|
|
| Author |
Message |
Monorprise
UNA Unopposed
Joined: Feb 16 2004
Posts: 3850
Location: New Mexico
|
 Posted: Dec 04, 2007 2:19 am Post subject: Re: forget nafta & north american union |
 |
|
| dr who wrote: | | There are annexation/succession parties in Canada. There just needs to be more of them. There's also a Greenlandic succession party but no annexation party[as of yet]. This should still be the good ole USA[not that I'm trying to sound so chauvinistic]when the day is finally over with. We don't need a NWO or NAU. We should repeal NAFTA & all other globalist entities. One world government is evil & it's dangerous to us all. There shall never be an amero. There's no such thing. Eving if they have them freshly made in some vaults somewhere, they'll never be in use except for a collectors item. The U.S. dollar should be renewed however as well as placed back on the gold/silver standard instead of this worthless paper which is only good as toilet paper. That's it from my end. |
Mccapitalism is correct, if we went on the gold standard now the dollar would collapse and our Gold, Silver and whatever else reserves would be gone in no time.
The reason is quite simple, the government has sense the institution of Medicare and Medicate in the 1960's spend and printed more money out than it got in.(ran Dept)
We don’t have the capability to support a backed currency like that anymore, not with the entitlement cost we got fixed on us sense the 1960's.
We(the United States) we’re forced to give up honesty, when the ends were incapable of meeting otherwise, such is the nature of the problem we’re still in now.
I do agree it would be most unwise to allow today’s politicians and political values to go anywhere near writing a new constitution. That would only guarantee our bankruptcy and/or subsequent enslavement to the State. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mccapitalism
UNA Supporter
Joined: Sep 04 2007
Posts: 1833
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Dec 04, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: forget nafta & north american union |
|
|
| Monorprise wrote: | | I do agree it would be most unwise to allow today’s politicians and political values to go anywhere near writing a new constitution. That would only guarantee our bankruptcy and/or subsequent enslavement to the State. |
Agreed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milton
UNA Supporter
Joined: Jun 29 2003
Posts: 633
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Apr 24, 2008 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't like the word annexation. It sounds too aggressive, and even undemocratic. It reminds me somehow of that gruesome German word Anschlus (I'm not sure of the spelling) as applied to Austria. Anyway, I don't like it or its implications.---Milton |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spencenator
UNA Supporter
Joined: Apr 05 2005
Posts: 956
Location: Nevada
|
| Posted: Apr 25, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Milton wrote: | | I don't like the word annexation. It sounds too aggressive, and even undemocratic. It reminds me somehow of that gruesome German word Anschlus (I'm not sure of the spelling) as applied to Austria. Anyway, I don't like it or its implications.---Milton |
There is a huge difference between "Anschluss" as it relates to Austria in 1938 and "Democratic" annexation. Democratic annexation is what has to be for a UNA to happen. A new country will form but it will be under the U.S. Constitution. Which will allow for Canadians as individual states to continue whatever they like as Canadians with the exception that taxes will be lower and sent to Washington instead of Ottawa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mccapitalism
UNA Supporter
Joined: Sep 04 2007
Posts: 1833
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Apr 26, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How about democratic union? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monorprise
UNA Unopposed
Joined: Feb 16 2004
Posts: 3850
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Apr 26, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Milton wrote: | | I don't like the word annexation. It sounds too aggressive, and even undemocratic. It reminds me somehow of that gruesome German word Anschlus (I'm not sure of the spelling) as applied to Austria. Anyway, I don't like it or its implications.---Milton |
It's a simple English word revering to the incorporation of 1 territory/country into anther, implies legally. Anther term Conquer, applies to the acquisition of anything by force.
Unfortunately for the term “Annexation” the historical condemnation of Hitler and all his actions has resulted in that terms, which has been around legitimacy and positively for hundreds of years. In being given to many a new darker meaning simply because the alterative term Conquer can’t be applied when referring to Hitler’s accusation of Austria which was legal and not exactly by force, and thus cannot be described by the alterative term Conquer.
None the less it is the most accurate term when referring to its true historical and legal meaning, which has nonthing specific to do with Hitler, or Germany for that matter. Upon which it was simply used, like many other terms more commonly understood and known.
None the less that’s why John has preferred to uses the term “Amalgamation” to avoid confusion, with people who don’t know their word so well.
The United State’s Annexed Texas, Alaska, ect.., it did not Conquer them, there was no force involve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mccapitalism
UNA Supporter
Joined: Sep 04 2007
Posts: 1833
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Apr 27, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Still, the psychological impact of the statement itself is deterring to the average person, who would rather ignore imploring the idea because of calling it annexation than questioning the idea and possibly supporting it. We can spend more time explaining the idea then explaining the meaning of the word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spencenator
UNA Supporter
Joined: Apr 05 2005
Posts: 956
Location: Nevada
|
| Posted: Apr 30, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mccapitalism wrote: | | Still, the psychological impact of the statement itself is deterring to the average person, who would rather ignore imploring the idea because of calling it annexation than questioning the idea and possibly supporting it. We can spend more time explaining the idea then explaining the meaning of the word. |
I get your point. Amalgamation sounds alot better for some reason than Annexation. I have no clue why but it does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mccapitalism
UNA Supporter
Joined: Sep 04 2007
Posts: 1833
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: May 04, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Exactly. And as a political organization, those little perceptive differences can make or break it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Americalex
UNA Supporter
Joined: Aug 27 2004
Posts: 4144
Location: Quebec
|
| Posted: May 04, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you shy from using the dictionary definition of annexation, you give ammo to our opponents because they will not hesitate one moment to use it against us.
LOOK!! THEY HIDE UNDER AMALGAMATION BUT WHAT THEY WANT IS TO ANNEX CANADA!!
And then we're supposed to answer? "Euhh, nooo!!" *Shooter McGavin Voice*
I much prefer the straigh faced "Democratic Annexation" lol I know I know, I also realize the validity of the point people have made. But I would use Union over Amalgamation anytime.
LOOK!! THEY THEY ARE PROPOSING THE ANNEXATION OF CANADA!!
"That's right, a democratic annexation that will change the future of mankind forever"
What I do seriously think would help, is to have multiple websites approaching this same converging goal from all angles. It would help augment visibility and we can try different things.
The Amalgamation Party
"We want to sell you something that is complicated to describe"
The Democratic Annexation Party
"Join the Forces of Victory" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mccapitalism
UNA Supporter
Joined: Sep 04 2007
Posts: 1833
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: May 06, 2008 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I see your point, Alex, but we must consider the effects of using the word annexation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monorprise
UNA Unopposed
Joined: Feb 16 2004
Posts: 3850
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: May 07, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It’s basically a matter of the word's true meaning being incorrectly known due to the nature of how it was applied to Hitler in popular media.
Yes Hitler was a bad man, but the annexation of Austria didn’t make him that way.
If we wish to avoid confusion of those who have this word mis-defined in their head as a result of ill-responsible inaccurate journalism, then using anther term is prudent to convey the most accurate message to those people.
Simply because using the term that they have inaccurately defined in their head naturally results giving THEM a inaccurate (untrue) explanation of what this site is about.
There comes a point when the Natural definition of a word is less important than the definition of the word to the person using it, and receiving it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mccapitalism
UNA Supporter
Joined: Sep 04 2007
Posts: 1833
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: May 12, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So do we use the word annexation and prove our intelligence by spending the time explaining how it is not a bad word or do we save ourselves the time by changing the word and hoping that nobody uses it against us? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Americalex
UNA Supporter
Joined: Aug 27 2004
Posts: 4144
Location: Quebec
|
| Posted: May 12, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mccapitalism wrote: | | So do we use the word annexation and prove our intelligence by spending the time explaining how it is not a bad word or do we save ourselves the time by changing the word and hoping that nobody uses it against us? |
I think the only proper answer may well be both rather then one or the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Register
UNA Yahoo
Frappr
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
