NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush is behind a new EU like nation to be completed by 2010. If you don't think so Google it or better yet, look it up on CNN.com!

Um, no.

Canada's inferiority complex is too, um, overzealous for us to willingly join a union with the US.

Why don't you just post the link and save us the effort?

Nothing was on the CNN page by the way.....

He's telling the truth (one such article is here (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965)), but the story is about a month old.

He's telling the truth (one such article is here (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965)), but the story is about a month old.

Cool! We can rename everything to Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia.

Cool! We can rename everything to Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia.

I can't believe this story! The republicans are evil.

We need to have the government pick/fund candidates for office, and ban private contributions, so racist politicians can't run anymore! Having racist politicians is incompatible with a free society.

He's telling the truth (one such article is here (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965)), but the story is about a month old.
Bwahahahaha. What an intriguingly biased site. All the Ann Coulter and Novak ads...amusing.

Cool! We can rename everything to Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia.

Aw man, do we have to? I don't wanna live in Airstrip One, it's such a stoooopid name for a country. :(

Bush is behind a new EU like nation to be completed by 2010. If you don't think so Google it or better yet, look it up on CNN.com!
They couldn't pull it off, but I wouldn't put trying past them.

Cool! We can rename everything to Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia.
How about The United Dominions of HALL337?

I'm not hostile towards this concept at all.

Well, it is an unavoidable natural progression, really. You see, North America is like a burguer: Canada is the bread, which is good for you but not terribly exciting; Mexico is the lettuce, crispy but you don't want it unwashed; and the US is the tasty meat, that will clog your intestines if you have too much of.

Separate they're ok, but all together create a much more perfect union.

Well, it is an unavoidable natural progression, really. You see, North America is like a burguer: Canada is the bread, which is good for you but not terribly exciting; Mexico is the lettuce, crispy but you don't want it unwashed; and the US is the tasty meat, that will clog your intestines if you have too much of.

Separate they're ok, but all together create a much more perfect union.

Thanks, now I'm craving a burger (that I can't have, because I'm leaving for an interview soon). :(

In two posts I have lost what little faith in humanity I had left.

Canada's inferiority complex is too, um, overzealous for us to willingly join a union with the US.
And North America somehow only includes the US and Canada? What about the Mexicans and their huge hats? Huh? Huh? And what about those Guatemalans with their 'pues' this and 'pues' that. Sheesh! Not to mention the Hondurans and the rest of those people...

pffft its just stupid "new world order" paranoia.

bush only has a plan for a north american union in the head of ultraconservative nutcase columnists/radiopersonalities.

besides, if you would bother to notice, bush support is the kiss of death for any idea. no one wants to be associated with a man with such low poll numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union

Here's the wikipedia article on the concept. The article itself has an awful lot of problems, espescially the bit about the potential for such an organization as being an "illegal international treaty."

That's the unique thing, because according to the US Constitution, a treaty, because it is ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate, is considered to be on equal footing to the US Constitution.

And North America somehow only includes the US and Canada? What about the Mexicans and their huge hats? Huh? Huh? And what about those Guatemalans with their 'pues' this and 'pues' that. Sheesh! Not to mention the Hondurans and the rest of those people...
I think that Mexico was mentioned, but no one ever bothers to mention Guatamalens, which is silly. I like Guatamalans, just so long as they don't try to bring harm unto myself.

You're forgetting about the big Mexican hats...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22NAFTA+Superhighway%22

Lot's of articles on it. What amazes me is that we're in the throes of an energy crisis that is about to get much worse and what do they plan? A highway four football fields wide. :confused: If you're going to do it, fine, but have you ever heard the word "train?"

Lot's of articles on it. What amazes me is that we're in the throes of an energy crisis that is about to get much worse and what do they plan? A highway four football fields wide. :confused: If you're going to do it, fine, but have you ever heard the word "train?"

Wow...we have the land and funding to build this superhighway but we can't do the same thing with a massive rail line? Why don't we build a combination of freight railway and electrified high-speed passenger trains linking the three nations and major cities as a replacement for highways? A New York City-Los Angeles-Baja California "bullet train" line with a few stops in between, a Chicago-Edmonton-Mexico City line, and a Toronto-Boston line would be perfect...add in some regional lines for local access and we would be set.

I rode the Eurostar when I was in England from London to Paris; it was faster and more comfortable than the car and more pleasant than an airplane and ran on electricity...imagine a system like that, powered by alternative energy and using no oil. If they can do it, we certainly can.

If you're going to do it, fine, but have you ever heard the word "train?"
Those huge Mexican sombreros won't fit on a train, but they will fit in large SUV with a sun roof.

Those huge Mexican sombreros won't fit on a train, but they will fit in large SUV with a sun roof.

No, remember those old movies where the guys on sombreros fought on top of trains? We'd just have to put them on top...

No, remember those old movies where the guys on sombreros fought on top of trains? We'd just have to put them on top...
That's a damn good point you've made!

I'd love a North American Union, what's everyone worried about? Long live the New World Order! Long live the United States of Earth!

Umm... as for those that agree with that article, you're a nut, you're crazy in the coconuts!

End of discussion. *wipes out memories of everyone around*

Really, I would like a united Earth.

That's a damn good point you've made!
Couldn't we just put huge sombreros on the tops of all the trains? People could put their actual sombreros in a car at the end for hats and the whole time they're on teh train they'll have huge sombreros over their heads.


Or we could just make the trains bigger...

Wow...we have the land and funding to build this superhighway but we can't do the same thing with a massive rail line? Why don't we build a combination of freight railway and electrified high-speed passenger trains linking the three nations and major cities as a replacement for highways? A New York City-Los Angeles-Baja California "bullet train" line with a few stops in between, a Chicago-Edmonton-Mexico City line, and a Toronto-Boston line would be perfect...add in some regional lines for local access and we would be set.

I rode the Eurostar when I was in England from London to Paris; it was faster and more comfortable than the car and more pleasant than an airplane and ran on electricity...imagine a system like that, powered by alternative energy and using no oil. If they can do it, we certainly can.
Something tells me in ten years we're going to wish we had built that instead.

Has old Dubya been reading Harry Turtledove again?

Has old Dubya been reading Harry Turtledove again?

I assume that they aren't going to invade Canada. But then, just think of all that under Saudi Oilberta...

I dont think anyone letting us, America, join thier Union is too smart for them. I mean, think of our National Debt they would have to possibly deal with lol. Would that even effect the Union? Not sure how the policy works as far as economy goes.

I think a North American Union would quickly become a (US of) American Empire.

The USA has an economy and population that dwarf the other two potential members, allowing anything America wants to be obeyed, and anything Canada and Mexico want to be ignored.

First Meeting of the North American Parliament:
Speaker: Okay, first act of business. A proposal from Sam Yankeedoodle from Vermont to ban Ice Hockey under the influence of Tequila.
*Mexicans and Canadians vote against. Americans vote for and tell the other two to shut up*

The trick would be to make voting power based on land area... that way if the US wanted to do something, they'd at least have to get Mexico to agree as well.

george bush came up with this evil plan, well, David Meyer Steinberg Goldman ROTHSCHILD came up with it , at the bildergurger meeting in the bohemian grove where they sacrificed a baby to the OWL GOD>

Canada's inferiority complex is too, um, overzealous for us to willingly join a union with the US.
Off it, self-deprecating wit. You're not one to speak for the likes of me.

I think a North American Union would quickly become a (US of) American Empire.

The USA has an economy and population that dwarf the other two potential members, allowing anything America wants to be obeyed, and anything Canada and Mexico want to be ignored.

First Meeting of the North American Parliament:
Speaker: Okay, first act of business. A proposal from Sam Yankeedoodle from Vermont to ban Ice Hockey under the influence of Tequila.
*Mexicans and Canadians vote against. Americans vote for and tell the other two to shut up*

Nah. The US has undergone several periods of expansion. What has been historically true is that the power tends to balance out.

First, the small states pretty much counterbalanced Virginia and New York. Later, it became North and South. Later, the West became a factor. These days, the voting lines are hazier depending on the bill. However, you can still tend to count on the Bible Belt voting more conservatively, the Californians being a bit more radical, etc.

If Canada joined up as 13 new states (say) and Mexico as 26 or so, it would make flag design damned tricky... but would also very much change the voting demographics:

*Mexico City would be the sweet spot, more valuable than New York, LA and Chicago combined.

* The sparely populated Canadian states, however, would further strenthen the elecoral college.

* Culturally, Canadians and Mexicans are really not all the dissimilar to Americans. Really.

...can it happen? Maybe. But I don't see it for a long, long time.

North American Union? Liberals run with this, you finally have something that you can get Dubya impeached on. I hate his guts but never supported impeachment...Until now.

george bush came up with this evil plan, well, David Meyer Steinberg Goldman ROTHSCHILD came up with it , at the bildergurger meeting in the bohemian grove where they sacrificed a baby to the OWL GOD>



Bush evil?....Nah....Could it be?

North American Union? Liberals run with this, you finally have something that you can get Dubya impeached on. I hate his guts but never supported impeachment...Until now.


You didnt catch how this is a conspiracy theory and that it isnt real, did you?

You didnt catch how this is a conspiracy theory and that it isnt real, did you?


To be honest, I have only read 5 posts of this thread and the first paragraph of the link.:)

Well, there's already NAFTA.. theres no point in creating a North American Union.

Well, there's already NAFTA.. theres no point in creating a North American Union.


Well, NAFTA doesn't create a joint currency.

Well, NAFTA doesn't create a joint currency.

Yeah, but why would we need one?

Yeah, but why would we need one?


Why would Europe need one?


Canada and the US don't, but Mexico's is an economic dump and joing to rich nations would solve some of it problems.

The USA has an economy and population that dwarf the other two potential members, allowing anything America wants to be obeyed, and anything Canada and Mexico want to be ignored*

The US imports a huge portion of its oil from Canada and Mexico...I think they would have more influence than their individual economies suggest. After all, Saudi Arabia's economy is hardly a powerhouse but everyone in OPEC listens to their decisions on oil production.

Why would Europe need one?


Canada and the US don't, but Mexico's is an economic dump and joing to rich nations would solve some of it problems.


First off the Mexican Economy isn't a dump. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

Mexico has been in the top 20 grossing nations for quite some time now...

The issue is that Mexico's government and social structure is so corrupt that all the money is basically funneled to the top.


And a united currency isn't going to solve that problem, not by a long shot.



The EU can afford to have a united currency exactly because its members don't have such a high degree of inequality and can rely on similar rates of inflation in their individual economies.

NT

If there was a common North American currency... what would it be called...? The Northa? The Nord? The Nameric?

If there was a common North American currency... what would it be called...? The Northa? The Nord? The Nameric?


Some rambling idiot on the UFO show on the radio called it the "Amero."

If there was a common North American currency... what would it be called...? The Northa? The Nord? The Nameric?

The same thing it is called today: "The Dollar".

(Americans have dollars, Canadians have dollars, Mexicans have dollars. Sure, the Mexicans officially have pesos, but you go to Tiajuana and plunk down a $20 and see how much tequila you get. :D )

oh great.

If there was a common North American currency... what would it be called...? The Northa? The Nord? The Nameric?
the dollar.

Canadas loyalty to the Commonwealth will come first. as such when war eventually breaks out, you suck

<snip>

There are still some significant cultural difference, especially politically. For example, Canada is a parliamentary democracy which views itself as superior to the American system in many respects, notably in terms of welfare and the legislative representation of minorities. And Southern Mexico is home to the revolutionary Zapitista para-state, the group has ceased fighting against the Mexican state but it still holds an important role in many peoples' lives, and its total removal has been seen as political suicide by a generation of Mexican leaders, and would remain so to the Americans.

The fact is that the other two nations have extensive histories of independence, and have, unlike all other pre-Union states, had the chance to develope unique political systems. It could not be a simple case of transplanting the two nations into an enlarged Washington system, as that system has little credibility outside of America. Any Union would need to have a brand new Constitution, and a brand new system of governance, one that could not be said to be a carbon copy of any of its constituents.

There are still some significant cultural difference, especially politically. For example, Canada is a parliamentary democracy which views itself as superior to the American system in many respects, notably in terms of welfare and the legislative representation of minorities.

Of course there are some differences. However, that it views itself as superior isn't much to say: most people feel that what they have is better than anybody else in the first place.

Can you please detail how Canadian "legislative representation of minorities" is superior?

And Southern Mexico is home to the revolutionary Zapitista para-state, the group has ceased fighting against the Mexican state but it still holds an important role in many peoples' lives, and its total removal has been seen as political suicide by a generation of Mexican leaders, and would remain so to the Americans.

It worked with half of Mexico about 150 years ago. If Mexico disintigrated and the Mexican states took the (normal) 10 years as territories before voting, I'm willing to bet that most of the Mexican states would vote to join the US.

The fact is that the other two nations have extensive histories of independence, and have, unlike all other pre-Union states, had the chance to develope unique political systems. It could not be a simple case of transplanting the two nations into an enlarged Washington system, as that system has little credibility outside of America. Any Union would need to have a brand new Constitution, and a brand new system of governance, one that could not be said to be a carbon copy of any of its constituents.

Simple? No, of course not.
But I would point to Hawaii as an example of a recent state that most certainly had it's own government (albeit was an Imperialist venture by the US). But there is no reason to assume that the current Constitution couldn't work under most circumstances.
Quebec would certainly be a sticky problem. The Maritime Provinces or Baja Mexico? Not so much.

I think a North American Union would quickly become a (US of) American Empire.

The USA has an economy and population that dwarf the other two potential members, allowing anything America wants to be obeyed, and anything Canada and Mexico want to be ignored.

First Meeting of the North American Parliament:
Speaker: Okay, first act of business. A proposal from Sam Yankeedoodle from Vermont to ban Ice Hockey under the influence of Tequila.
*Mexicans and Canadians vote against. Americans vote for and tell the other two to shut up*
I think it will lead to an american empire as well. This is prolly the reason Bush want to do it, as it will give hime more land and more time to complete his gola of ruling the world. we must not let this happen.

Damnit GWB, quit reading my thoughts on building the NAU! Geez

Can you please detail how Canadian "legislative representation of minorities" is superior?

The Parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, allows minorities to enter government much easier than under a unipersonal executive system. That's why Iraq went for Parliamentarism, any Presidential election would be a hands-down Shi'a landslide, while a parliamentary system allows others to enter government.

Look under Parliamentary System under wikipeida for more details.

Canadas loyalty to the Commonwealth will come first. as such when war eventually breaks out, you suck

The average Canadian doesn't give a shit about the commonwealth. Some may have high regards for the queen, but being part of a group of nations that were part of the former British Empire bears little on life in modern Canada.

The Commonwealth is just another group of nations that Canada sends bureuacrats too. Our most important national relation is with our North American neighbours.

Quebec would certainly be a sticky problem.

Actually, if the whole system was relatively decentralized, and each province/state had its own right to determine cultural issues, I believe Quebec would be largely FOR a North American Union.

I can't believe this story! The republicans are evil.

We need to have the government pick/fund candidates for office, and ban private contributions, so racist politicians can't run anymore! Having racist politicians is incompatible with a free society.

LMAO

yeah letting the governemnt decide who can run for government wont be corrupt at all. and it certainly wouldnt be a free society if only those selected by the government can run for governemnt positions

One step closer to globalization.:)

The Parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, allows minorities to enter government much easier than under a unipersonal executive system. That's why Iraq went for Parliamentarism, any Presidential election would be a hands-down Shi'a landslide, while a parliamentary system allows others to enter government.

Look under Parliamentary System under wikipeida for more details.

I can't find an actual demographic breakdown of the Canadian Parliament anywhere. Indeed, their own website is down.

Also, I fail to see how such a setup is better than the US model.

(Americans have dollars, Canadians have dollars, Mexicans have dollars. Sure, the Mexicans officially have pesos, but you go to Tiajuana and plunk down a $20 and see how much tequila you get. :D )
And, historically, dollar is just another word for peso. Northamerica has been using pesos since the 16th Century, called dollars in English.

So, there it is. Problem solved.

I can't find an actual demographic breakdown of the Canadian Parliament anywhere. Indeed, their own website is down.

Also, I fail to see how such a setup is better than the US model.

My apologies, I was refering to political minorities. As in members of parties that although relatively widely supported nationwide, would not be able to achieve any power in two-party America.

However, I believe your misunderstanding is also true, as in Parliamentary system the Parties have much more control in who is selected to run for a constituency, whereas in America the system is opened up more to the registered partisans. In Parliamentary Democracies, for better or for worse, a Part so inspired could endeavor to create proportional distribution of minorities and agree with their competitors for all-women/all-ethnic constituencies.

While this is often criticised, and indeed, it wreaks too much of Central meddling to work in the USA, it does assure a greater proportion of minorities... if those involved are dedicated to that.

My apologies, I was refering to political minorities. As in members of parties that although relatively widely supported nationwide, would not be able to achieve any power in two-party America.

AH! Now that makes sense.

However, I believe your misunderstanding is also true, as in Parliamentary system the Parties have much more control in who is selected to run for a constituency, whereas in America the system is opened up more to the registered partisans. In Parliamentary Democracies, for better or for worse, a Part so inspired could endeavor to create proportional distribution of minorities and agree with their competitors for all-women/all-ethnic constituencies.

That also makes sense. However, one must also consider that the GOP/DEMs actively court minority communities: the GOP has a pretty solid Latino base (especially Cubans) and the DEMs mostly own the black vote.

While this is often criticised, and indeed, it wreaks too much of Central meddling to work in the USA, it does assure a greater proportion of minorities... if those involved are dedicated to that.

As their own parties? Absolutely.
If that's better than having everyone work under two big tents or if multiple small parties could even function in a country with ten times the Canadian population is another question.
The only large (population) country I can think of with many parties is India, which is pretty new to Democracy and will probably see many of it's parties fold into one another. In fact, either of their "big 2" (INC and BJP) are larger than all the independents combined...

People's Assembly - percent of vote by party - NA; seats by party - INC 145, BJP 138, CPI(M) 43, SP 36, RJD 24, BSP 19, DMK 16, SS 12, BJD 11, CPI 10, NCP 9, JDU 8, SAD 8, PMK 6, TDP 5, TRS 5, JMM 5, LJSP 4, MDMK 4, independents 5, other 30
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html#Govt

<snip>

I think this is where federalism becomes desirable in a large country. While I will admit a two-party system makes some sense on a federal scale, it is (frankly) ridiculous to impose it on City Council elections, par example.

Well, it is an unavoidable natural progression, really. You see, North America is like a burguer: Canada is the bread, which is good for you but not terribly exciting; Mexico is the lettuce, crispy but you don't want it unwashed; and the US is the tasty meat, that will clog your intestines if you have too much of.

Separate they're ok, but all together create a much more perfect union.

ROFL You are awesome! =D

I think this is where federalism becomes desirable in a large country. While I will admit a two-party system makes some sense on a federal scale, it is (frankly) ridiculous to impose it on City Council elections, par example.

Quite! (If only we could seperate one from the other somehow...)

Now, if only our EU friends would see the light & federalize... :)

Quite! (If only we could seperate one from the other somehow...)

Now, if only our EU friends would see the light & federalize... :)

Exactly! El Presidente of Europe is a title worth me running for!

(Also arguments based on proper governance and other boring, non-me related, stuff...)