Thread: 7-year plan aligns U.S. with Europe's economy

Six U.S. senators and 49 House members are advisers for a group working toward a Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the by 2015.
The Transatlantic Policy Network – a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels – is advised by the bi-partisan congressional TPN policy group, chaired by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

Article here.........


Nothing to see here folks, move along!

Originally Posted by michaelr

Nothing to see here folks

Agreed....

Oh noes not intercontinental partnership, trade and cooperation!

It's those damn globalists again!

Originally Posted by Colin

Oh noes not intercontinental partnership, trade and cooperation!

It's those damn globalists again!

Your hatred of nationalist is bizarre to say the least. Where the fuck does it say in OUR constitution that this is legal? Have you read OUR constitution lately Collin? I will tell you that OUR constitution does not allow OUR country to do this.

Originally Posted by michaelr

Your hatred of nationalist is bizarre to say the least. Where the fuck does it say in OUR constitution that this is legal? Have you read OUR constitution lately Collin? I will tell you that OUR constitution does not allow OUR country to do this.

Nah it’s actually very reasonable.

Firstly this is a WND article, automatically denoting that it is probably reactionary, ultra-nationalist moronic trash. But don’t respond to this comment, considering your love for hilariously fringe internet sources I don’t expect a reply worth reading.

Secondly how is preliminary discussion between government branches, committees, diplomats as well as the consulting of third party groups in policy analysis/implementation on an agreement that is inevitable unconstitutional?

Any trade deal that is proposed between the EU and the US will have to be approved by Congress to be implemented as all prior trade dealings in the past like NAFTA, Chile or whatever have been. Believe me a free-trade deal will be signed, its inevitable that the two largest and wealthiest economies on the planet lower/eliminate barriers to commerce between themselves in order to promote greater growth, trade and wealth creation. The protectionists will whine as they always have, they will go against the grain of prominent economists, policy analysts and think tanks - and as always they will lose.

Whatever, every democracy has its vocal protectionist isolationist fuckwads. They just need to be dealt with in a civilized way and relegated to fringe internet sites and laughable radio shows.

Originally Posted by Colin

Nah it’s actually very reasonable.

Firstly this is a WND article, automatically denoting that it is probably reactionary, ultra-nationalist moronic trash. But don’t respond to this comment, considering your love for hilariously fringe internet sources I don’t expect a reply worth reading.

Secondly how is preliminary discussion between government branches, committees, diplomats as well as the consulting of third party groups in policy analysis/implementation on an agreement that is inevitable unconstitutional?

Any trade deal that is proposed between the EU and the US will have to be approved by Congress to be implemented as all prior trade dealings in the past like NAFTA, Chile or whatever have been. Believe me a free-trade deal will be signed, its inevitable that the two largest and wealthiest economies on the planet lower/eliminate barriers to commerce between themselves in order to promote greater growth, trade and wealth creation. The protectionists will whine as they always have, they will go against the grain of prominent economists, policy analysts and think tanks - and as always they will lose.

Whatever, every democracy has its vocal protectionist isolationist fuckwads. They just need to be dealt with in a civilized way and relegated to fringe internet sites and laughable radio shows.

Jerome R. Corsi wrote this article, I trust him.


As far as your last post goes, well your right. Must listen to Rush, and read fox articles, nothing fringe there.

Originally Posted by michaelr

wrote this article, I trust him.


As far as your last post goes, well your right. Must listen to Rush, and read fox articles, nothing fringe there.

LMAO Jerome R. Corsi, you mean this guy?

• Corsi on Islam: "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"

• Corsi on Catholicism: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"

• Corsi on Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together"

• Corsi on "John F*ing Commie Kerry": "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"

• Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010

But more importantly explain how what is happening it totally unconstitutional michaelr. You always back off when the burden of proof falls on you:

How is preliminary discussion between government branches, committees, diplomats as well as the consulting of third party groups in policy analysis/implementation on a hypothetical agreement unconstitutional? Further do you deny that Congress will have to approve this deal?

How is preliminary discussion between government branches, committees, diplomats as well as the consulting of third party groups in policy analysis/implementation on a hypothetical agreement unconstitutional? Further do you deny that Congress will have to approve this deal?

A discussion is not against the constitution, enactment of this policy is.

Saying that this may be against the Logan act; The Transatlantic Policy Network – a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels – is advised by the bi-partisan congressional TPN policy group, chaired by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

Originally Posted by michaelr

How is preliminary discussion between government branches, committees, diplomats as well as the consulting of third party groups in policy analysis/implementation on a hypothetical agreement unconstitutional? Further do you deny that Congress will have to approve this deal?

A discussion is not against the constitution, enactment of this policy is.

What policy? No coherent policy or deal has been implemented. There are groups pushing towards a deal, there are committees approving steps towards a hypothetical deal, there are think tanks coming out in support of a deal and certain elected representatives are leaning towards pursuing real negotiations.

Sounds like most international deals when they are at their preliminary stage - well practically every major foreign, trade or economic policy in modern history. There is initially consultation, discussion, steps taken to move forward, specialized Congressional committees formed and diplomatic action taken. Following these steps, Congress and the president either choose to pursue the policy or ultimately reject it.

Originally Posted by michaelr

Saying that this may be against the Logan act; The Transatlantic Policy Network – a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels – is advised by the bi-partisan congressional TPN policy group, chaired by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

That's a massive stretch. The Transatlantic Policy Network is not the active, sanctioned or official negotiating party for the United States in negotiations on trade deals with the EU. It may play an important consultation and facilitation role, have governmental contacts and influence yes, but it doesn't exercise authority or participate in the official discussion or dealings. The Logan act is inapplicable.