StarDestroyer.Net BBS

For Americans and Canadians only Please

I Came across this site earlier today:
http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/

It got me thinking, Would it beneficial in the long run for Canada and the United states To merge into one Entity? Canada would get a much more reprentative government and reduction of Taxes by 50% and the elimination of red tape when doing business with US and would release Canada from it's national debt and would be stronger economically. The United states have the an increased tax base, decreased deficit, more natural resources, increase in military manpower and become stronger economically.

Would you support a merger between the United states and Canada and become a North American Union?

Like the North American Combine of the OGRE board games, cool.

Yes canada should surrender now.

Yes canada should surrender now.

LOL! Are you going to lead the charge into Canada!

EmperorSolo51 wrote:For Americans and Canadians only Please

I Came across this site earlier today:
http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/

It got me thinking, Would it beneficial in the long run for Canada and the United states To merge into one Entity? Canada would get a much more reprentative government and reduction of Taxes by 50% and the elimination of red tape when doing business with US and would release Canada from it's national debt and would be stronger economically. The United states have the an increased tax base, decreased deficit, more natural resources, increase in military manpower and become stronger economically.

Would you support a merger between the United states and Canada and become a North American Union?

This is a very good idea. Americans and Canadians are the same people for all intents and purposes, so our division into two seperate states simply dilutes our economic efficiency (stupid U.S./Canada tariffs) and our foreign influence.

Put me down for merger!

Like maple syrup, Canada's evil oozes over the Unites States.

It would be beneficial for Canada but not really that beneficial to America More Man Power?! its population is lousy and wouldn't really benefit America much. It would be more beneficial for the goveremnt than the people. and even at that, not that much more beneficial to then American goverment.

shit! they stole my idea!

. . . unless that site is older then one yr.

Time for Operation

CANADIAN BACON[/b]

I dont think the US and Canada should merge. I like our two countries beings close but different neighboors.

On the selfish side, I like the value my dollar buys in places like Whistler.

I really don't like that article. It certainly is factual, but it gives the impression that Canadians desperatly need to join the U.S. Which as most Canadians will point out, they don't. It also advocates that Canadians should join the U.S. whole heartly, and except all the changes that would go along with that move. However, the U.S. would not change on its part. For example, national government would change for Canadians, but not the U.S. Canadians would have to get a new flag, but the U.S. one will fundimentaly stay the same. Canadians would have to start using imperial measurements as a standard, etc.

An good alternative would be for the U.S. and Canada to unite as one country, as opposed to Canada simply joining the U.S. A new constitution could be chartered, or the existing U.S. one would be amended to accomidate Canadian laws and such. A new flag would be designed, and the U.S. will go to metric. And etc. There would be a merging of the two nations, not one simply folding into the other.

Personally, I think Canada ought to do like Nevada did--easy access to booze, gambling, prostitution, drive-through chapels, and naked dancing girls. Add Swiss banking laws and maybe Dutch drug policy, and Canada could make a fortune off drunk, avaricious, horny, eloping stoners looking to hide the contents of some third world country's national treasury. If that happens, Canada should definitely stay independent, because I'd go up there once a month. For you Canucks who don't want to see your country turned into a den of sin, you could move to Tennessee, or France, or something.

I think its too bad Canada and the US weren't one nation from the beginning, but I don't think joining them would be feasable at this point.

Yes I will be leading the invasion myself into .....ummm French Canada. I know it is the most difficult assigmenbt, but between me and my superbattleship, they don't stand chance.

lol

Anyways, Yah canada should join the US, we can finnally add the 14th stip to the flag to represent the last colony (canada) to finally join.

As for unification, if I remeber correctly, it would only take a simple majority of the Canadain pariliment to request joining the US. As long as they are confederated they (provinces) are obligated to the treaty decisions of the federal government.

I really can't think of anything bad happening besides all those frenchies coming in.

Wow....
*Thinks about that for a second
*Neveda Ethics
*Swiss Banking Laws
*Dutch drug laws
Where is this dreamland of which you speak?
Take me there oh mighty one

Mr Bean wrote:Wow....
*Thinks about that for a second
*Neveda Ethics
*Swiss Banking Laws
*Dutch drug laws
Where is this dreamland of which you speak?
Take me there oh mighty one

I forgot to add Mexican animal cruelty laws, so we could have cockfights and bear baiting, too.

You wouldn't (or would you?) believe it, but there are actually some Americans so ignorant of Canada, that they think it's already a state.

Just wondering, how many Canadians would want to live under Bush?

USAF Ace wrote:I really don't like that article. It certainly is factual, but it gives the impression that Canadians desperatly need to join the U.S. Which as most Canadians will point out, they don't. It also advocates that Canadians should join the U.S. whole heartly, and except all the changes that would go along with that move. However, the U.S. would not change on its part. For example, national government would change for Canadians, but not the U.S. Canadians would have to get a new flag, but the U.S. one will fundimentaly stay the same. Canadians would have to start using imperial measurements as a standard, etc.

An good alternative would be for the U.S. and Canada to unite as one country, as opposed to Canada simply joining the U.S. A new constitution could be chartered, or the existing U.S. one would be amended to accomidate Canadian laws and such. A new flag would be designed, and the U.S. will go to metric. And etc. There would be a merging of the two nations, not one simply folding into the other.

These are good points, but I think that it makes more sense for the Canadians to join the U.S. for a couple of reasons. First, the United States Constitution is already set up to expand by adding more states. Therefore, there would not be significant difficulties in actually making the change. Second, due to the decentralized nature of the United States government, new Canadian states would not have to change their operations much either. For example, the Canadians could keep their metric measures and the 50 states could keep their imperial measures just as they do now. In fact, I think that each Canadian state could probably keep their parliamentary governments if they so chose. All in all, it would be a smoother transition than trying to make a whole new country.

By the way, if most Canadians dislike President Bush so much, it would actually be better for them to be a part of the U.S. As citizens of the United States, Canadians would have a say in who becomes the President; a decision which undoubtedly affects their lives quite a bit.

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:

USAF Ace wrote:I really don't like that article. It certainly is factual, but it gives the impression that Canadians desperatly need to join the U.S. Which as most Canadians will point out, they don't. It also advocates that Canadians should join the U.S. whole heartly, and except all the changes that would go along with that move. However, the U.S. would not change on its part. For example, national government would change for Canadians, but not the U.S. Canadians would have to get a new flag, but the U.S. one will fundimentaly stay the same. Canadians would have to start using imperial measurements as a standard, etc.

An good alternative would be for the U.S. and Canada to unite as one country, as opposed to Canada simply joining the U.S. A new constitution could be chartered, or the existing U.S. one would be amended to accomidate Canadian laws and such. A new flag would be designed, and the U.S. will go to metric. And etc. There would be a merging of the two nations, not one simply folding into the other.

These are good points, but I think that it makes more sense for the Canadians to join the U.S. for a couple of reasons. First, the United States Constitution is already set up to expand by adding more states. Therefore, there would not be significant difficulties in actually making the change. Second, due to the decentralized nature of the United States government, new Canadian states would not have to change their operations much either. For example, the Canadians could keep their metric measures and the 50 states could keep their imperial measures just as they do now. In fact, I think that each Canadian state could probably keep their parliamentary governments if they so chose. All in all, it would be a smoother transition than trying to make a whole new country.

By the way, if most Canadians dislike President Bush so much, it would actually be better for them to be a part of the U.S. As citizens of the United States, Canadians would have a say in who becomes the President; a decision which undoubtedly affects their lives quite a bit.

You've lived your entire life in the U.S., haven't you?

that would not be correct.

Only Republician governments are allowed in the US. Parlaments would have to be disbanded, though if they want, the govenor could be ineffectual position, but that might come under scrutiny of the courts, as the Constitution is generally deemed to require "Good faith" compiliance.

The indirect democracy might also have to go as well, so you would have to vote for individauls not parties.

Otherwise, its not really a big change. even this really isn;t substantive, it just forces people to graviate to larger parties.

Azeron wrote:The indirect democracy might also have to go as well, so you would have to vote for individauls not parties.

And people in the US vote for individuals, not parties, too . . . that's why members of Congress are usually listed as "So-and-so(D/R - State)".

Sorry, I much prefer the Westminster system to the legalised bribery of the US Congress.

What would be the UKs responce if Canada was absorbed into US.

I say its perferable to have some choice in the man or woman you are voting for rather than just whoever the party appoints. I think iun this respect the US system is vastly superior. Only way you can be a government officer in teh UK is by havign the right political connection and most likely being born to priviliage.

Azeron wrote:Only way you can be a government officer in teh UK is by havign the right political connection and most likely being born to priviliage.

<SARCASM> Oh, it's never been like that in the states</SARCASM>

It is exactly like that in the U.S.. In the past 100 years, has there been a president that wasn't rich before he got to office?

I don't think there has been one.

Nowadays, it's the person who has more money for advertising who usually wins. That means if you're not rich or have corporate backing, you don't have a hope. It's gotten so far, candidates now try to pass themselves as a common person.

And if it's not that, it because it was a family tradition. A few years before Dubya got to office, his father was president.

And lately, in my opinion, the ones who do win don't take it all too seriously. Anybody remember Clinton? Ah hell, Reagen made it a part time job.

Yes, people being rich does tend to coinscde with becoming president, but by and large presidents aren;t born rich. outside of W and Kennedy,. I can't think of one president that didn't come from a poor or middle class family. Reagan himself was born extremely poor, so poor ,that if he were born in Europe he would never have even had the chance to become part of the pilitical cast. Now that I think of it, I don;t beleive Genreal Eisnenhower was rich before he was elected.

I don't think saying advertising dollars matter as much as you thing. It has been proven time and time again, people vote for who trhey think is better. If W prosecutes this war well, no amount of money will be able to enable a democratic challeneger to take him out of office.
in the 94 congressional elections Democrats had a large fundraising advantage, but lost big becaue they pissed off the people with tax hikes and insane administration.

Far as things go, I think its beyond dispute that tyhe US has a far more egalitarian system than Europe or Canada.