2007.04.18 by paulie
This is an attempt to get Andy and Gary to stop sending this stuff to my email.
Here you go guys, have at it.
Source material for the debate:
1 (continues for 12 pages when you hit (“previous entries”).
The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration
OK, now you can quit copying me on those emails! Thanks.
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Steven Greffenius
Todd Andrew Barnett
Independent Political Report: Third Party News Rational Review » RRND News Center for a Stateless Society All LeftLibertarian.org Content Antiwar.com Blog Antiwar.com Original Just a Girl in short shorts talking about whatever The Onion Pro Libertate FKN Newz The Agitator Loretta Nall Hit & Run The Beacon Unknown Feed KN@PPSTER The Delaware Libertarian Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty Classically Liberal Unknown Feed Homeland Stupidity Free Talk Live Unknown Feed Unknown Feed
Paul, this is one thing you say that gives me pause.
Let’s suppose we are put in a concentration camp/prison by the government, and we are all innocent and don’t deserve to be there. The jailer comes by and says “Okay, for the hell of it now I’m going to release all black people.” Would you stand up and oppose that move, shouting, “No, keep them in if you’re not going to release us too!” ???
Oskar Schindler effected the escape of several dozen (or hundred?) Jews from Nazi Germany, which he did selectively, although not based on any identifiable criteria like race or sexual orientation (going by the movie Schindler’s List). Since he wasn’t able to let ALL Jews escape, was this not fair to you? Should he have left those Jews that did escape be, in order to be fair and not selective?
This almost goes full circle back to Andy’s contention that regulation-free U.S. trucking shouldn’t be selectively extended only to Mexicans if Americans aren’t going to enjoy regulation-free U.S. trucking.
I look at it a little differently than I guess you do. While I agree with you and Andy that selective “freeing” is unfair, I would not block freeing ANYONE, selective or otherwise, if they deserved that freedom in the first place.
Gary
Paul wrote
Curious what others here think about that.
But this was ON THAT WEBSITE YOU JUST GAVE ME!!!: (you can wipe that egg off your face now, Andy! LOL)
Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.
Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at http://www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.
petition guy wrote:
Here’s a link to the government website for the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the agreement that Bush signed to create the North American Union. Are you going to deny that this exsists?
SPP is likely to just be the first step, so on this limited point Andy may be correct.
Holy fucking shit dude.
I dunno about building a wall on the border, but building a wall of text here on LFV seems doable enough.
Paul, my point was that Andy asserted something, then proceeded to send me “proof” that *contradicted* (denied) exactly what he was saying!
My point wasn’t that I disbelieved or believed what he was sending.
If you’re going to assert that there are pink elephants, it’s not very credible to send a link to a web page that claims that there are no pink elephants!
I view the roads as unowned.
“Gary Says:
April 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Paul, my point was that Andy asserted something, then proceeded to send me “proof” that *contradicted* (denied) exactly what he was saying!
My point wasn’t that I disbelieved or believed what he was sending.
If you’re going to assert that there are pink elephants, it’s not very credible to send a link to a web page that claims that there are no pink elephants!”
I didn’t feel like posting here, but I’ve just GOTTA respond to this piece of flawed thinking.
Gary, do you believe that the government is going to tell you the TRUTH? Do you believe that the Patriot Act is really about patriotism? Do you believe that the New Freedom Initiative (government plan for forced mental health screening of all school kids with forced drugging) is really about freedom? Do you believe that NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, CAFTA, and the FTAA is really about free trade? Do you believe that Social Security is really about security for senoir citizens? Do you believe that the United Nations is really about world peace? Do you believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom is really about Iraqi freedom? Do you believe that the government’s story about 9/11 is true and that the government’s 9/11 commission did a good just of getting the facts straight?
IF YOU BELIEVE ANY OF THIS STUFF YOU ARE NAIVE!
Don’t you know by know that the government comes out with programs and then they sugar coat them and outright lie about them to get the general public to accept them?
Do you think that the government is going to come out and tell you, “Hey, we’ve got this crappy new program that’s going to make things worse but you should accept it anyway.”?
Of course the government is going to sugar coat the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement and make it sound as benign as possible.
GEEZ, I didn’t realize that you were naive enough to fall for this kind of government spin.
Andy is overlooking my POINT. My POINT was not that the government doesn’t lie, but that Andy FORWARDED something to me as “proof”, and the thing he forwarded said the OPPOSITE of what he was supposedly “proving”. I wasn’t attacking the merits or nonmerits of what was contended.