StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Azeron wrote: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.

Actually, the majority of our presidents were in fact born rich. The reason people have a skewed view of it is because of Lincoln. Everybody looks at him and says "anyone with enough gumption can be president." And in point of fact he would never have won, if not for Democratic party politics and the oddities of our electoral college.

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

Well, that's what you think.

By Azeron

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

Wow. You truly live up to your namesake. How quickly you forget Bush vs Gore and how the Supreme Court Justices (who were Bush Sr. cronies) handed the election to George Dubbya. Very egalitarian and a model for the rest of the world to look to. Al Gore should have been the preseident of the U.S. and not that other fool.[/b]

Actually, the majority of our presidents were in fact born rich. The reason people have a skewed view of it is because of Lincoln. Everybody looks at him and says "anyone with enough gumption can be president." And in point of fact he would never have won, if not for Democratic party politics and the oddities of our electoral college.

hmm I would like to see your breakdown of this. George Washington gained nearly all of his personal wealth from marriage, and mostly from his own activities, so call him born with a silver spoon in his mouth would be a gross mischarectierization. Besdies everyone achnoldges Washington was elected purely on merits.

We could go over a list of the founders, most of them were self made men, like alexander hamilton, who was born as porr as Lincoln was. Reagon wqs just as poor as lincoln. Andrew Jackson was anotehr self made man, whoise victory at New Orleans propelled him to the presidency. Richard Nixon was poor as well. Clinton was born into a poor single parent family and abused by his stepfather.

Grant was poor all of his life till he was president. He was an alcholic throguhout the war, and the presidency. Didn't matter how much money he had, he was elected again on merit of his war record.

I might be wrong on this, but I think FDR was not born a rich man.

Jimmy Carter I beelive was poor, maybe middle class.

Lyndon Johnson was born poor as well, as were many people of that era.

To tell you the truth, lookijng over the past 2 and a quarter centuries, it would appear that all the American Preisdents that are considered great, were all born into poverty.

Though many of these individuals aquired great wealth during thier lifetimes, that alone is not enouhg to get into the whitehouse. Gennerally speaking how wealthy you are doesn't matter in the US when it comes to national elections, but it can help. Elections are generally fought by the parties with money from supporters, not from the persoanl estate of the canidate -- though it has been done that way.

Take NJ senator Corizine, he nearly lost the election to his republican challenger, and won only by bribing poeple ($75 a head in some areas) to vote for him. It loks like this guy is going to be a one termer, considering questions about how he ran his company, and possible misreporting to boost stock prices.

Such things cannot occur in an indirect democracy, as party decides who is elected and who isn't, so no surprise that people who have political connections the moment they are born are the ones holding most of the power.

As for what happened in Florida 2000, it has been cleared up, bush won PERIOD. the Supreme Court ruling didn't affect the outcome either way. And thats not including all the military ballots that somehow mysterously arrived too late to be counted.

The mear fact the fate of the election was being held in a state where one of the Canadits Brother was Governer should have set off quite a few alarms the fact no one had a problem with that same Brother apointing all the people counting those votes and the ones who over-see those people should have switched us on to *No duh mode

Personaly I think they should have followed the Time.Com poll they ran where 40% of people Favor a Deathmatch to determine the Next president.

Temjin wrote:

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote: 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?

Yes, I have. Does this have any bearing on the strength of my argument?

Azeron wrote: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.

According to my dictionary, http://www.dictionary.com, a republic is:

1.
a) A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b) A nation that has such a political order.

2.
a) A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b) A nation that has such a political order.

I don't see anything in here that conflicts with a parliamentary form of government for the several Canadian states, provided that the Parliament is chosen by a "body of citizens entitled to vote", which is most certainly the case in Canada.

You are right that indirect election would have to go, as the citizens of a republic are entitled to vote for "officers and representatives", not parties themselves.

Temjin wrote:

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

Yes, I have. Does this have any bearing on the strength of my argument?

I apologize Nicholas, I forgot to add a smiley there. It was not meant to be taken seriously.

I'm sure Canadians would love giving up the remainder of our superior medical care system. I'm sure voters would enjoy being able to pick from two very similar parties that each have about 49% chance of winning as opposed to 5 or 6 diverse parties that have more varied odds (at least provincially as King Cretien and his Liberals have taken the Federal elections).

It's not going to happen anyway. The U.S. needs a country that it can boss around and have tag along so that it has 'international' support when it violates some treaty or bombs some country. Besides, the U.S. uses and needs tarriffs to protect their industries against our loggers and farmers.

And I'm sure Hollywood would love to lose the benefits that come from filming cheap in Canada (e.g. Toronto, Vancouver, etc...), the U.S. tourists would love it too since they'd have to pay the same instead of less to visit our picturesque country.

Besides, if most Americans actually found out that Canada wasn't a frozen wasteland, they'd swarm us. It's better that we're separate.

I don't see anything in here that conflicts with a parliamentary form of government for the several Canadian states, provided that the Parliament is chosen by a "body of citizens entitled to vote", which is most certainly the case in Canada.

You are right that indirect election would have to go, as the citizens of a republic are entitled to vote for "officers and representatives", not parties themselves.

Well that is a definition of a republic in a modern sense, but it really doesn't due justice to the intent of what the meaning of a republic is.

In a republic, the head of state is more than a figurehead, and is serperate from the legislative branch but might oversee and/or particpate it. The point is, is that they provide focus for the repbulic and is not generally responsible to the legislature, but directly to the people or a body designated to choose him/her.

You atart to see the perversion of the original intent of what a republic when the constitutional monarchies or europe started to fall, and were replaced by dominate legistilatures by electing a prime minister, and then maybe appointing a person to serve as head of state for cerimonial purposes.

The European version of what a republic means, in its very loose form is probably the dominate definition of what a republic is in most of the world, but the ancient Spartan, Roman, Machivellian definition of what a republic is, is what has been established in the United States.

In truth, there really isn;t much a of a difference between republic/democracy/indirect democracy in the euro sense, and I think thats a diservice to the republican form of government. Its really a way of doing things than offical posts.

Thats why I think it may not pass US Constitutional muster, it just isn't what the founders intended, a strong seperation of power amoung branches, something that does not occur in a parlimentary system. Since the legislature ios the supreme body of authority.

Well, I went to thinking and thought of a fw reasons why the US and Canada should not join.The main reason would be purely economic, the devalue the of the Dollar: A. The US Inflation of the Dollar would be tremendous. B. Canada's Dollar is only worth 63 Cents compared to a US Dollar. C. This is why for instance, the UK won't switch from the pound to the Euro. And onto Legislation and Judicial Systems: A. The Presidents would have to share power or there would be only 1 president, or 3 Presidenys which oversaw the the National Two, some would call it a Buerocratic nightmare. B. The Political Systems would have to change, in which some on both sides would not wnt(IE, the Politicians losing more power) C. Elections, the US has an Electoral Vote System while Canada has a Popular Vote, I think(excuse me for my ignorance on the matter of Canadian Elections, I'm not that well informed) both Systems would be relucant to change..

although in the introduction of the euro to some countries has producewd some inflation, that has not been the rule, rather the exception.

The US currency, the dollar, is the offical currency of over 400 million people. (Argintina, Panama , etc..) An aditional 30-40 mill I doubt would make much more of a difference.

The canadain economy is (last I heard) about 800 - 900 billion GDP, the US just underr 10 trillion dollars. Thats less than a 10th of the US economy.

But more to the point, if you have something that worth $7 (US) or $10 (CND), why would the price rise to $10 (US)?

I can't think of a reason, other than psychology. I just doubt it. The Value of a currency like the dollar (a fiat currency) is an expression of faith in the nation who coins it, nothing else. Unless you think that the US Canada amalaganation, would produce a collapse of the economy, I don't see your point. IF you do beleive that the shit would hit the economic wall, please explain why.

I personnally think there would be syngeristic effects resulting from the merger. I think the Candaina Economy compared to the US shows underperformance, and with a little investment and reoganization of Canada by the US part would help utilize undervalued investment captial, thus spoarking greater growth for canada. Which in turn is good for the US since we will finally be in the same common market in every sense of the word.

There are also side effects, to outsiders it would appear that North America was fiannly merging into a superstate, coupled with the strong US federation would inspire confidence in foriegn and domesticv investment, thus raising the value of our economy and thus our currency.

THE US populaiton would be about 340 million, larger than the proposed EU (not counting undeiced aspplicants), with a growing US population and a dieing europe (population) and underperforming Euro Economies, would only spur the flight to quality in the US around hte world.

Hence we would be in a position of strength going forward. US cusotmers, would see low, near null inflation, dollar capacity to buy more. Europe and the rest of the world would see the value of thier currency collapse pobablty leveling around $.7 to 1 euro striking inflation around 7% - 9% anually.

THe next part would be even more stark, if either Mexico or England were to join the US, that would spell the doom for would be competitor currencies. (which the euro is only 1). Because the currency was placed as a direct competitor to the US dollar, it would get the hammer, big time withg about 450 - 500 million (if mexico joined) oir leaving europe with 270 million of 1st worlders with 100 million perspective inductees (nations in similiar straits to europe) the Dichotomy would be stark. Solidarity and growth on american side, on the other side of atlantic, death and squabbling in a disjointed European union on the other.

If Mexico were to join, which we could probably force them to do through economic extortion if we really wanted to, but I doubt if we would, the currecny would sweep through latin america and most western hemisphere nations would dollarize (though probably not join). right now south american counter to the dollar the Mercsour (hope I spelt it right) is already dead with argintina using the dollar. But imagine this, ovrer 1.5 billion people essentially using the dolar as thier offical currency anchored by a conservative Central bank, in the US surrounded by no enemies, and the most successful economy, withthe best military to boot. The answer would be clear to all minor currecny, dollarize or peg to the dollar, or die an economic death.

Only a few countries would be able to resist, but would suffer, namely china, india, japan, and England. And only england looks like it has a good enough footing to hold out for a long time. China and india have a lot of economic problems, with China facing a major meltdown any time now.

What happens to the Euro is uncertain at this point since it probably is around .4 - .6 dollars to the euro. Relegated to ta regional currency and completely discredited, its unlikely that member nations would stay in the EU given the alternative. There is a great likelyhood that the dollar already has become the defacto currency on the street, because the euro cannot peserve value. Europe will probably surrender after the monsterous failure and dollarize. Sure there will be begging to get federal reservre districts at this point, but the only way a forigen nation will be allowed on the US fed reserve boarsd is to be admitted to the union. That would be unlikely at this point, and europe would be rejected for admission on the grounds of fundementals and political alignment too far the left. The only countires that could possibly pass muster would be ireland and england.

I guess whast thge biggest misconception about dollar vs euro comparisons, is that people beleive that if 1 country has 300 million people using its currency and another country has a billion using its currency that the cuntry with a billion will have the dominate currency. Well its wrong, you have to have the greatest number of the right people, quality not quantity. If you come from a shitty country, your currency is going to be worth shit. If your country is kick ass, then your currency is going to be sought after. when you admit people into your currency union make sure they are at the top of the game or with a little investment could be at the top of the game. Personally I would rather have an undervalued, undercapitalized nation join the USA. why becsasue we get it cheap and get terms that are as we dictate, and then say Mexico with a decent investment of say $1 trillion over 10 -15 years would give us a massive return on our investment when mexico finnally goers 1st world as equal partners in america. All yiou have to do is pick the right people.

Canada has a "first past the post" electoral system. I learned that in History class. Now if only I can remember what that means. I had better before September...

Hey do any of you canadains know about these Equalization taxes you pay to Quebec to keep them in Canada? I am hearing allot of gripe on it on some of these Pro US canada sites, but no detail.

Its somethng like $3000/year for every canadain, a big deal since the per capita is only about $26k

funny wored they choose, doesn't seem very equal.

Doomriser wrote:Canada has a "first past the post" electoral system. I learned that in History class. Now if only I can remember what that means. I had better before September...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/engli ... 173697.stm
http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esd01.htm

I'm sure Mexico would just [i]love[/i] to be part of a North American Union.

Hey do any of you canadains know about these Equalization taxes you pay to Quebec to keep them in Canada? I am hearing allot of gripe on it on some of these Pro US canada sites, but no detail.

Its somethng like $3000/year for every canadain, a big deal since the per capita is only about $26k

Ya, I sent my cheque off to the Quebec Finance Minister last month. What a hit! I didn't even get to go on vacation!

Well at least Mexico would have a decent soccor team.



ohh yah I hear its in the form of a 7% general service and goods tax

but seriously whats the deal with that?

Azeron wrote:Well at least Mexico would have a decent soccor team.



ohh yah I hear its in the form of a 7% general service and goods tax

but seriously whats the deal with that?

They are more or less bribes to keep Quebec from secceding from the rest of Canada.

Its not just Quebec that gets these equalization payements. Other provinces in line are Newfoundland, PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. I guess it gives each province the ability to run similar levels of services and such.

yah butr how did this come about? How could people let this happen? is there any links you could give me on the subject? This really doesn;t make any sense, why would anyone pay to keep frenchies in thier union, shouldn;t it be the other way around?

Azeron wrote:yah butr how did this come about? How could people let this happen? is there any links you could give me on the subject? This really doesn;t make any sense, why would anyone pay to keep frenchies in thier union, shouldn;t it be the other way around?

http://jamesbredin.tripod.com/numberfour/id33.html
http://jamesbredin.tripod.com/numberfour/

EmperorSolo, I especially liked this quote from your links above:

The terrorist attack on the US has shown how irrelevant the UN has become. The UNs capacity to forge communications between friend and foe is all an illusion

I never knew that the UN had to go out of her way to bring Al-Qaeda and the U.S. together.

Temjin wrote:
I apologize Nicholas, I forgot to add a smiley there. It was not meant to be taken seriously.

No problem.

Doomriser wrote:I'm sure Canadians would love giving up the remainder of our superior medical care system. I'm sure voters would enjoy being able to pick from two very similar parties that each have about 49% chance of winning as opposed to 5 or 6 diverse parties that have more varied odds (at least provincially as King Cretien and his Liberals have taken the Federal elections).

I disagree that the parties in the U.S.A. are as similar as you make them out to be. It is true that in recent years the two parties have been adopting similar-sounding rhetoric, but that is becasue the American people as a whole are divided roughly down the middle on most of the major issues of the day. It is the very fact that the parties are catering to the same all-important centrist voter that causes this similarity. In general, the parties govern quite differently.

Doomriser wrote: It's not going to happen anyway. The U.S. needs a country that it can boss around and have tag along so that it has 'international' support when it violates some treaty or bombs some country. Besides, the U.S. uses and needs tarriffs to protect their industries against our loggers and farmers.

I don't buy that either. Canada and the United States have too simliar interests and goals on the world stage to be more effective as two countries than as one. The value of having 'international' support from Canada is far outweighed in the minds of the rest of the world by the fact that the U.S. and Canada agree on almost everything important. Put another way, when Canada and the U.S. publicly agree, neither country gets much out of it. When Canada and the U.S. publicly disagree, it undercuts the position of whichever side comes out the winner.

Furthermore, the tariffs that exist between the U.S. and Canada are shameful, not necessary. The fact that President Bush raised the tariffs on softwood lumber from Canada as Canadian snipers were fighting heroically in Afghanistan still makes me mad. That was a kick in the teeth to our best friends, something that just shouldn't be done under any circumstances. If Canada joined the U.S., opportunistic politicians on either side of the border would be unable to use the tariff as a way to cynically score political points back home. I see this as one of the greatest advantages of union.

Doomriser wrote: <snip>

Besides, if most Americans actually found out that Canada wasn't a frozen wasteland, they'd swarm us. It's better that we're separate.

Most Americans are moving south anyway. I wouldn't be too concerned.

Azeron has me dreaming of a mighty North American Empire! Canada should kick Quebec out, then merge with the United States and declare war on those Frenchies!