the case of the NAU treaties bills and acts would better suit the countries involved as there is too much to lose and not enough to gain.

The NAU in conjunction with the UN.

These two are a team.

Could it not be said the "People's government" of America, is now a Shadow government, trading the liberties of the people for its own 'Security' ?

Edit:
Let me share something with ya, White.



Lmao. I love political comics.

again.....2v is a drug addict

I KNEW you were a regular info wars visitor. I could just tell by the way you talked. It's finally confirmed.