Yes, the first Bush was on board with this deal (NAU) and it’s the only thing I support Ron Paul on because he’s right. As the dude says at the beginning of the film: prove me wrong. I know that you can’t prove a negative, but try reading about the background and meetings of the Security Prosperity Partnership in Jerome Corsi’s NYT’s bestselling book, then tell me it’s “idiocy”. No one can fool an informed citizen who cares enough to find out the truth.
I will continue to encourage people getting informed on this as long as this issue is poo-pooed.

I don’t agree with the dude when he says that McCain is worse on this issue than BO, he’s just slightly better.

Hollowpoint on July 2, 2008 at 10:52 PM

Yep, you described conspiracy theorist logic to a T!

But not as bad.., although, SLC isn’t even on our side…. nor do I want to have them.

Kini on July 3, 2008 at 2:30 AM

What exactly is “our side” and how exactly are we not on it?

95% of you will laugh at the idiocy of the questioner and his subtitles — Allahpundit

I must be in that 5 percent. But gee Allah, saying that 95% of HotAir would scoff about the NAU is disingenuous at best. HotAir has done quite a few post about the NAU and it always seemed to me that at least half of the people that posted saw it as a legitimate concern. Here is a post specifically on the NAU and here is a list of post where the NAU is mentioned.

I ordered Ron Paul’s new book recently. I read some excerpts from it and it sounds like there is some excellent small government doctrine and economic policy knowledge contained therein.

I’ll be interested to see how much of the weird stuff made it into the final draft, though.

joewm315 on July 2, 2008 at 10:36 PM

As an economist, I can tell you that Ron Paul is not knowledgable of good economic policy. On the surface, it seems like he might be, because he understands about 5% of economics, and that’s close to 100% more than most politicians.

However, like the quote says, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Mainstream republicans, purely by accident, advocate better economic policies than Ron Paul, and mainstream democrats, as a result of intentional, carefully-cultivated ignorance, advocate economic policies about equally as damaging as Ron Paul’s.

Trust me—we’re better off with what we have now.

I want BarryO to frickin’ answer a question without say “Uh…uhh….uhh”.

Hey, at least Mexico and Canada have OIL…and can drill for it!

SouthernGent on July 2, 2008 at 11:42 PM

He cant. It’s been shown time and time again, he cannot speak off the cuff without a teleprompter displaying something somebody else has written for him. As another poster said, he’s an empty 42 long.

Southern Gent,

Couldn’t agree more. He strikes me as the new version of Bill Clinton, with these revisions:

- no record of him schtupping the secretary,
- no comparison in brains (Clinton could talk smoke rings around this know-nothing putz),
- no comparison in experience (Clinton ran a small, economically backward hick state; Obambi doesn’t even run his own house),
- looks good in a 42 long, empty.

For some reason, Democrats really, really like the newer version, and are all scrapping the old version.

Jaibones on July 3, 2008 at 12:07 AM

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Obama is Clinton without the babes. He’s the Paris Hilton of politics.

Look at the funny monkey!

Mark Jaquith on July 2, 2008 at 11:42 PM

Excellent! Thanks. I’m looking forward to reading it.

(I dare not say what he spells!)

[Think: "Faster, Cleaner, Drier. Period".]

CFR.

In any case, it was a waste of a question. There are so many areas that Obama has anti-liberty flip-floppy views. Why not say that you’re a gun owner, and you’re worried about his support of the D.C. gun ban, or that you make out of country phone calls and are concerned about his flip-flop on legalizing warrantless wiretaps?

Mark Jaquith on July 2, 2008 at 11:33 PM

I believe in the goals of the NRA more than I believe in the goals of the ACLU.

well it does explain why the borders aren’t secured. give me another logical explanation in a time of war that a country will not secure its borders?

unseen on July 3, 2008 at 2:13 AM

On top of that, why the secrecy from its members about it? (And forget the Obama deflection about a secret handshake.) I do not want any laws imported from Canada or Mexico ever imposed on me. Which is why globalists do tend to frighten me. They will sell out our individual liberty laws in favor of collectivist ones. These globalists want to share the wealth of the United States without sharing the freedoms which very much allow for that wealth. A Fedederation of Planets-type international organiztion might sound good in theory, but until their is agreement on such a thing as the right to offend, I’ll pass.

Not all conspiracy theories are theories — some are just conspiracies.

The only point that slightly gets my agreement is McCain isn’t any better.

But not as bad.., although, SLC isn’t even on our side…. nor do I want to have them.

Obama thinks that you’re a lamb
You’re a lamb
You’re a lamb
Obama thinks that you’re a lamb
Cause he’s much smarter than ewe

Obama: It’s basically a forum where a bunch of people talk about foreign policy.

Subtitle: A bunch of unelected people.

Ooooooooooo, scary!

NotCoach on July 2, 2008 at 10:15 PM

Exactly what I was thinking.

Coming up next on PaulnuTV: “A blog? That’s a website where a bunch of no-lifers talk about political issues. (Subtitle: A bunch of unelected no-lifers.)”

Couldn’t agree more. He strikes me as the new version of Bill Clinton, with these revisions:

- no record of him schtupping the secretary,
- no comparison in brains (Clinton could talk smoke rings around this know-nothing putz),
- no comparison in experience (Clinton ran a small, economically backward hick state; Obambi doesn’t even run his own house),
- looks good in a 42 long, empty.

For some reason, Democrats really, really like the newer version, and are all scrapping the old version.