Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

lquadland10 (< 20)

Bush Chaney Obama Mc Cain Clinton and others trying to bankrupt the country to form one borderles world.

Recs

7

August 01, 2008 – Comments (17) | RELATED TICKERS: FSLR , AUY , GLD

I told you about the North American Union and the Amero. I also told you about the TPN that is the New World Order. Well you know why our government won't enforce the trading and banking laws. From Obama's speech in Germany. Greater Depression than the last to come. So try and trade because with either candidate we will have longer wars and we won't be getting out anytime soon.I guess buy more military stock. Sigh...... it's bad out there.

Barack Obama stood in central Berlin on Thursday and called on the spirit of the city's turbulent Cold War past to urge Germans to strengthen the trans-Atlantic alliance. The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate spoke for just under 30 minutes (more...) at Berlin's historic Siegessäule, or Victory Column, touching upon a dizzying array of issues, including nuclear disarmament, climate change, globalization and trade.

At the heart of the speech, however, was Obama's insistence that the challenges of the 21st century -- and in particular that of terrorism -- require a strong alliance between the United States and Europe, an alliance that has been severely tested by the disagreements of recent years.

On Friday the German press sifts through the text and subtext of Obama's speech. Most hear one essential message loud and clear: If Obama ends up in the White House, then Europeans -- and Germans in particular -- will be called upon to play a greater role in the war on terror -- and that means contributing more troops to the war in Afghanistan.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"There is no doubt that Obama will demand more from the Europeans to ensure success in Afghanistan and Iraq. … And the Germans in particular should prepare themselves for those demands. Obama will be costly for Germany. The haggling over sending more troops to Afghanistan will continue. And a President Obama will demand help in winding up the Iraq adventure in the name of strengthened trans-Atlantic solidarity."

"However, one should not overestimate the Berlin speech. Obama has proved himself to be a crafty tactician in this election campaign. He is always aware of which public he is speaking to. In Berlin he may have captured the hearts of many enthusiastic German fans, but his real audience was the undecided white voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Virginia. He wants to convince them that the world will also listen to a black US president. Most Americans view the Germans as reliable partners, despite their opposition to the Iraq war -- not as stubborn as the French or as eager as the British."

Conservative daily Die Welt writes:

"To the joy of the Fan Mile in Berlin he played the empathetic multilateralist, while -- to reassure his compatriots -- he played the defensive multilateralist. As such, if he were to become president, he would demand that Germany and the EU play a much stronger role than they have been up to now in the war against terror and against the other evils in the world.""Berlin is good; Berlin is everywhere. It sounded nice, but it was just a sleight of hand when he called for people to see the fight against all the evils of the world -- against terrorism, pollution, injustice -- as the simple continuation of 1948's Berlin Airlift. But Berlin is not everywhere. There have been so many attempts full of passion and in the spirit of solidarity to reshape the world. Many failed murderously, others were abandoned. Someone who dares to claim that now is the moment of great change should have very good arguments to back up that claim. And he should make it clear that he knows something about those tragedies where goodwill often creates nothing good. Unfortunately there was little trace of this in Barack Obama's otherwise pleasant speech."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"Obama's speech in Berlin was an ad for the war on terror. He conjured up the spirit of the Berlin Airlift and used it to call for German solidarity. It is now finally clear to the German government that more involvement -- and particularly in Afghanistan -- will be expected from Berlin. The US doesn’t see why they should grind away at fighting the Taliban while the Germans play the nice reconstruction aid workers…. Obama will ask for more. He'll ask the Germans to deploy troops in the dangerous south."

"Althought this has long been clear to the German government, Obama was still treated like a teddy bear. Politicians from almost every party projected the feeling that the trans-Atlantic partnership would automatically blossom with the Democratic politician (as president)."

"While the government already knows what awaits it, the voters for the parties in Berlin's grand coalition could soon experience a rude awakening once they see that Obama's new America is pursuing the same old goals. Until now, the Germans have always been able to reject a more robust mandate for Afghanistan with the unspoken knowledge that there was no need to run after someone like George W. Bush. But it will be much tougher to reject any urgent requests from a President Obama, who has just been so widely celebrated here."

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:

"Obama's agenda seems to contradict George W. Bush's foreign policy on nearly every point. His agenda is well thought through and could easily have been drafted by political thinkers in Europe. However, it is very abstract on many points. When he eventually gives them substance, then these differences with the Bush administration's policies fall away."

 

"For Obama, as for John McCain, a militarily strong America forms the basis of all their foreign policy concepts. However, unlike the Republicans, Obama has two competing principles: maintaining the US's leading role and increasingly interweaving states in the aftermath of the Cold War."

"Obama makes no mention of fewer troops, agents or weapons. On the contrary, Obama does not follow any new theories that might lead to the end of the US's as the hegemonic power. Instead, his views harken back to the liberal interventionists of the '90s."

"For the trans-Atlantic relationship, this means that Obama will listen if we talk to him. That in itself is a substantial improvement on the last few years. Nevertheless, it is still Washington that will make the important decisions -- just as it was with other Democratic presidents, like Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy. Even if Obama does become president, it won't be enough to depend on trans-Atlantic dialogue. The Europeans must renew their efforts to formulate their own common security and foreign policy, to work harder to strengthen the United Nations, and to further develop the civilian possibilities for international crisis prevention."

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

"Barack Obama is a bit like the David Beckham of politicians. Somehow different, more glamorous. In Germany he has become a star, a counter-image to Georg W. Bush's aggressive provincialism."

"When you take away the Obama feel-good factor, what remains is a crystal clear demand: More European soldiers for Afghanistan. If he wins, Obama will also be a difficult US president for Germany. In the US Afghanistan is perceived as the 'good war.' Obama will push this war ahead -- even though Afghanistan cannot be pacified by military means alone."

"Obama is also a pop star because he is not yet US president. He embodies a promise and the open, multiethnic America. His charm is tied to the fact that he is not yet identified with power. Since yesterday a clearer picture has emerged of what kind of president he will be if he wins."

17 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 01, 2008 at 10:16 PM, thought4 (22.88) wrote:

1776

Report this comment
#2) On August 01, 2008 at 11:25 PM, IBleedConcrete (57.39) wrote:

"I told you about the North American Union and the Amero."

Yes, and we all laughed at you.  Get a grip on reality.

Report this comment
#3) On August 02, 2008 at 12:07 AM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

IBleedConcrete Can you watch all of them and then tell me again about reality?

Report this comment
#4) On August 02, 2008 at 12:19 AM, jahbu (84.57) wrote:

Yeah IBleedConcrete, maybe the world is flat as well.  

 Seriously, just look at what has happened in the last 20 years.  They have gutted our industries, making the US dependent on other countries.  They have gutted our ability to be energy independent, again making us dependent on other countries.

 And after 9/11?

Gutted our Constitution.  Gutted the image of the USA across the World.  Gutted our currency.  Gutted our libertys.   7 YEARS and we still havent secured our borders!  Looks to me like the NUTS are close to creating a National Disaster that will force us into the North American Union and a new currency.

hmmmm I sure aint laughin at ya Iquad.

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

Defend the Constitution

Jahbu

Report this comment
#5) On August 02, 2008 at 1:13 AM, StockSpreadsheet (70.45) wrote:

You know, I don't know what you have against the North American Union.  I think it could be a great idea if all the nations from Canada to Panama joined together into one large nation.  Canada could form 10 states and a couple of territories, Mexico could form 10 to 12 states and the 7 nations of Central America would form a state each, to where the United States would expand to include a total of about 77 to 80 states and about 450 million people.  All the illegal Mexicans in the U.S. now would become citizens, so we would legalize the people and get the land too. 

The difficulties would need to be worked out.  One would be what the exchange rate would be to convert their old currencies into the dollar for conversion purposes.  For Canada, it would be easiest to use a 1:1 conversion ratio, (one Canadian dollar being exchanged for one American dollar), though I don't know if the Canadians would go for that as I think there dollar is now worth more than ours.  Anyway, those exchange ratios could be worked out.

The other thing that would need to be worked out is how to incorporate the southern nations into the union.  Canada would be easy, as they are already a First World nation, their Per Capita Income is close to ours, their environmental laws are similar, etc..  For Mexico and the nations of Central American, however, the integration would be much more difficult.  Their PCI is much lower, their environmental regulations, (or the enforcement thereof), are much looser than those of America, etc..  There would probably need to be some type of transition period where they could be integrated over time.  An example would be for their minimum wage to rise by 10 percentage points of the American minimum wage per year, so that by the end of 10 years their minimum wage would be the same as ours.  The same would be true of environmental regulations, etc..  That way, at the end of 10 years, full integration could happen, including free travel amongst all the states, federal regulations applying to all states, etc..  

The biggest problem I see is getting everyone to vote to ratify the integration, (the foreign nations' citizens voting to join the U.S. and the U.S. population voting to allow them to join).  I'm hoping we would not need to build a bigger Capital Building to house 160 Senators and 500 House Members, but if so, I think it would be a small price to pay for the benefits that could be realized from the union.  Among them would be a larger population, (larger domestic market for our manufacturers, (our meaning from all the incorporated nations, America and all those joining with us), more diverse resources, smaller land boarders, (our only land border being the current border between Panama and Columbia), less work for the Boarder Patrol and INS, (since the smaller boarder should be more easily regulated and smuggling illegals into the country would be more difficult if they all had to come by boat or try to sneak through the small Columbia/Panama connection), etc..  

I think the union would be a great idea, as long as we all became one big(ger) nation.  So what do you have against that idea?

Craig 

Report this comment
#6) On August 02, 2008 at 1:28 AM, AnomaLee (28.71) wrote:

I agree with Craig in the notion that the North American union needs to be improved and not feared and forced to deterioate.

There is no such thing as isolation or complete sovereignty...

Humans have lived in a global system for over a millenia and the United States is destinied to decline in importance in this system. I'd rather maintain a smaller share of a larger system than maintain a large sjare of of a shrinking system. 

Report this comment
#7) On August 02, 2008 at 2:53 AM, jahbu (84.57) wrote:

Yeah lets all just become one big happy family, one big World Union and fight against Aliens.  Slap a Verichip in each and every one of us and eliminate the boarders.  What a fantastic idea.  We could all speak the same language and eat GM modified corn.  And if Canada or Panama or Costa Rica dont like it!  We bring democracy to them like Iraq!

Surely a North American Union ran by Elites and Bankers playing GOD would be much better than countries ran by the people.   But what happens if they are playing the Devil?

Give me We the People and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Europe has a Union, people can go there and fight Aliens, global warming, war on Terror, or whatever else the Elites brew up.

Jahbu

Report this comment
#8) On August 02, 2008 at 5:12 AM, StockSpreadsheet (70.45) wrote:

Jahbu,

Europe has an Economic Union, whereas I am talking about a North American Political Union.  (Europes original Common Market agreement stated that they were to work toward a political union, but they haven't gone too far in that regard, (no nations have merged yet), though they did set up the European Parliament.)  If you read my reply, you will see that I said that the North American Political Union as I proposed would have to be VOTED ON by the people of the various nations and that they would JOIN the U.S., so our Constitution would still apply, people would still get to vote, etc..  Therefore, if you read my post, you would see that you would still have "We the People" and the "Constitution of the United States of America".  Nobody said anything about fighting aliens, or a union run by Elites and Bankers playing GOD instead of countries run by the people.  (Of course, isn't the current U.S. government run by Elites and Bankers, (think rich people like Bush, Cheney, most of the members of Congress, Bernake the banker, etc.)?  How would what I proposed be any different?)

I think that you are being overly paranoid and seem to live in fear that someone from the government will sneak into your bedroom at night and implant a mind-control chip into your head.  That is your right to believe that.  I just happen to disagree with you and your fears and don't worry about things like that right now.  Rest assured however that if the government DID ever try to tell me I had to implant a chip under my skin to be able to transact business, vote, get a driver's license, etc., that I would grab a gun and be right with you on the front lines telling them "H*LL NO!  I WILL NOT HAVE A CHIP IN MY FOREHEAD!!"   Until that day, I do not fear a larger United States or any other peaceful political union voted on by the concerned populaces.

Craig 

Report this comment
#9) On August 02, 2008 at 5:37 AM, AnomaLee (28.71) wrote:

Craig explained things and part of my position very well...

As long as there are two or more people there will always be someone making decisions that influence the quality of your life whether you recognize it or not. You are being overly paranoid and some of the ideas of freedom that I hear (why I'll never win politics) are too ideally individualistic. 

However, they're always necessary to discuss.

Report this comment
#10) On August 02, 2008 at 7:04 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Thank you all. First let me address the micro chip.You may have a choice but will children.What are they doing in Mexico? These are just a few.

Report this comment
#11) On August 03, 2008 at 12:48 AM, jahbu (84.57) wrote:

Craig I never said the government was going to sneak into my house and plant a microchip.

They will make it way more subtle than that!  Like commercials demonizing people for using cold hard cash at a fast food joint.  Cash bad! Credit/Debit cards good!   Save trees! Bank Online!

Why go through sneaking into peoples houses when they can use media and advertisements to brainwash us into thinking it is good for us!

I can see it now, some little old lady in the middle of the highway. then big flash!  Grandma got a chip yet? 1-800-GET-CHIP

A little kid arriving at Disney Land, avoiding the long lines using a cool VIP Verichip pass.

Once it becomes NORMAL, look out.

And if that doesnt work, they could make it mandatory for healthcare, work, travel etc...

I am in my thirties and still use some cash.  The younger folks use even less.  If we are not careful a cashless society will be the Norm, all trackable of course.

Paranoid? nah just not stupid. 

Jahbu

Report this comment
#12) On August 03, 2008 at 7:35 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Oh poor grandpa  Craig  has Alzheimer and it is up to his grandchildren to get him chipped so that he won't be unidentified if he escapes the nursing home.

Report this comment
#13) On August 04, 2008 at 12:56 AM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Dear Craig, and all. I said that the North American Political Union as I proposed would have to be VOTED ON by the people of the various nations and that they would JOIN the U.S., so our Constitution would still apply, people would still get to vote, etc.. Unfortunately it won't be the way you want it and we won't get to vote.We will not have the constitution in its current form or anything like itl  The leaders are doing it in secret and congress let them do it by giving up their power to the president. Part of the way they are doing it is to let a company in Spain build TOLL roads in America because we can't do it . What? We can't do it? Oh well another one bites the dust. Do you ever wonder why it is the presidents and Congress let the bank manipulate our markets? Never enforcing the law? Nazi's are not nice people. Do you see some of the same things that happened with Hilter and bush? Here are a few. Banks helped both into power. Good political people. Bush has Rove.The FCC only about 5 people and corporations control the media. This was done by Col. Powell son in the FCC. Attack on the homeland and the formation of for germany the ss and gestapo and for us homeland security. Yet we still don't secure our boarders. Border patrol agents thrown in jail.Wire tapping on Americans. IRS now has access to all credit card transaction. We are in a fight with terrorist yet we still don't control our borders. The fight against drugs. Yet one of the only good things the Talliban did was get rid of the poppy fields. Now with us there the fields have been re planted and drug's are flowing again. Drug cartels make the boarder cities on the Mexican side look like war torn Iraq. Drug cartels having shoot outs and kidnappings in Phoenix and Memphis. There are places in our National Parks that you can't go because of the armed gunmen guarding the pot fields. Park Rangers well tell you where you can't hike. I will write more later this took me 3 hours to type. I am so slow.

Report this comment
#14) On August 04, 2008 at 10:56 PM, StockSpreadsheet (70.45) wrote:

I would be curious to know how many Verichip employees, especially upper management, have the chips implanted in themselves.  After all, if they won't even use their own product, why should we?  Same thing for Tommy Thompson.  If he thinks the idea is so great, has he gotten his own chip implanted yet?  None of the interviewers asked those questions on the videos.  I wonder if they asked them at all.

Craig

Report this comment
#15) On August 07, 2008 at 7:48 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Media Cartel keeping us uninformed and no they won't use the product. I am looking on more on Monsanto now and will post it later.

Report this comment
#16) On August 07, 2008 at 8:33 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

on Monsanto http://www.youtube.com/v/M8Mgvf-ULF4&hl=en&fs=1"> name="allowFullScreen" value="true">http://www.youtube.com/v/M8Mgvf-ULF4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

Report this comment
#17) On August 07, 2008 at 8:50 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Ok I think I got it on Monsanto and Milk

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement