Who wants a UNITED north america?

[taks]

WiNorth American Free Trade Act ( NAFTA ) and also his newest creation of CAFTA ( Central American Free Trade Act ), it wouldn't come as too much of a shock if he were to announce his intention to create an American version of the EU.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

both of these are treaties, which are within the realms of presidential/congressional power. "joining" another country is not. unless said other country wants to join with us, as a state, and then they'll have to go through the entire process. in the end, however, the US would still remain the US as a sovereign nation. but there's nothing saying we couldn't have more states.

 

taks

[taks]

As Europe unites, will North America stagnate and fall behind, squabbling over trivial differences?

uh, i hate to point out to whichever idiot in the world managed to come up with this nonsense, but the EU is hardly "united." in fact, they're self destructing and until they recognize the fact that the government cannot be the answer to all of a nation's problems, this self destruction will continue unabated.

 

it doesn't help, either, that single nations need some form of "identity" to survive. france is fighting desparately to hold on to its own, as well are other countries. the only way the EU will ever really be "united" is if they all decide to play as if there is only one sandbox, and one blended culture. at the very least, in the end, canadian and US cultures are really not all that different.

 

taks

Edited April 27, 2006 by taks

[Llyranor]

50 million uninsured people can't be wrong!

[Lucius]

Who in the world says the nations of Europe are interested in getting mixed up to be one single culture, as a citizen in one of them, I can tell ya that I'm not.

Edited April 27, 2006 by Lucius

[Craigboy2]

Canada? What do they have to offer us? Moose? A food source. Trees? Lumber for constructing new buildings. Hmm anything else?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One of the largest oil reserves in the world... oh crap... shouldn't have said that...

 

Anyway, I have no problems with a European Union type united north america, but having Canada join the US... no. I don't want to be associated with the foreign policy of the US. Although with Harper in power now, and his backing of the US on their stance on Iran, It may look like Canada will be hated around the world too.

 

I thought it was funny how the guy said that Canada's debt would be reduced by joining the US. Um... we've had a balanced budget for like the last 12 years, and large surpluses that have been going towards paying off the debt... while the US on the otherhand has had their debt increasing by trillions each year. How will that reduce our debt? By annexing all the countries we owe money to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doesn't matter, if we get nuked it'll blow up to Canada.

 

Where the heck is the Hispanic race on that site. There is no way the US is 81% white. They must have lumped the Hispanics with the Caucasians... Canada predominately white, I

Edited April 27, 2006 by Craigboy2

[Judge Hades]

uh, you can have it... move there and get it for yourself.  i'll continue paying for far better health care here, thank you.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Its only better if you have insurance and the money to pay for it. Otherwise they over charge you up the ass and harass you till you pay. $800 for a x ray and some blood work. $800 freaking dollars. Absolutely ridiculous.

Edited April 28, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Eddo36]

The money for "free" healthcare comes off somebody's back. Even if you don't pay for it, somebody else has to. In Canada's case, other people pay for your "free" health insurance with their tax money.

[Darque]

http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/index.htm

 

What do you people think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hell no.

[kumquatq3]

Last time we tried to bring the Canadians into the fold they got our Capitol burned down.......along with Buffalo and Toronto...and some other stuff....

 

Point being, alot of burning occurred. I'm just fine purchasing their bacon and syrup in stores and having to drive to see their strippers, thank you.

[Fenghuang]

Actually I think it'd be a lot harder to annex or join forces, or whatever, with Mexico than Canada. The pace of life and culture there is totally different, Canada is already pretty damn similar to the US. Except for the Quebecois, and even their fellow Canadians hate them. ^_^

[Oerwinde]

Actually I think it'd be a lot harder to annex or join forces, or whatever, with Mexico than Canada.  The pace of life and culture there is totally different, Canada is already pretty damn similar to the US.  Except for the Quebecois, and even their fellow Canadians hate them.  ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The only difference in our culture is that the majority of Canadians have more of a left leaning attitude, while the majority of Americans it seems has a more right leaning attitude.

 

I just wish the Quebeckers would realize that if they separated, they would still be surrounded by 300 millions english speaking people. It would make no difference. Everyone there would still have to learn how to speak english to be able to communicate with their neighboring nations. I wish they could just embrace being french-canadian. And they are french-canadian, not french. Quebec films have to be subtitled in France because they can't understand what people are saying.

Edited April 28, 2006 by Oerwinde

[metadigital]

Actually I think it'd be a lot harder to annex or join forces, or whatever, with Mexico than Canada.  The pace of life and culture there is totally different, Canada is already pretty damn similar to the US.  Except for the Quebecois, and even their fellow Canadians hate them.  ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Mexico became part of the USA, then where would all the US-based multi-nationals build their environmentally poluting factories, where they are still within the radius of their transport infrastructure? And who would they get to work in them? The cost of US production would become prohibitive! Do you REALLY WANT TO SEE THAT?!

[astr0creep]

Actually I think it'd be a lot harder to annex or join forces, or whatever, with Mexico than Canada.  The pace of life and culture there is totally different, Canada is already pretty damn similar to the US.  Except for the Quebecois, and even their fellow Canadians hate them.  ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Quebec is just as similar to the US as the rest of Canada. Only the supposed official language differs and that is barely true now with all the immigrants who can't and/or won't speak french but that to me ain't a big deal. I'm bilingual.

 

And the rest of Canada does not "hate" Quebec. They need us too much. Actually, maybe they do hate us because they need us?

 

And that ain't a biggy to me either. I love everyone! :D

[Dark_Raven]

I heard that Saskatchewan is an awesome place.

[taks]

Who in the world says the nations of Europe are interested in getting mixed up to be one single culture, as a citizen in one of them, I can tell ya that I'm not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that's exactly my point. and exactly why it won't work.

 

taks

[Lucius]

Can't say it bothers me at all, the US and Europe are allies, I see no reason why we should strive so much to get ahead. Certainly not if it meant that small nations should just give up their identity in order to get assimilated into the EU as just another remote province. Many of us, I think, have no interest in being ruled from Brussels.

[Rosbjerg]

Europe is moving towards greater unity .. not a United Europe .. (at least not for now) .. we won't lose our identity or culture, by moving closer, anymore than we already have - and in no greater quantity than we already do..

 

I'm all for EU .. We need the cooperation and the benefits it will bring! but we must still fight corruption and bureaucracy!

 

 

*

funny how you are Right-wing Lucius - which is generally pro-EU .. and I'm Left-wing - who are big opponents of it ..

[Lucius]

Europe is moving towards greater unity .. not a United Europe .. (at least not for now) .. we won't lose our identity or culture, by moving closer, anymore than we already have - and in no greater quantity than we already do..

 

I'm all for EU .. We need the cooperation and the benefits it will bring! but we must still fight corruption and bureaucracy!

 

 

*

funny how you are Right-wing Lucius - which is generally pro-EU .. and I'm Left-wing - who are big opponents of it ..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not that anti-EU, I just don't think we need more of it, I'm more of a "it's fine how it is" mindset.

 

But yeah, that is kinda funny. Although I do think the left wing SF was against the EU, not long ago.

[Rosbjerg]

I'm not that anti-EU, I just don't think we need more of it, I'm more of a "it's fine how it is" mindset.

 

But yeah, that is kinda funny. Although I do think the left wing SF was against the EU, not long ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well then we agree .. more commerce, more money, less taxes (EU tolls).. but not necessarily a "we are all as one" unity..

[metadigital]

The biggest problem with the EU is that it creates ANOTHER level of management and administration ABOVE the national threshold: yet one more abstraction from the electorate to the decision makers ... ... although looking at some of the voters, I'm not sure that is entirely a bad idea ...

[taks]

but not necessarily a "we are all as one" unity..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i read something somewhere that discussed the concept of being united, but not "as one". it particularly cited this as the ultimate downfall of all civilizations that fail. maybe it was something done by the guns, germs and steel author. i can't remember, i'll look it up.

 

the basis was that societies need a cohesive "one" concept otherwise their own diversity will rip them to shreds. taking a look around the world, right now, nearly all domestic upheavals are due to cultural differences within individual countries. mexicans protesting in the US (er, illegal immigrants, most of whom are mexican), muslims refusing to assimilate in france, three different groups in iraq (sunni, shiite, kurd), etc. everyone wants their own identity, while expecting everyone else to accept them for who they are regardless of human nature which almost instinctively fears that which is different... perhaps the idea is not as far fetched as it may seem?

 

anyway, that's where my comments came from. i'm not sure if i agree or not yet. it needs more thought.

 

taks

Edited April 28, 2006 by taks

[metadigital]

Read the synopsis to this book in a recent Sunday Times:

Basically why Rome succeeded (where others tried and failed, like the Carthaginians) was because Rome was (the first) BRAND: an ideal that the simple goatherds of Gaul could understand ... and more importantly the local hierarchy could identify the benefits and be quickly incorporated into the empire ... after all, it is better to be a middle-manager in a huge firm, than a senior manager in a tiny firm.

 

[taks]

they were "one" people. everyone fit the "brand" so to speak. i'm not completely sold, but there is some surprising evidence to back the claim.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

It is NOT better to be a middle manager in a big firm than a senior manager in a small one. For starters the parties are better.

[metadigital]

A middle manager in a HUGE company (think GE) equates to Rome, Inc, rather than being senior manager in Gaul Goatherders, Inc.