NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I posted this in another thread but the thread was dead, so I thought I'd make a thread out of it. This was my proposal for what America should do instead of joining the EU:


In terms of political alignment, the best thing the U.S. could do would be try to enhance the economic, social, political and militaristic bonds between the Anglo countries.....UK, US, Canda, AUS, NZ . . . and maybe 20 years ago South Africa, maybe.

US should work on increasing economic freedom, trade and relations between those areas, creating an Anglo-economic zone. It would work because, although we vary in our extremes, all of these countries are liberal democracies and share core values.

I think that, while Bush made this idea unappealing to alot of non-Americans, eventually once the stains of the Bush era fade (as opposed to the stains of Clinton era which won't ever fade :D ) this idea will grow in favor. The UK should look towards the Anglo Alliance and away from Europe, as it knows it should. That's where it's future is.

Concessions will have to be made, but the alliance will focus on a more limited government, a sense of private entrepreneurship, lower taxes, high pripority of efficient market economics and free-trade. Perhaps also free movement throughout the Anglo zone or something like that. It will be at the heart an economic union and perhaps lead to the creation of a single currency zone. Social issues and national laws should be left to each independent nation to decide, usually, though protectionists laws and such that violate the purpose of the economic alliance will be made illegal.

Could also be modeled off of the Commonwealth of Independent States that formed after the Soviet Union was defeated:

"The CIS has developed as a forum by which the member-states can co-operate in economics, defense and foreign policy."

Wouldn't be a bad idea.

Would look something like this, minus the light blue countries and any south and central american countries:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Anglospeak.svg/800px-Anglospeak.svg.png

Now, here are the questions.

1. Do you think it's a good idea or bad idea? Why?

2. What do you think it would take for your country (assuming you're a member of one of the above Anglo countries, to join?


Also, as this is based on free, capitalistic liberal principles, I wouldn't expect socialists and commies, whether American, Canadian or English or whatever . . . to like this idea. But whatever.

I don't know... I've always been for keeping out of alliances/International trade unions and the sort... Call it the paranoid within me.

Oh, and in before someone who didn't bother to fully read the OP calls this idea racist.

I don't know... I've always been for keeping out of alliances/International trade unions and the sort... Call it the paranoid within me.
Well those days are long over aren't they? Wouldn't it be better to get involved in an alliance that is close to our core values and that will benefit us (and the few other nations involved) ? ? ?


Oh, and in before someone who didn't bother to fully read the OP calls this idea racist.
I could call for the creation of an organization dedicated to creating a machine that perfectly targets THE spot that itches on one's back, wherever it may be, and the usual suspects would come into the thread saying "oh, another one of TAI's evil muslim threads, again!" . . .

What have these particular countries got in common in political, social and cultural terms that would have them agree to such a union? Other than they all speaking english?

You've basically called for an alliance of all western countries but excluded Europe for no reason.

I'd rather look towards Europe.

America has too much power in the UK already.

Well those days are long over aren't they? Wouldn't it be better to get involved in an alliance that is close to our core values and that will benefit us (and the few other nations involved) ? ? ?

Mmm. I don't like alliances, they've always been tricky to deal with. Mutual misunderstanding between two countries: Should we intervene should war break out, or leave them be and merely try to reconcile the two countries? One might blossom into a larger war, but the other would be almost completely ignoring the alliance.

Differing labor standards between two countries: Should the countries in question try to equate their labor standards, or should they keep their individual ones? Perhaps this could obstruct trade between the two countries because of internal politics from human rights activists?

And so on, and so forth.

I could call for the creation of an organization dedicated to creating a machine that perfectly targets THE spot that itches on one's back, wherever it may be, and the usual suspects would come into the thread saying "oh, another one of TAI's evil muslim threads, again!" . . .
Fortunately, those people are few on NSG. Unfortunately, they're very loud.

What have these particular countries got in common in political, social and cultural terms that would have them agree to such a union? Other than they all speaking english?

You've basically called for an alliance of all western countries but excluded Europe for no reason.

I think he feels most European countries are too far to the left (Correct me if I'm wrong) for the sort of Free Market Capitalist Alliance he's going for. Note I'm not saying they're Communists or Socialists or anything like that, but they are a bit further to the left than most of those countries.

And I think a few of the countries don't have English as a major language.

I don't know... I've always been for keeping out of alliances/International trade unions and the sort... Call it the paranoid within me.

Oh, and in before someone who didn't bother to fully read the OP calls this idea racist.

I didn't bother to read the OP, but I find this idea racist!

No, we should work towards a Pacific Union comprised of the US, Australasia, Micronesia China/Korea/Japan, Southeast Asia, India and any other states in the region interested in economic cooperation. The truth is that Asia is going to be the primary focus for these states' bilateral trade and forming stronger economic ties with them would benefit us massively. Creating a cooperative environment for development and trade initiatives would be the best move for our country, since it is likely China and India will become ever closer to the United States due to the similarity of our global strategic and economic objectives.

What have these particular countries got in common in political, social and cultural terms that would have them agree to such a union? Other than all speaking english?
In terms of Political Economy they are all Liberal Democracies. We share cultural values in terms of countries that are based a history of limiting the power of the government in order to enhance freedom and the power of the private sector and individualism.

The US and UK have quite an integrated military as far as military relations between states go. Also, Canada, Australia and the UK all recieve special treatment from the U.S. in far as technology and intelligence is concernced.

Only if we get to head it.

I didn't bother to read the OP, but I find this idea racist!
:tongue:
No, we should work towards a Pacific Union comprised of the US, Australasia, Micronesia China/Korea/Japan, Southeast Asia, India and any other states in the region interested in economic cooperation. The truth is that Asia is going to be the primary focus for these states' bilateral trade and forming stronger economic ties with them would benefit us massively. Creating a cooperative environment for development and trade initiatives would be the best move for our country, since it is likely China and India will become ever closer to the United States due to the similarity of our global strategic and economic objectives.
Even if I was open to such an Alliance, I find China's involvement with any Alliance with the US highly questionable. Human Rights aren't exactly at the top of their list, you know. At least we try to act like we care about Human Rights overseas, and work with it at home in the states.:D

That and I think the increased industrialization of some African nations that could be brought on by this Economic Alliance could provide cheaper prices worldwide for Diamonds, several kinds of metals, etc.

Why?

Only if we get to head it.

No, two leaders, just like the Roman Senate! How goes it Consul? *Imagines Obama and Browne in togas. Shivers* Never mind.:D

Ummm, yeh. Reminds me of the British Empire looking at that map.

My country fought against that for it's freedom so - no.

Ummm, yeh. Reminds me of the British Empire looking at that map.

My country fought against that for it's freedom so - no.
It's supposed to be more of a EU sort of thing, only with the US involved. Oh, and does that mean you're against the EU, or just the Geography of the Alliance?

America has too much power in the UK already.
As I've stated...this is first and foremost an economic union. Not "everyone has to do what America says" . . .
I'd rather look towards Europe.
Why? In terms of the things being discussed in this thread and OP, why?
I think he feels most European countries are too far to the left (Correct me if I'm wrong) for the sort of Free Market Capitalist Alliance he's going for. Note I'm not saying they're Communists or Socialists or anything like that, but they are a bit further to the left than most of those countries.

And I think a few of the countries don't have English as a major language.
Yeah, not just that though. I posted my response.

Why?
Because it will strenghten all of the nations involved with a stronger economy, and if we moved towards a single currency, a realllllllly powerful currency.
No, we should work towards a Pacific Union comprised of the US, Australasia, Micronesia China/Korea/Japan, Southeast Asia, India and any other states in the region interested in economic cooperation. The truth is that Asia is going to be the primary focus for these states' bilateral trade and forming stronger economic ties with them would benefit us massively. Creating a cooperative environment for development and trade initiatives would be the best move for our country, since it is likely China and India will become ever closer to the United States due to the similarity of our global strategic and economic objectives.
It wouldn't work with Asia. Their problems are too different, economies are too different, culture/language too different, laws and rights (or lack of) are too different. . . etc etc

Ummm, yeh. Reminds me of the British Empire looking at that map.
So?
My country fought against that for it's freedom so - no.
Well, that was the most illogical, irrational, emotional and nonsense-filled post I've ever read.

No, two leaders, just like the Roman Senate! How goes it Consul? *Imagines Obama and Browne in togas. Shivers* Never mind.:D
It would make the G20 photo op more interesting.

It's supposed to be more of a EU sort of thing, only with the US involved.
Well.... instead of having "an EU sort of thing" we actually have the EU. :p So, it's pointless.

Oh, and does that mean you're against the EU, or just the Geography of the Alliance?
I'm against an "Anglo" alliance for a whole plethora of reasons - just one of which reminds me of being dominated by an Empire.

Well, that was the most illogical, irrational, emotional and nonsense-filled post I've ever read.
Ever read your own posts? No? Oh. I see.

Why? In terms of the things being discussed in this thread and OP, why?

Because Europe is a nicer place than the USA: politically and culturally, they align with me to a greater extent than the USA.

I like how you included South Africa during Apartheid and then pre-whined about people calling you racist.

This "Anglo Union" smacks of a white pride, Aryan Nations, globalist fantasy, and would have just as much purpose.

Because Europe is a nicer place than the USA: politically and culturally, they align with me to a greater extent than the USA.
Fair enough. With you, not your country.

You left a couple options off the poll, "Yes, too cynical to be left or right" and "No, too cynical to be left or right." I choose the second of these options.

I like how you included South Africa during Apartheid and then pre-whined about people calling you racist.

This "Anglo Union" smacks of a white pride, Aryan Nations, globalist fantasy, and would have just as much purpose.
I was so waiting for someone to post something foolish like this. :D

Thank you for not letting me down.

Because it will strenghten all of the nations involved with a stronger economy, and if we moved towards a single currency, a realllllllly powerful currency.
Free trade probably would (I'm more sceptical about one currency) but why exclude Europe? A free trade agreement between NAFTA, EU and EFTA, perhaps loosely modeled on the EEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area) would be more useful.

Fair enough. With you, not your country.

Actually, with Scotland too.

Note I'm not saying they're Communists or Socialists or anything like that

Something wrong with being Socialist now? At least Socialist don't borrow their money from the Federal Reserve with Interest like absolute lunatics, as their nation goes deeper in debt. Hey why not have a war! That way, we have to borrow more money from the Federal Reserve...

As Sam Roberts said...

"S..O...CIA...LISM is the only wayyyyy..."

Well.... instead of having "an EU sort of thing" we actually have the EU. :p So, it's pointless.

Bah, they're a bunch of losers.:p (kidding)

I'm against an "Anglo" alliance for a whole plethora of reasons - just one of which reminds me of being dominated by an Empire.

Perhaps a name change is in order? I don't see a whole lot of the idea in common with the British Empire, minus perhaps the Geo-Political boundaries.

Ever read your own posts? No? Oh. I see.
Not saying he's right, but you are still in Scotland, right? If I remember right, I think you count yourself as a separate country, even though most Americans count the UK as a separate country... Right? *Hopes his meager knowledge of the UK serves him well for this moment...*

Perhaps a name change is in order? I don't see a whole lot of the idea in common with the British Empire, minus perhaps the Geo-Political boundaries.
It being based on only one factor of "white man" rule (i.e Anglos) is very reminiscent of the old Empire to me. Why exclude the French or Germans or etc etc.

Not saying he's right, but you are still in Scotland, right? If I remember right, I think you count yourself as a separate country, even though most Americans count the UK as a separate country... Right? *Hopes his meager knowledge of the UK serves him well for this moment...*
I'm not Scottish, no.

I like how you included South Africa during Apartheid and then pre-whined about people calling you racist.

This "Anglo Union" smacks of a white pride, Aryan Nations, globalist fantasy, and would have just as much purpose.

TAI: you forgot that only non-whites can have any cultural pride. Shame on you.

I was so waiting for someone to post something foolish like this. :D

Thank you for not letting me down.

Yes, you have amazing powers of prophecy; able to predict the negative reaction to your own bigoted bullshit. Way to go, Nostradamus.

Yes, you have amazing powers of prophecy; able to predict the negative reaction to your own bigoted bullshit. Way to go, Nostradamus.

I. Shan't. Laugh!

ROFL!

Free trade probably would (I'm more sceptical about one currency) but why exclude Europe? A free trade agreement between NAFTA, EU and EFTA, perhaps loosely modeled on the EEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area) would be more useful.
Because the ideas for the Anglo economic zone I had in mind where ones that wouldn't fly in Europe due all the protectionism in Europe and also the unflexible labor market in Europe. Also, the EU already exists. This would be more like an Anglo version of the EU, just less political and more serious about economic freedom. Also, all the militaries of the nations involved in the Anglo alliance are all much closer to each other than the European Union member states' militaries were/are . . ., we speak the same language and have similar cultures and with a creation of a free-movement zone, we could see alot of new job opportunity with people moving around between our countries . . . already speaking the language and already being able to integrate rather well.


Really, it's a gift of history that our countries are so similar and we should take advantage of that to create a huge free-economic/free movement/free trade zone.

An alliance of nations based on race?

*twitch*

I like how you included South Africa during Apartheid and then pre-whined about people calling you racist.

This "Anglo Union" smacks of a white pride, Aryan Nations, globalist fantasy, and would have just as much purpose.
I was right! Yes! Score one for my psychic abilities!
Free trade probably would (I'm more sceptical about one currency) but why exclude Europe? A free trade agreement between NAFTA, EU and EFTA, perhaps loosely modeled on the EEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area) would be more useful.
Like I said before, and TAI explained, he believes that the countries he mentioned share a cultural bond, all brought on by British Imperialism, but a cultural bond nonetheless. Also, the rest of Europe is a bit further to the left (Why am I repeating my self?) than the specified countries, minus the ones I don't know.:D
Something wrong with be Socialist now? At least Socialist don't borrow their money from the Federal Reserve with Interest like absolute lunatics, as their nation goes deep in debt. Hey why not have a war! That way, we have to borrow more money from the Federal Reserve...

As Sam Roberts said...

"S..O...CIA...LISM is the only wayyyyy..."
Heh. I like your sense of humor. No, I wasn't saying that there's anything wrong with Socialism, just that the whole Capitalist Free-trade thing TAI is going for isn't quite in line with Socialism. Most notably the 'Capitalist' part.:D

AND WHY AM I REPEATING MYSELF?

Perhaps a name change is in order? I don't see a whole lot of the idea in common with the British Empire, minus perhaps the Geo-Political boundaries.
The reason it shares the geo-political boundaries with parts of the British Empire is obviously because these are the countries that are most similar, it terms of culture, language and political economy. Also military-relationship.

*Anglo* is used because it is a uniting factor by our common history/culture and language, all of which connect to the British Empire, yes. . . but this is not an Empire, at all. In my OP I compared it more to what exists now with Russia and former Soviet States, though a bit different yet.
Why exclude the French or Germans or etc etc.
1. Because they have the EU.

2. Because of the million reasons I've already stated in this thread.

As I've stated...this is first and foremost an economic union. Not "everyone has to do what America says" . . .

I was thinking about practice, not theory.

An alliance of nations based on race?

*twitch*
What?

There are already alliances as such anyway, and there is no reason why Britain can't have both strong alliances in the EU and with other Anglo nations.

It being based on only one factor of "white man" rule (i.e Anglos) is very reminiscent of the old Empire to me. Why exclude the French or Germans or etc etc.

As I've said before, if my knowledge of modern day Europe is correct, France and Germany and the sort are a bit further to the left than the countries listed. And if it was to be just for 'White man rule', as you said, why are we including:

India.
Those two tiny countries in South and Central America.
That country close to India, and Pakistan.

...


Damnit, what happened to my Geopolitical knowledge? Looks like I'll have to break out the globe again and refresh myself...
An alliance of nations based on race?

*twitch*
KOL, you know better than this. I'll agree that the name was poorly chosen, but the idea isn't, in itself, necessarily a bad one if your down with this sort of EU trade-alliance sort of thing, and it certainly isn't racist.

TAI: you forgot that only non-whites can have any cultural pride. Shame on you.

"White pride" =/= "cultural pride."

"White" isn't a culture.

And TAI is clearly talking about race. You know, the part where he'd include South Africa but only back in Apartheid kinda really gave it away.

An alliance of nations based on race?

*twitch*

Such alliances are not based on race, but have been based on a shared language, which makes economic integration much easier.

KOL, you know better than this. I'll agree that the name was poorly chosen, but the idea isn't, in itself, necessarily a bad one if your down with this sort of EU trade-alliance sort of thing, and it certainly isn't racist.

The EU is based on geography. Not Anglo pride.

Besides, can the US really be considered an 'anglo' nation? I mean, not only do we have TONS of non-anglo citizens, but our president, is, well...not anglo.

Trade alliances should be based soley on shared economic interests. Nothing else.

Oh and I'm against this concept as much I am with, the "North America Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union)"

Basically because, I feel Orwell was trying to tell us something...

God bless Oceania... Long Live Big Brother....

http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/pics/1984/1984-world-map.jpg

As I've said before, if my knowledge of modern day Europe is correct, France and Germany and the sort are a bit further to the left than the countries listed.
France? With Sarkozy in charge - is Left?!


KOL, you know better than this. I'll agree that the name was poorly chosen, but the idea isn't, in itself, necessarily a bad one if your down with this sort of EU trade-alliance sort of thing, and it certainly isn't racist.
Dude.... it's TAI. He doesn't even try with a veneer anymore.

Its an interesting concept. I can see how having the same language etc. could be helpful in such a thing. However, there would be issues with the US's southern border I think we would have to secure it alot better before people were allowed to move form the US to another country without any papers needed. There would also have to be some sort of unified position on immigration. Additionally, the whole gun control thing with Britain.

"White pride" =/= "cultural pride."

"White" isn't a culture.

And TAI is clearly talking about race. You know, the part where he'd include South Africa but only back in Apartheid kinda really gave it away.

*sigh* One of thew few coherent, logical Right-Wing posters on here, and you continue to claim that he's a racist. While his choice of words in this matter could be construed as poorly chosen, his idea is most certainly not racist, and I have yet to see racism in any of his posts. (At least his recent ones, I've only recently began paying attention to TAI :$)

I think he was mentioning the rapid descent of South Africa into, well...

I don't know how to put it. Turmoil? Face the facts, poverty and protests, sometimes violent ones, have increased dramatically since the 80's. I don't think TAI was saying apartheid was a good thing, and I know I'm not, but I think he's saying that at this point, South Africa would only drag the Alliance down. And if he's so Racist, why is he including those other African Countries?

Besides, can the US really be considered an 'anglo' nation? I mean, not only do we have TONS of non-anglo citizens, but our president, is, well...not anglo.


Generally, the term Anglo nations is accepted as a term to describe former British colonies which still has the native language of English, it's never really used to describe 'white' nations.

France? With Sarkozy in charge - is Left?!

Are you trying to say Sarkozy is on the right?

"White pride" =/= "cultural pride."

"White" isn't a culture.

And TAI is clearly talking about race. You know, the part where he'd include South Africa but only back in Apartheid kinda really gave it away.

Then let me re-phrase it as "Anglo-pride." And back during the Apartheid era, South Africas dominant culture was Anglo, now it is not.

Because the ideas for the Anglo economic zone I had in mind where ones that wouldn't fly in Europe due all the protectionism in Europe and also the unflexible labor market in Europe.Also, the EU already exists.
Having differences in labour law hasn't prevented the EU from working to date, and given the squabble over 'Buy American Clause', and prevaling political attitudes towards industry in Britain in this economic crisis, I don't think we are in any kind of position to get on our pedestals and preach about free trade.

As a thought: if you exclude Europe from the start, by creating a solely 'Anglo' union, why would they join anyway? One can't blame Europe for not wanting to join an economic union they are, by definition, excluded from.

This would be more like an Anglo version of the EU, just less political and more serious about economic freedom.
Except most countries you want to join probably have very different concepts of economic freedom than you do.

Also, all the militaries of the nations involved in the Anglo alliance are all much closer to each other than the European Union member states' militaries were/are . . ., we speak the same language and have similar cultures and with a creation of a free-movement zone, we could see alot of new job opportunity with people moving around between our countries . . . already speaking the language and already being able to integrate rather well.
If the EU can function with 23 languages, I don't see why having one language (even though your union would include large linguistic minorities) and one culture would make a union any better than one with more than one. The benefits of free trade and commerce, job creation and free migration would apply to a joint European and North American area as much as just an Anglo Saxon one.

Really, it's a gift of history that our countries are so similar and we should take advantage of that to create a huge free-economic/free movement/free trade zone.
Economic unions and alliances should be based on practicality rather than romanticism. This is too much of the latter and not enough of the former.

Are you trying to say Sarkozy is on the right?

Considering his party (the UMP - Union pour un Mouvement Populaire) is France's main right (centre-right) Conservative political party, and he beat the Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal for the Presidency, I'm sure he ain't Left.

The EU is based on geography. Not Anglo pride.

I don't think this is a pride thing. A shared culture, or a shared cultural base, can help with an Alliance, shared way of thinking, you know?

Besides, can the US really be considered an 'anglo' nation? I mean, not only do we have TONS of non-anglo citizens, but our president, is, well...not anglo.

Culture, culture, culture, culture, culture...

Trade alliances should be based soley on shared economic interests. Nothing else.
This isn't solely a trade alliance, I think. *repeats about a shared culture and economic development*
France? With Sarkozy in charge - is Left?!


*Curses lack of knowledge of modern-day Europe* I'm not saying LEFT, I'm saying more left. Like how the Liberals in the USA are further Right than, say, the US Communist party. Not left, but further in that direction.

Dude.... it's TAI. He doesn't even try with a veneer anymore.
Please, show me where this idea is racist, other than a bad choice of name.

Generally, the term Anglo nations is accepted as a term to describe former British colonies which still has the native language of English, it's never really used to describe 'white' nations.

Then perhaps Im just reacting to the preconcieved notions and stigma attatched to the word, in which case, Ill try and tone it down and chill.


Forming an economic alliance with people who have similar languages isnt a bad idea. Its actually pretty good. But I stand by my statement that the only thing that should determine trade alliances is similar economic (and political, if you can swing that) interests.

Considering his party (the UMP - Union pour un Mouvement Populaire) is France's main right (centre-right) Conservative political party, and he beat the Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal for the Presidency, I'm sure he ain't Left.

He's left. Maybe he's right in European terms, but Europe has been borderline socialist for decades now.

I'm not saying LEFT, I'm saying more left. Like how the Liberals in the USA are further Right than, say, the US Communist party. Not left, but further in that direction.


Actually, Sarkozy's France is more right wing then it has been in the past.

Then let me re-phrase it as "Anglo-pride." And back during the Apartheid era, South Africas dominant culture was Anglo, now it is not.
Only in the loosest sense of the term. Afrikanier nationalists would not want to be labelled as a part of an Anglo-British (which is what this is) greater culture sphere in any sense of the word.

Also, don't be deluded, the whole point of the EU economic union has been precisely free trade, to lower barriers to trade, to harmonize and reduce tariff rates and other frictional barriers to trades and to achieve better economic integration. The EU has very low protectionism between nations, and it's common external tariff is not too bad either.

I think people overestimate the similarity between the UK and US, including people from both of these countries.

Obviously, we speak similar languages and share some pop-culture since we can understand each other's TV programmes, but it's probably fair to say that UK is no further from the rest of europe culturally than it is from the US.

Then perhaps Im just reacting to the preconcieved notions and stigma attatched to the word, in which case, Ill try and tone it down and chill.


Thank you.

Forming an economic alliance with people who have similar languages isnt a bad idea. Its actually pretty good. But I stand by my statement that the only thing that should determine trade alliances is similar economic (and political, if you can swing that) interests.
And, as I've said before, a single major language and cultural base could help this along.

The US is for a limited government? Last I heard the President was saying ONLY the government has the resources to do anything.

Forming an economic alliance with people who have similar languages isnt a bad idea. Its actually pretty good. But I stand by my statement that the only thing that should determine trade alliances is similar economic (and political, if you can swing that) interests.

Yeah, but if you're cultures are similar, and you speak the same language, you're much more likely going to want to trade and have labour mobility between these nations. So it is important to take culture into account.

Only in the loosest sense of the term. Afrikanier nationalists would not want to be labelled as a part of an Anglo-British (which is what this is) greater culture sphere in any sense of the word.

Good point.

Actually, Sarkozy's France is more right wing then it has been in the past.
*sigh* I'm saying that, if what little knowledge I have about modern Europe is accurate at all, France is slightly further left than the UK and the USA. Not necessarily a lot, not necessarily further left than it's been in the past, but further left. Okay?
Also, don't be deluded, the whole point of the EU economic union has been precisely free trade, to lower barriers to trade, to harmonize and reduce tariff rates and other frictional barriers to trades and to achieve better economic integration. The EU has very low protectionism between nations, and it's common external tariff is not too bad either.
So why not apply some of that to much of the rest of the world, many of whom could use the lowered tariffs and the economic integration?

I think people overestimate the similarity between the UK and US, including people from both of these countries.

Obviously, we speak similar languages and share some pop-culture since we can understand each other's TV programmes, but it's probably fair to say that UK is no further from the rest of europe culturally than it is from the US.

Hence why it should have 'alliances' with both.

*Curses lack of knowledge of modern-day Europe* I'm not saying LEFT, I'm saying more left. Like how the Liberals in the USA are further Right than, say, the US Communist party. Not left, but further in that direction.
Then the UK is just as bad as France and is just as 'Left'. Edit: CM, don't worry about it.

Please, show me where this idea is racist, other than a bad choice of name.
Search for his threads about South Africa or immigration and the Swiss.

He's left. Maybe he's right in European terms, but Europe has been borderline socialist for decades now.
lol

Okay?


No.:p

The US is for a limited government? Last I heard the President was saying ONLY the government has the resources to do anything.
Those are quite some nice headphones you have. I think the Republicans want them back.

So why not apply some of that to much of the rest of the world, many of whom could use the lowered tariffs and the economic integration?

That's exactly what many organisations like the WTO are trying to do. Problem is, it's unfair to get countries to lower tariffs unless it is reciprocal, otherwise they may just loose out, but it's very difficult to get all nations to agree.

lol

What an intelligent comment, sir.

*sigh* One of thew few coherent, logical Right-Wing posters on here, and you continue to claim that he's a racist.

Coherent and logical, TAI? Well, that's a mighty fine opinion you have of him.

The "right-wing" title is absolutely useless, as is the "liberal" one, and I'm not here to have a pissing contest between the two sides.

While his choice of words in this matter could be construed as poorly chosen

Oh, now I'm being mean, misconstruing his choice of words? I think not. His ideas are the problem, and no amount of euphemism changes that.

I think he was mentioning the rapid descent of South Africa into, well...

Non-White-Ism.

I don't know how to put it. Turmoil? Face the facts, poverty and protests, sometimes violent ones, have increased dramatically since the 80's.

Logically they would stand to benefit most from an economic union, then, and the others in the union something to benefit from the long-term investment.

I don't think TAI was saying apartheid was a good thing, and I know I'm not, but I think he's saying that at this point, South Africa would only drag the Alliance down.

But it wouldn't 20 years ago? Because of Apartheid. Oh that's right, Apartheid was a "gift" of the "culture" of white colonialism. And it's not wrong to celebrate gifts, right?

And if he's so Racist, why is he including those other African Countries?

What other countries? He said:

Anglo countries.....UK, US, Canda, AUS, NZ . . . and maybe 20 years ago South Africa, maybe.

No other African nations. And why would he? They have all those black people.

What an intelligent comment, sir.

I wanted to match yours. And I did, perfectly.

Then let me re-phrase it as "Anglo-pride." And back during the Apartheid era, South Africas dominant culture was Anglo, now it is not.

Let's re-phrase it to mean "happy fun pride."

You don't hate happiness and fun, do you?

I wanted to match yours. And I did, perfectly.

Please explain to me how Europe is not borderline socialist?

Please explain to me how Europe is not borderline socialist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk&feature=related

{snip}



No other African nations. And why would he? They have all those black people.

And there are no non-white natives in UK, US, Canada, AUS, NZ? Well, maybe not in the UK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk&feature=related

*sigh*

Thank you. :hail:

Then the UK is just as bad as France and is just as 'Left'.

I shall look into the matter.

Search for his threads about South Africa or immigration and the Swiss.

He seems rather anti-racist, if a bit of a Nationalist and given to bad jokes (Like the one in his sig). Also, it seems he likes to exagerrate things that the lefties do, but the lefties on here to the same thing, so I think I'll chalk that one up to human nature.

Can't find anything on TAI and South Africa, got any links?
No.:p

:tongue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk&feature=related

Sorry that link is blocked at sever-level at my current location I shall check it out later.

And there are no non-white natives in UK, US, Canada, AUS, NZ?

We sent them all to reservations in Antarctica.

Hence why it should have 'alliances' with both.

Sounds sensible to me.

We sent them all to reservations in Antarctica.

Man, that's just cold.

Man, that's just cold.

-50°C to be exact.

But it wouldn't 20 years ago? Because of Apartheid. Oh that's right, Apartheid was a "gift" of the "culture" of white colonialism. And it's not wrong to celebrate gifts, right?


That's pretty naff logic. The connection is flawed:

statement A: There were more cultural and political ties from south Africa to Anglo nations 20 years ago, therefore it would have been more suitable to form economic alliances then rather than now.

statement B: I support apartheid.

Statement B does not follow from statement A.

Such alliances are not based on race, but have been based on a shared language, which makes economic integration much easier.
Plus the cultural similarities that would make free-movement easier, plus the similarities in political economy. . . .etc I've listed tons of reasons. NONE of them racial.
The EU is based on geography. Not Anglo pride.

Besides, can the US really be considered an 'anglo' nation? I mean, not only do we have TONS of non-anglo citizens, but our president, is, well...not anglo.

Trade alliances should be based soley on shared economic interests. Nothing else.

Come on KoL, I have more faith in you than this.

*Angl* is a correct way to highlight the connections between the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia and NZ, in that they highlight their shared language, history, culture and similar political economies, when compared internationally.
"White pride" =/= "cultural pride."

"White" isn't a culture.

And TAI is clearly talking about race. You know, the part where he'd include South Africa but only back in Apartheid kinda really gave it away.
First of all, I said maybe South Africa 20 years ago. Now a days, for sure no South Africa. You can attribute whatever you want to that comment, or you could understand that South Africa's ruling and dominant party is far left, with ties to Communist and is demorat-socialist itself:

The African National Congress (ANC) has been South Africa's governing party, supported by its tripartite alliance with the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP), since the establishment of non-racial democracy in May 1994. It defines itself as a "disciplined force of the left".[1] Members founded the organization as the South African Native National Congress (SANNC) on 8 January 1912 in Bloemfontein to increase the rights of the black South African population. John Dube, its first president, and poet and author Sol Plaatje are among its founding members. The organization became the ANC in 1923 and formed a military wing, the Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) in 1961.

Or that South Africa has ridiculous levels of unemployment, income inequality, an uneducated workforce, aids, corruption, both political and economical, violence and a highly 'protected' socialized economy with a large government. Also, the mass black outs . . .

I just listed tons of reasons without even getting into the anti-white racism. . . but go ahead, keep talking bullshit.

Its an interesting concept. I can see how having the same language etc. could be helpful in such a thing. However, there would be issues with the US's southern border I think we would have to secure it alot better before people were allowed to move form the US to another country without any papers needed. There would also have to be some sort of unified position on immigration. Additionally, the whole gun control thing with Britain.
All interesting opinions, but I'd say the gun culture is the least important. Finland and Switzerland have rather high rates of gun ownerships . . . and from both you can travel anywhere in the EU. . . where some countries have MUCH harsher laws on gun ownership.

Coherent and logical, TAI? Well, that's a mighty fine opinion you have of him.

The "right-wing" title is absolutely useless, as is the "liberal" one, and I'm not here to have a pissing contest between the two sides.



Oh, now I'm being mean, misconstruing his choice of words? I think not. His ideas are the problem, and no amount of euphemism changes that.



Non-White-Ism.



Logically they would stand to benefit most from an economic union, then, and the others in the union something to benefit from the long-term investment.



But it wouldn't 20 years ago? Because of Apartheid. Oh that's right, Apartheid was a "gift" of the "culture" of white colonialism. And it's not wrong to celebrate gifts, right?



What other countries? He said:





Trostia, what the hell? Right here you've not only twisted TAI's words, but my own. In fact, you seem to be outright denying facts, here being what TAI actually suggested.

*sighs*
No other African nations. And why would he? They have all those black people.
Of course, because none of these other nations have any black people, especially not the US who does NOT have a black president at the moment, most certainly not NZ, whose major ethnicity would not be considered black by most people concerned with such things, of course not any of the countries listed with any immigration of any kind, certainly not the African countries he listed in the map, et cetera.

I'm not even going to continue. What you've done here is enter with a preconceived notion and refused to let go of it. "Oh, TAI, I think I'm going to brush over his OP and accuse him of being a racist, YAY!"

That's pretty naff logic. The connection is flawed:

statement A: There were more cultural and political ties to Anglo nations 20 years ago, therefore it would have been more suitable to form economic alliances then rather than now.

statement B: I support apartheid.

Statement B does not follow from statement A.

Ah yes, "cultural and political ties."

Like Apartheid.

Come on KoL, I have more faith in you than this.

*Angl* is a correct way to highlight the connections between the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia and NZ, in that they highlight their shared language, history, culture and similar political economies, when compared internationally.

I admit I jumped the gun do to the stigma now attatched to the word "anglo".

Can't find anything on TAI and South Africa, got any links?

Here - knock yourself out.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560183

Or that South Africa has ridiculous levels of unemployment, income inequality, an uneducated workforce, aids, corruption, both political and economical, violence and a highly 'protected' socialized economy with a large government. Also, the mass black outs . . .


Racist.

Then perhaps Im just reacting to the preconcieved notions and stigma attatched to the word, in which case, Ill try and tone it down and chill.


Forming an economic alliance with people who have similar languages isnt a bad idea. Its actually pretty good. But I stand by my statement that the only thing that should determine trade alliances is similar economic (and political, if you can swing that) interests.
Read the OP again, then to see the economic and political reasons. There is not even one single racial argument in the OP.

Also, the term *Anglo*, look below:
Generally, the term Anglo nations is accepted as a term to describe former British colonies which still has the native language of English, it's never really used to describe 'white' nations.

Ah yes, "cultural and political ties."

Like Apartheid.

I still don't understand the relevance. Did Apartheid cause the cultural and political ties to strengthen? Maybe. Was it a good thing? Certainly not. Does that mean it's a bad idea to have economic integration? Of course not.

Here - knock yourself out.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560183

I'm sorry, I'm still not seeing the racism. I'm seeing mild alarmism, anti-leftism, and a somewhat justified angry feel against the anti-white racism in some parts of Africa.

Read the OP again, then to see the economic and political reasons. There is not even one single racial argument in the OP.

Also, the term *Anglo*, look below:

Hey, TAI, you're pages behind! Learn to type faster, would you?:wink:

Actually, Sarkozy's France is more right wing then it has been in the past.
Sarkozy has been super left as of late in terms of protectionism . . . :(

Hey, TAI, you're pages behind! Learn to type faster, would you?:wink:

He missed your epic victory over my jump the gunism. Which is sad, because your epic victories over me are very rare indeed;)

He missed your epic victory over my jump the gunism. Which is sad, because your epic victories over me are very rare indeed;)

Of course, our epic debates have also become rare indeed.:( When did we last debate, anyway? You used to kick my (metaphorical) ass all the time...

Trostia, what the hell? Right here you've not only twisted TAI's words, but my own. In fact, you seem to be outright denying facts, here being what TAI actually suggested.

What words have I twisted? What facts have I denied?

You claimed TAI mentioned other African nations than South Africa. But he didn't. So your whole rant here:

Of course, because none of these other nations have any black people, especially not the US who does NOT have a black president at the moment, most certainly not NZ, whose major ethnicity would not be considered black by most people concerned with such things, of course not any of the countries listed with any immigration of any kind, certainly not the African countries he listed in the map, et cetera.

Is irrelevant.

The map is not his OP nor did he even draw it; and if we were to draw a map based on what he actually said, that map would not include any but the "Anglo" nations he mentioned.

I'm not even going to continue.

Or start, I guess. Your half-assed apologetics about his "poor choice of words" was not an argument.

What you've done here is enter with a preconceived notion and refused to let go of it.

You mean like posting a thread and a racist argument in it, and then trumpeting your 'psychic powers' that someone will, gosh, call the racism what it is? Sort of like that?

He missed your epic victory over my jump the gunism. Which is sad, because your epic victories over me are very rare indeed;)

Hey, TAI, you're pages behind! Learn to type faster, would you?:wink:

Guys, I was eating. :p Then I came back and was in shock about some of things people were making up, so I had to read every single post. Anyway, Conservative Morality took care of most of it. Thanks.

*snip outright ignorance and half-truthes*
I will concede the map point, but what about NZ? What about the US?

I know that you're going to completely avoid what I actually say, not matter what I do, I've read how you argue in other threads. Consider yourself on ignore.

Guys, I was eating. :p Then I came back and was in shock about some of things people were making up, so I had to read every single post. Anyway, Conservative Morality took care of most of it. Thanks.

Ah, no problem. I still don't like the idea of it all.

You mean like posting a thread and a racist argument in it,?
You still haven't told us what exactly that is. . . and in fact ignored when I posted this:

First of all, I said maybe South Africa 20 years ago. Now a days, for sure no South Africa. You can attribute whatever you want to that comment, or you could understand that South Africa's ruling and dominant party is far left, with ties to Communist and is demorat-socialist itself:

The African National Congress (ANC) has been South Africa's governing party, supported by its tripartite alliance with the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP), since the establishment of non-racial democracy in May 1994. It defines itself as a "disciplined force of the left".[1] Members founded the organization as the South African Native National Congress (SANNC) on 8 January 1912 in Bloemfontein to increase the rights of the black South African population. John Dube, its first president, and poet and author Sol Plaatje are among its founding members. The organization became the ANC in 1923 and formed a military wing, the Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) in 1961.

Or that South Africa has ridiculous levels of unemployment, income inequality, an uneducated workforce, aids, corruption, both political and economical, violence and a highly 'protected' socialized economy with a large government. Also, the mass black outs . . .

I just listed tons of reasons without even getting into the anti-white racism. . . but go ahead, keep talking bullshit.

I still don't understand the relevance. Did Apartheid cause the cultural and political ties to strengthen? Maybe. Was it a good thing? Certainly not.

How many times on this forum have I seen people argue about the great gift of European colonialism and how much better off Africa was under White rule?

Does that mean it's a bad idea to have economic integration? Of course not.

It's just coincidental, I guess, that we want "economic integration" but only when the government is practicing Apartheid. Once Apartheid ends, suddenly "economic integration" is no longer a good idea, to TAI.

Funny, that.

Racist.
Why, in the good ol' days we used to have mass white outs! Damn you, civil rights movement!

. . . :D

Why, in the good ol' days we used to have mass white outs! Damn you, civil rights movement!

. . . :D

Im glad I dont have to include a smiley for you to know when Im fucking with you.

I will concede the map point, but what about NZ? What about the US?

Neither NZ nor the US is a country in Africa, nope.

So what if the US has a black president? It's an "Anglo" nation.

I know that you're going to completely avoid what I actually say

More psychic predictions?

Consider yourself on ignore.

Nostradamus strikes again!

How many times on this forum have I seen people argue about the great gift of European colonialism and how much better off Africa was under White rule?

It's just coincidental, I guess, that we want "economic integration" but only when the government is practicing Apartheid. Once Apartheid ends, suddenly "economic integration" is no longer a good idea, to TAI.

Funny, that.

Maybe its the rolling black outs or any number of other things he posted as reasons why. Frankly, South Africa looks to be headed the way of Zimbabwe, in some respects. In the end, it doesn't matter whether TAI is a racist or not, let us examine his idea, and if there are good reasons for adding or subtracting countries from the proposed zone, then good.

All interesting opinions, but I'd say the gun culture is the least important. Finland and Switzerland have rather high rates of gun ownerships . . . and from both you can travel anywhere in the EU. . . where some countries have MUCH harsher laws on gun ownership.

Well, it'd be interesting to see why there isn't any significant (illegal) gun trade between those countries, that is if there is a solution to the problem, or if it is simply not a problem at all (no gun demand in the UK).

Neither NZ nor the US is a country in Africa, nope.

So what if the US has a black president? It's an "Anglo" nation.
But clearly just having black people doesnt rule it out...
More psychic predictions?



Nostradamus strikes again!
So you admit that you had no intention of reading what he said? Because thats what you basically admitted.

Here - knock yourself out.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560183
Oh no! Please! Evidence of my White Power movement! Don't show everyone a thread where I post evidence of the growing anti-Afrikaaner tendancy in South Africa and the horrible state of corruption the government is in! No, please! Anything but that! :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Im glad I dont have to include a smiley for you to know when Im fucking with you.
It's no problem, especially after you posted the below and that haven't gone beserk over the South Africa like Trostia.
I admit I jumped the gun do to the stigma now attatched to the word "anglo".

I'm against all alliances, but personally I think the U.S. should do more to establish closer relations with other countries in the Americas. That means ending the embargo on Cuba, re-establishing diplomatic relations, ending harassment of leaders like Chavez, and expanding trade and cultural relations.

So you admit that you had no intention of reading what he said? Because thats what you basically admitted.

I admit that by putting me on ignore, I will be guaranteed to be seen as "avoiding" his posts since he won't be able to read them.

It's a brilliant self-fulfilling prophecy, sort of like how I predict everyone will go silent when I put my headphones on. Hey look, I'm right! La la la, I can't hear you, because you're avoiding what I say!

So no, that's not what I 'admitted.'

Oh no! Please! Evidence of my White Power movement! Don't show everyone a thread where I post evidence of the growing anti-Afrikaaner tendancy in South Africa and the horrible state of corruption the government is in! No, please! Anything but that! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Which are deplorable, of course, but can you honestly tell me, with a straight face, that if you were a non-white South African you wouldn't be less than head-over-heels over Afrikaners?

And whatever South Africa's current faults may be, it's a damn fairer sight than it was under apartheid: Pariah nation, quasi-fascist police state, nanny state that regulated every last detail of every person's life (even more than states like the thankfully-departed Soviet Union), etc. Also, the new government is far friendlier to free markets than apartheid South Africa was. Here's a description of South Africa's economy under apartheid (emphasis mine):

The reality was that the government played a major role in almost every facet of the economy, including production, consumption, and regulation. In fact, Soviet economists in the late 1980s noted that the state-owned portion of South Africa's industrial sector was greater than that in any country outside the communist bloc. The South African government owned and managed almost 40 percent of all wealth-producing assets, including iron and steel works, weapons manufacturing facilities, and energy-producing resources. Government-owned corporations and parastatals were also vital to the services sector. Marketing boards and tariff regulations intervened to influence consumer prices. Finally, a wide variety of laws governed economic activities at all levels based on race.

I should add that this comes from none other than the Library of Congress (source (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+za0079))).

If you are really "right-wing" as you claim, you would welcome the demise of the abhorrent apartheid regime, which was not only far from "right-wing" (at least when it came to economics), but abhorrent in every other way. Non-whites were artificially reduced to the lowest common denominator and held back by hundreds of the most stringent regulations and draconian laws imaginable. Why not allow people to rise or fall on their own merits? Why not allow them to associate with those whom they choose to associate with? Who is the government to decide who I do business with, who I befriend, who I have sex with, or who I allow on my property?

Some of the most scathing denunciations of racism have come from people like Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek, who can hardly be described as leftists.

What's ironic is that South Africa today, ruled by an ostensibly left-wing party, is far more pro-market (although admittedly this is out of pragmatism rather than ideological reasons) than the old regime was.

This is not to say, of course, that the new South African government is good, but it's much better than the old one, and there's a huge difference between anti-[insert group here] tendency and actually persecuting or repressing [insert group here].

I'm against all alliances, but personally I think the U.S. should do more to establish closer relations with other countries in the Americas. That means ending the embargo on Cuba, re-establishing diplomatic relations, ending harassment of leaders like Chavez, and expanding trade and cultural relations.

^^ This.
I personally wouldn't be all that happy aligning Ireland closer with the US... I'm quite pleased with things the way are right now with us being an EU member, thanks.

Those are quite some nice headphones you have. I think the Republicans want them back.

Barack Obama: "With the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs."

Barack Obama: "With the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs."
The US is for a limited government? Last I heard the President was saying ONLY the government has the resources to do anything.
So he's a Keynesian. What else is new in the Democratic party? Point is, he's saying that the US government is the only thing here in the US that can afford to do a huge bailout. It's true. I don't think any company is stupid enough to throw all that money on a bailout.

"White pride" =/= "cultural pride."

"White" isn't a culture.

And TAI is clearly talking about race. You know, the part where he'd include South Africa but only back in Apartheid kinda really gave it away.

Is Black? Is Asian? Or do different groups of these races have different cultures?

To the OP: While your idea seems plausible I doubt it would really work in reality, each country will be seeking to gain from it and then the population of each country will undoubtedly be against various things. Those might be alright if like the EU the leaders just gave their members the finger and did things regardless but I think it wouldn't work. On a military side look at ANZUS and how that worked out, similar incidents would happen due to a unifying treaty which may very well result in the same outcome.

Or that South Africa has ridiculous levels of unemployment, income inequality, an uneducated workforce, aids, corruption, both political and economical, violence and a highly 'protected' socialized economy with a large government. Also, the mass black outs . . .

I just listed tons of reasons without even getting into the anti-white racism. . . but go ahead, keep talking bullshit.

Oh, really? :tongue:

So he's a Keynesian. What else is new in the Democratic party? Point is, he's saying that the US government is the only thing here in the US that can afford to do a huge bailout. It's true. I don't think any company is stupid enough to throw all that money on a bailout.


Exactly why I would not go that route. But that's another storry. The US gov't being able to afford it is questionable as well.

I don't see what the UK would gain from such an "alliance".

It seems to me that such an entity would be dominated by the US. I doubt that it would be realistic to expect the US to be willing to let others dictate what tax rate it should have either, so it also seems to me that it would lack the neccesary equality between the parties for the idea to work..

Well, I posted this in another thread but the thread was dead, so I thought I'd make a thread out of it. This was my proposal for what America should do instead of joining the EU:


In terms of political alignment, the best thing the U.S. could do would be try to enhance the economic, social, political and militaristic bonds between the Anglo countries.....UK, US, Canda, AUS, NZ . . . and maybe 20 years ago South Africa, maybe.

...

1. Do you think it's a good idea or bad idea? Why?

2. What do you think it would take for your country (assuming you're a member of one of the above Anglo countries, to join?


I don't know if it's good or bad. It looks more silly than anything else.

To be quite blunt: what do these countries have in common except for having been part of the British Empire?
Some of them are monarchies in personal union with the British Crown. Other are parliamentary republics. One is a presidential republic. Some are part of the EU and some aren't.

Do you really see the Republic of Ireland willing to unite itself with Britain AGAIN?

Against, I have no interest of seeing the US in the commonwealth evar.

I thought of this too, Im in full support of the Anglo-American Empire :)

Oh and I'm against this concept as much I am with, the "North America Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union)"

Basically because, I feel Orwell was trying to tell us something...

God bless Oceania... Long Live Big Brother....

http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/pics/1984/1984-world-map.jpg

Is not the concept of God outlawed in 1984?

Only if we get to head it.

You know...As long as I get to vote in the elections...I wouldnt mind, too many Republicans in the US anyway, I prefer Labour, lol...

First of all, I said maybe South Africa 20 years ago. Now a days, for sure no South Africa. You can attribute whatever you want to that comment, or you could understand that South Africa's ruling and dominant party is far left, with ties to Communist and is demorat-socialist itself:

The African National Congress (ANC) has been South Africa's governing party, supported by its tripartite alliance with the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP), since the establishment of non-racial democracy in May 1994. It defines itself as a "disciplined force of the left".[1] Members founded the organization as the South African Native National Congress (SANNC) on 8 January 1912 in Bloemfontein to increase the rights of the black South African population. John Dube, its first president, and poet and author Sol Plaatje are among its founding members. The organization became the ANC in 1923 and formed a military wing, the Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) in 1961.

Yes, South Africa is ruled by a social democratic party, but if you actually did your research, you would know that South Africa has liberalized its economy considerably since the end of the apartheid era.

Or that South Africa has ridiculous levels of unemployment, income inequality, an uneducated workforce, aids, corruption, both political and economical, violence and a highly 'protected' socialized economy with a large government. Also, the mass black outs . . .

South Africa had ridiculous levels of unemployment under apartheid...in the townships and "homelands." Income inequality in SA is largely due to apartheid. An uneducated workforce is also due to apartheid. Non-whites were given only the most rudimentary education. AIDS was present before apartheid ended. Corruption existed during apartheid. Violence was also endemic (in the townships and homelands); it wasn't violent in the white areas because South Africa was a police state. South Africa under apartheid had a highly protected socialized economy, as I showed earlier, and a VERY large government. Hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats, soldiers, policemen, etc. were needed to implement and maintain apartheid. It was extremely costly and not only detrimental to non-white South Africans, but to all South Africans.

Again, do a bit of research before you post.

Because the ideas for the Anglo economic zone I had in mind where ones that wouldn't fly in Europe due all the protectionism in Europe and also the unflexible labor market in Europe. Also, the EU already exists. This would be more like an Anglo version of the EU, just less political and more serious about economic freedom. Also, all the militaries of the nations involved in the Anglo alliance are all much closer to each other than the European Union member states' militaries were/are . . ., we speak the same language and have similar cultures and with a creation of a free-movement zone, we could see alot of new job opportunity with people moving around between our countries . . . already speaking the language and already being able to integrate rather well.
Why exclude European countries apart from the UK?

The only potential reason you've given is speaking the same language. All the rest of what you've posted above are reasons why the EU is already an alliance. And there seems no good reason to form an economic alliance in the modern world with membership based on common language.

Sounds like a pointless 'cultural' alliance to me.

If you want a free trade alliance involving liberal democracies, you might as well include all the EU states, along with folks like Japan.

Which are deplorable, of course, but can you honestly tell me, with a straight face, that if you were a non-white South African you wouldn't be less than head-over-heels over Afrikaners?

And whatever South Africa's current faults may be, it's a damn fairer sight than it was under apartheid: Pariah nation, quasi-fascist police state, nanny state that regulated every last detail of every person's life (even more than states like the thankfully-departed Soviet Union), etc. Also, the new government is far friendlier to free markets than apartheid South Africa was. Here's a description of South Africa's economy under apartheid (emphasis mine):



I should add that this comes from none other than the Library of Congress (source (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+za0079))).

If you are really "right-wing" as you claim, you would welcome the demise of the abhorrent apartheid regime, which was not only far from "right-wing" (at least when it came to economics), but abhorrent in every other way. Non-whites were artificially reduced to the lowest common denominator and held back by hundreds of the most stringent regulations and draconian laws imaginable. Why not allow people to rise or fall on their own merits? Why not allow them to associate with those whom they choose to associate with? Who is the government to decide who I do business with, who I befriend, who I have sex with, or who I allow on my property?

Some of the most scathing denunciations of racism have come from people like Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek, who can hardly be described as leftists.

What's ironic is that South Africa today, ruled by an ostensibly left-wing party, is far more pro-market (although admittedly this is out of pragmatism rather than ideological reasons) than the old regime was.

This is not to say, of course, that the new South African government is good, but it's much better than the old one, and there's a huge difference between anti-[insert group here] tendency and actually persecuting or repressing [insert group here].

Look, my point was that South Africa is nowehere near the same level of 1st worldness / development / stability / economic power as the US, UK, Canada, NZ and AUS. . . all you've done is argue that it never was, which is fine . . .

but the argument of whether or not South Africa is better off now or before is one for another thread, ok?

but the argument of whether or not South Africa is better off now or before is one for another thread, ok?

Fair enough.

To the OP: While your idea seems plausible I doubt it would really work in reality, each country will be seeking to gain from it and then the population of each country will undoubtedly be against various things.
All members benefit from an economic alliance that would offer a free-trade zone, free-movement zone and a single currency . . .

On a military side look at ANZUS and how that worked out, similar incidents would happen due to a unifying treaty which may very well result in the same outcome.
Can you expand on that?


Oh, really? :tongue:
:p
I don't see what the UK would gain from such an "alliance".

It seems to me that such an entity would be dominated by the US. I doubt that it would be realistic to expect the US to be willing to let others dictate what tax rate it should have either, so it also seems to me that it would lack the neccesary equality between the parties for the idea to work..
Quite fair to suspect that, but I think if one were able to convince alll of the hypothetical members that creating a single currency zone, a free-trade zone and and free-movement zone would economically benefit all of them, they'd realize that it's not about 'sovereignty' but about creating the world's most powerful economic block.

To be quite blunt: what do these countries have in common except for having been part of the British Empire?
I've listed tons of reason . . . read the OP and through the thread.
Do you really see the Republic of Ireland willing to unite itself with Britain AGAIN?
It's not political unfication I'm calling for.

Against, I have no interest of seeing the US in the commonwealth evar.
It's not "the" Commonwealth.
I thought of this too, Im in full support of the Anglo-American Empire :)
Anglo economic alliance, not empire. :tongue:
Why exclude European countries apart from the UK?

The only potential reason you've given is speaking the same language. All the rest of what you've posted above are reasons why the EU is already an alliance. And there seems no good reason to form an economic alliance in the modern world with membership based on common language.Language, labor mobility, low tax rates, over all pro-entrepreneural attitude, pro-individualistic attitudes . . . etc

Sounds like a pointless 'cultural' alliance to me.
It's neither pointless nor a 'cultural alliance'. Culture is one reason but it is one OF the reasons not THE reason.

If you want a free trade alliance involving liberal democracies, you might as well include all the EU states, along with folks like Japan.
EU doesn't apply and neither does Japan. I'm using liberal democracy in the terms of Comparative Political Economy. Thus, most EU states are social democracies and Japan is a rather mercantalist economy.

Language, labor mobility, low tax rates, over all pro-entrepreneural attitude, pro-individualistic attitudes . . . etc
Again, the EU member-states, and some European non-EU states, fit all the above apart from language... and language seems a shallow reason to base an alliance on.

I'm using liberal democracy in the terms of Comparative Political Economy. Thus, most EU states are social democracies and Japan is a rather mercantalist economy.
Why would a free-trade organisation want to limit itself to such a narrow selection of pro-free-trade states? Why include the UK but exclude Germany, say?

EDIT: What good reason, from a strategic, military or economic point-of-view, would there be to have a specifically Anglo alliance?

Why would a free-trade organisation want to limit itself to such a narrow selection of pro-free-trade states? Why include the UK but exclude Germany, say?

EDIT: What good reason, from a strategic, military or economic point-of-view, would there be to have a specifically Anglo alliance?

Seriously, this Anglo-Empi-ehrm-Economic Alliance should conquer all before it!!!

1. Do you think it's a good idea or bad idea? Why?
Poor idea :

- Pisses off other members of the EU
- Involves South Africans, who I personally dislike
2. What do you think it would take for your country (assuming you're a member of one of the above Anglo countries, to join?
I'd whine as we might get lumbered with helping out the New Zealanders, who are the Wales to the England of Australia.

EDIT: What good reason, from a strategic, military or economic point-of-view, would there be to have a specifically Anglo alliance?

I'm guessing slightly less friction because of less cultural differences.

I'm guessing slightly less friction because of less cultural differences.
There are pretty large differences between us and you yank types, the Aussies, Seth Efricans (*spits*) and all the rest.

There are pretty large differences between us and you yank types, the Aussies, Seth Efricans (*spits*) and all the rest.

Yea, but I think he's saying that there's LESS difference between all of us, and, say, the UK and China, or Japan, or the US and Germany.

Yea, but I think he's saying that there's LESS difference between all of us, and, say, the UK and China, or Japan, or the US and Germany.
Capitalism is a cross-cultural idea, though.

Capitalism is a cross-cultural idea, though.

True. Perhaps a name change and tweak to the nations list is needed.

True. Perhaps a name change and tweak to the nations list is needed.
Yeah, here's one for you. Something like a "World Trade Organisation" which maybe encompasses everyone.

Long as we dont get stuck with them Frenchies, *spits* lol

....

Fuck no. Canada DOES NOT share same values with the US.

Yeah, here's one for you. Something like a "World Trade Organisation" which maybe encompasses everyone.

I don't know about everyone. Perhaps leave out nations with Human Rights violations, or especially strict command-esque economies that could drag other nations down.

Fuck no. Canada DOES NOT share same values with the US.

We share some values. Would you agree that you share more values with the US than Canada does with China or Japan? Or even Italy?

Fuck no. Canada DOES NOT share same values with the US.

Just depends which part...

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/3/31/Jesusland.GIF/290px-Jesusland.GIF


Unfortunately, Im stuck in Jesusland :(

We share some values. Would you agree that you share more values with the US than Canada does with China or Japan? Or even Italy?

No. We do not.

We share same values with Scandinavian countries and Benelux countries and maybe UK. Thats it.

Unfortunately, Im stuck in Jesusland :(

I'm stuck with a bunch of brainless commies.

I don't know about everyone. Perhaps leave out nations with Human Rights violations, or especially strict command-esque economies that could drag other nations down.
Name me a large, economically important nation which hasn't been implicated in human rights abuses, and doesn't have a vaguely command economy.
We share some values. Would you agree that you share more values with the US than Canada does with China or Japan? Or even Italy?
Depends what government is in charge in those countries.

Just depends which part...

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/3/31/Jesusland.GIF/290px-Jesusland.GIF


Unfortunately, Im stuck in Jesusland :(

Nope, even our Alabama is better than your California. Sorry if I sound like a dick.

I'm stuck with a bunch of brainless commies.

I know, cant win for losin these days...Either your a brainless Commie, a Jesusfreak, or a Wussy French wannabe :rolleyes:

No. We do not.

We share same values with Scandinavian countries and Benelux countries and maybe UK. Thats it.

Well, Canada and the USA already have very strong economic ties, and the two constantly export culture too each other. I've been to both countries, and Canada was far more similar to the USA than the UK was.

Nope, even our Alabama is better than your California. Sorry if I sound like a dick.

Idk, Im willing to bet that your Alabama has alot in common with our California...

Its actually been asked before...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/CanadiansForAnnexation2001.png/350px-CanadiansForAnnexation2001.png

Considering such a radical proposal, 20% aint bad...

Well, Canada and the USA already have very strong economic ties, and the two constantly export culture too each other. I've been to both countries, and Canada was far more similar to the USA than the UK was.

I've been to the US too.

It does look similar. We have the same language, with almost identical accents, same city layouts (houses in suburbs and city centres w/ skyscrapers), which are different than Europe's. But we have fundamental differences, especially with respect to religion which forms a major component of culture. Our conservatives are more liberal than than their democrats. We have Quebec. There are major societal differences.


Maclean's Poll 2006: What we believe

We want to ban porn. We're unsure about abortion. But gay adoption is fine. Just how did we get here?

LIANNE GEORGE | Jul 04, 2006

In late 2003, around the time our government began experimenting in earnest with legalizing gay marriage and decriminalizing marijuana, The Economist pronounced -- rather grudgingly, and with all sorts of caveats -- that Canada had become "rather cool." Not cold. Cool. It was a giddy moment, and we've grown quite attached to this view of our country, forgetting perhaps that Canada the Cool -- the Open-minded, the Progressive, the Inclusive -- is actually a very modern concept. As recently as the early '70s, nobody would have accused us of that. Back then, contentious issues were bubbling to the surface. Activists, academics and policy wonks squabbled over how to establish feasible guidelines for gender equality, bilingualism and multiculturalism overnight. In 1975, Reginald W. Bibby, then an assistant professor of sociology at York University, took this charged moment as a perfect opportunity to conduct one of the first-ever wide-scale surveys designed to map out the values, attitudes and beliefs espoused by Canadians. As it turned out, your average Canadian circa 1975 -- despite a probable affinity for Bad Company and K.C. & The Sunshine Band -- was pretty square. More than a third of us, for instance, believed that a woman shouldn't work outside the home if her husband was capable of supporting her. Half of us believed that black people and white people should not marry. Three quarters of us believed homosexuality was aberrant -- and abhorrent. "The fact of the matter is," says Bibby, "the data back then really shows that bigotry was alive and well. We were pretty down on a lot of groups."

But even then, it was clear that baby boomers -- born between 1946 and 1964 -- held markedly different views from their parents and grandparents. As a group, they were veering off into some trippy social territory. "In a number of areas, like homosexuality, there was a dramatic, geometric jump in approval," says Bibby, now a professor of sociology at the University of Lethbridge. He continued his research, now referred to as the Project Canada Survey Series, for the next 30 years, presenting boomers with the same questions every five years, and comparing their answers to those of Canadians younger and older. His data, to be published this fall in a book called The Boomer Factor: What Canada's Most Famous Generation is Leaving Behind, explores how this generation has reformed, reshaped and reimagined the country, and the attitudinal legacy boomers will leave behind as their years of influence draw to a close.

Bibby's findings -- to which Maclean's was given exclusive advance access -- illustrate how, in only three decades, we have transformed ourselves from a relatively homogenous group into one of the most pluralistic societies in the world. More than anything, says Bibby, Canadians today identify personal freedom as our No. 1 goal -- above family life, friendship, a comfortable life, or a rewarding career. And because we demand the freedom to make our own choices, the thinking goes, we'd best be willing to grant the same privilege to others -- to live and let live. Which, it turns out, is what we've done. "Over a very short period of time," says Bibby, "we've taken a multi-everything outlook in Canada."

Today, we can see this philosophy starkly reflected in our views on non-traditional lifestyles and family configurations. Forty per cent of Canadians believe there is no one ideal family model. "Thirty years ago, there was only one type of family as far as most people were concerned: mother, father and 1.7 kids," says Alan Mirabelli of the Ottawa-based Vanier Institute of the Family. But the boomer generation and their children have grown familiar with divorced, single-parent and combined family scenarios, and Canadians are now less likely to say, with any certainly, that only the nuclear family model works. "By and large," says Mirabelli, "if people have had a good experience in their own family life growing up, they aspire to repeat that experience. If their family form was mother, father, 1.7 kids, then that's what they aspire to for themselves. If they've been through a divorce and had a step-parent relationship and it's been successful, they're more likely to say there is no ideal form."

This same attitude extends to our feelings about interracial and homosexual relationships. For example, in 1975, only 55 per cent of Canadians approved of whites and blacks marrying. Today, 94 per cent are perfectly happy with the idea. Likewise, approval of same-sex relationships hovered at only 28 per cent then; today, more than two thirds of us approve. "From 1990 to 2005, there was just a dramatic shift there," says Bibby of gay issues in general. "We're one of the world leaders there. I'd like to think AIDS awareness had something to do with it. And there's a sense of more compassion. The media and a lot of high profile people have certainly gotten behind the rights and the difficulties of people who are gay and lesbian." Gay marriage, while it remains a contentious issue, has the wholehearted approval of almost half of all Canadians, and an additional 22 per cent who disapprove on a personal level say they accept gay marriage as a matter of civil rights. Similarly, 61 per cent of Canadians believe that gay couples should be able to adopt, including the 21 per cent who personally disapprove of the idea.

Many of these changes have come about as a result of Canada's official policies of multiculturalism, and from personal experiences. Then there's the XX Factor: Canadians have become more tolerant, Bibby argues, as a result of women's increased public influence. According to his findings, women are quantifiably the more compassionate sex. And as they've come to establish a stronger voice in public life, they've helped to guide and shape the broader public's views on "person-related" issues such as same-sex marriage, child abuse, pornography, poverty, and racial and gender discrimination. "Whether it was in 1975, or in any survey since," says Bibby, "the proportion of women who saw these issues as very serious would invariably exceed that of males." Only one third of boomer men approved of homosexuality in 1975, compared to over half of boomer women. Today, 76 per cent of Canadian women say they approve of or accept gay marriage, compared to only 63 per cent of men.

This trend continues to accelerate among the younger generation. "Teens in general simply are so much more accepting of diversity," says Bibby. "They're more compassionate in areas relating to things like capital punishment and euthanasia, and open to religion and spirituality. But they're led by young women." Today, 83 per cent of women age 18 to 34 accept gay marriage, the highest acceptance rate of any group surveyed.

Part of what differentiates modern Canadians from our American counterparts is the fact that we generally tend to embrace the notion of relativism -- the idea that when it comes to lifestyle choices, there are no absolutes. "Americans still believe in truth," says Bibby. "They really do maintain that there are some things that are true and some things that are false." Canadians, however, are more likely to see things in increments of right-ish and wrong-ish. The most important reason for this, he says, is the religious composition of our respective societies. Roughly a third of Americans identify themselves as members of evangelical or conservative Protestant groups(compared to eight per cent of Canadians), which leads them to adhere to very traditional family values. "That kind of composition simply translates into some very important differences," he says. "If you look at the evangelicals in the U.S. and Canada, the percentage who are opposed to, say, gay marriage is almost identical. If you look at mainline Protestants here -- like Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- and you match them up against their counterparts in the U.S., they come out very much the same. Catholics come out very much the same on both sides, too. So the thing that tips the scale is that American life is characterized by such a large number of evangelicals. They shape the overall picture."

As such, the two countries' views on social and sexual diversity remain notably different. For instance, more than a quarter of Americans disapprove of marriage between blacks and whites. In the U.S., only 64 per cent of people believe that immigration is good for the country, compared to 78 per cent of Canadians. And while 60 per cent of Canadians approve of homosexual relations, only 38 per cent of Americans feel the same way. "There is a much stronger pocket of American society that holds what can still legitimately be called highly Puritan values toward sexuality, which are closely linked to taboo and shame," says Alexander McKay, research coordinator for the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada(SIECCAN)in Toronto. "That's why something like the exposure of Janet Jackson's nipple [on TV] would be seen as an inherently harmful thing, whereas here, we might scratch our heads and wonder what's the big deal."

When it comes to marijuana, that most contentious of plants, Canadians are, if anything, more in favour of legalization now than ever. Sixty-three per cent of us say we accept recreational pot use in general(including 29 per cent who wholly approve of the practice). Support jumps even higher -- to a whopping 93 per cent acceptance rate -- when it comes to the legal use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. By contrast, only about a third of Americans say they would support legalization.

And yet, while Canadians are collectively more open-minded than our southern neighbours, we still tend to aspire to very traditional lifestyles for ourselves. Most of us say that, ideally, we envision ourselves belonging to a traditional nuclear family. We plan to marry and have children, and we plan for those marriages to last forever. "Despite the family experiences of many Canadians in the post-1960s," says Bibby, "what is changing are the outcomes -- not the aspirations."

We also wish the same for our children. For instance, 73 per cent of Canadians approve of the idea of couples living together without being married; when it comes to their own child, however, only 53 per cent of people say they would approve. Similarly, while 70 per cent of people approve of divorce in the general population, only 41 per cent say they would approve of their own child getting a divorce. But there's an important distinction between "approve" and "accept": even if Canadians say they don't approve, the overwhelming majority of us say we would be willing to accept our children's choices. "The family is the most adaptive institution in the world," says Mirabelli. "It's very much like an elastic band. It stretches and contracts depending on the economy and the culture which surrounds it."

In other ways, certain groups have seemingly become more conservative in the decades following the sexual revolution of the late '60s and early '70s. During that period, and in the time immediately following, Canadians' acceptance of sexual experimentation was at an all-time high. For the first time in modern history, relatively large numbers of us mused openly about the possibility that monogamous relationships -- and by extension traditional marriages -- were passé. "In 1975, by way of illustration, the percentage of boomers who said they approved of extramarital sex was 26 per cent," says Bibby. "Now, it's down to 16 per cent. I think some of that reflected just the immediate impact of the sexual revolution. That was the mood of the time." Among younger Canadians today, those numbers are even lower. Only 12 per cent of Canadians age 18 to 34 accept the idea of married people having affairs. Similarly, in 1975, 94 per cent of boomers said they were okay with the idea of premarital sex. Today, among young Canadians age 18 to 34, that number is 77 percent. Bibby theorizes that more youth today may be willing to follow their churches' values than at the height of the sexual revolution.

McKay, however, suggests the drop is more likely the result of a generation of better educated young people. "Young people today are much more knowledgeable about sex -- what they're getting into, what the potential implications are," he says. "And they're far more likely to take precautions." For example, says McKay, recent research shows that sexually active Canadian youth are clearly limiting their number of sexual partners. "I don't think it reflects a return to conservative values," he says. "I think it's a logical extension of the sexual revolution because now people are able to make truly informed decisions."

Another significant shift has appeared in our attitudes towards pornography. "We've seen a gradual increase in favour of banning the distribution of pornography since the '70s," says Bibby. Currently, more than 40 per cent of the population -- and almost half of adult women -- would have us not just regulate, but prohibit pornography entirely. Younger women, age 18 to 34, are more open-minded about it than boomer women and, perhaps not surprisingly, men are far more likely than women to indicate approval of such pastimes as phone sex and viewing pornography on the Internet. "My hunch is that many people have linked pornography and phone sex with their concerns about things like child abuse and sexual assault," says Bibby. "But younger women, I think, are not as willing to waive individual rights -- even in an area such a pornography."

Of course, McKay points out that the findings may have a lot to do with how our interpretation of the word "pornography" has evolved. "I think many people today -- when you use the term 'pornography' -- are going to associate it with images that are clearly harmful, such as child pornography and sexually violent material," he says. "Whereas in the 1970s, when you mentioned pornography, that could include everything from Playboy to Lady Chatterley's Lover."

Perhaps the only area in which there has been very little movement is on the subject of abortion. In Canada, 43 per cent of adults agree that women should have the option of a legal abortion upon demand, up from 37 per cent in 1985.(Only a quarter of Americans feel the same way.)In Canada, however, levels of support tend to climb depending on the woman's reason for opting for abortion. For example, if she comes from a very low-income family and cannot afford more children, 58 per cent of people approve. If there is a strong chance of a serious defect in the baby, 86 per cent approve. If a woman's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, 92 per cent approve. These numbers, amazingly, remain virtually unchanged since 1975. "When you get into these specific kinds of areas, it seems like people are just locked into them," says Bibby. "Obviously the religious factor is an important one, but other people who are not necessarily actively involved in religious groups are still very much anti-abortion. It's simply an area where there hasn't been much movement over time."

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060701_130104_130104

I've been to the US too.

It does look similar. We have the same language, with almost identical accents, same city layouts (houses in suburbs and city centres w/ skyscrapers), which are different than Europe's. But we have fundamental differences, especially with respect to religion which forms a major component of culture. Our conservatives are more liberal than than their democrats. We have Quebec. There are major societal differences.




True, but we have those same differences within our own Country, with almost the same numbers between states...

And, you have Quebec, we also have Louisiana...French culture's actually pretty big down here as well...

Idk, Im willing to bet that your Alabama has alot in common with our California...

Its actually been asked before...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/CanadiansForAnnexation2001.png/350px-CanadiansForAnnexation2001.png

Considering such a radical proposal, 20% aint bad...

Actually I fucked up. Alberta is our Texas, not our Alabama. Sorry.

And, it was down to 7% in 2004:


Percent of population in each region who supported U.S. annexation in a 2001 survey by Léger Marketing, also shown in blue on the pie charts.[1] A poll by the same company in 2004 [2] found only 7% support across Canada.

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

You guys seem more eager:

"4 in 10 Americans support annexing Canada: Poll

Updated Mon. Oct. 14 2002 1:01 PM ET"
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1034541784098_126///?hub=Canada

True, but we have those same differences within our own Country, with almost the same numbers between states...

And, you have Quebec, we also have Louisiana...French culture's actually pretty big down here as well...

Quebec and Louisiana are not comparable. Seriously.

Actually I fucked up. Alberta is our Texas, not our Alabama. Sorry.

And, it was down to 7% in 2004:


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

You guys seem more eager:

"4 in 10 Americans support annexing Canada: Poll

Updated Mon. Oct. 14 2002 1:01 PM ET"
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1034541784098_126///?hub=Canada

Of course we're more eager, we would be annexing you in that poll...

But, Im saying with between 7%-20% in support of a forcible takeover, an Alliance, which, mind you, largely already exists, making this more of a strengthening of said alliance, would probably be an easy sell...

And, you have Quebec, we also have Louisiana...French culture's actually pretty big down here as well...
Bit of a difference to say the least.

Quebec and Louisiana are not comparable. Seriously.

Im just saying, culture wise, we also have French influence...Not politics wise...

Im just saying, culture wise, we also have French influence...Not politics wise...
*stretches hands really far apart*

That's how different Quebec and Louisiana are.

*stretches hands really far apart*

That's how different Quebec and Louisiana are.

Oh i know, as previously mentioned, Im just saying there's also a french influence here...dont read into that anymore than that, lol...


EDIT: Besides, Quebec had our largest support, lol...

Skallvia, do you type :cool: in the title of all your posts, or is it just automatically there already?

EDIT: Besides, Quebec had our largest support, lol...
Yeah no idea why that would be tbqh. You'l be getting more eh croissants or something, but so much more complaining about les ricains bêtes etc.

Skallvia, do you type :cool: in the title of all your posts, or is it just automatically there already?

Yeah no idea why that would be tbqh. You'l be getting more eh croissants or something, but so much more complaining about les ricains bêtes etc.

Id say that the Quebecois Independence Party, or whatever, would probably vote for any proposal that involved leaving Canada, thats probably why, lol...

And, yeah, I just started doing that when I first showed up, and continued doing so...Actually comes in handy when you want to find your own posts quickly and read for people arguing with you, lol...

Of course we're more eager, we would be annexing you in that poll...

But, Im saying with between 7%-20% in support of a forcible takeover, an Alliance, which, mind you, largely already exists, making this more of a strengthening of said alliance, would probably be an easy sell...

Actually that poll sounds like a joke, especially given the high percentage in Quebec. Seriously.

We have a military alliance and an economic pact. Thats enough.

Id say that the Quebecois Independence Party, or whatever, would probably vote for any proposal that involved leaving Canada, thats probably why, lol...
Yeah they certainly are treasonous.

I'm drunk.



Thus, I'll comment on this tomorrow.

Actually that poll sounds like a joke, especially given the high percentage in Quebec. Seriously.

We have a military alliance and an economic pact. Thats enough.

When I tried to call it an Empire, I was told that that was what he was proposing, thats why Im all :confused: since we already have that...

Itd probably be more efficient to just have us join the Commonwealth of Nations...

Itd cement the "Special Relationship" and give 'er a more concrete foundation...

When I tried to call it an Empire, I was told that that was what he was proposing, thats why Im all :confused: since we already have that...

Itd probably be more efficient to just have us join the Commonwealth of Nations...

Itd cement the "Special Relationship" and give 'er a more concrete foundation...

Whats special about Free Trade? We have that with many countries, not just with US.

And in near future, prolly whole world will have that thx to WTO.

And in near future, prolly whole world will have that thx to WTO.

Ahahahaha, no.

Whats special about Free Trade? We have that with many countries, not just with US.

And in near future, prolly whole world will have that thx to WTO.

Not free trade, I meant this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship
The Special Relationship is a phrase often used to describe the exceptionally close political, diplomatic, cultural and historical relations between the United States and the United Kingdom, following its use in a 1946 speech by British statesman Winston Churchill. While both countries maintain close relationships with many others, the level of cooperation in military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapons technology and intelligence sharing with each other has been described as "unparalleled" among major powers.[1] The special relationship was most recently demonstrated by British support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

In terms of political alignment, the best thing the U.S. could do would be try to enhance the economic, social, political and militaristic bonds between the Anglo countries.....UK, US, Canda, AUS, NZ . . . and maybe 20 years ago South Africa, maybe.

US should work on increasing economic freedom, trade and relations between those areas, creating an Anglo-economic zone. It would work because, although we vary in our extremes, all of these countries are liberal democracies and share core values.

Concessions will have to be made, but the alliance will focus on a more limited government, a sense of private entrepreneurship, lower taxes, high pripority of efficient market economics and free-trade. Perhaps also free movement throughout the Anglo zone or something like that. It will be at the heart an economic union and perhaps lead to the creation of a single currency zone. Social issues and national laws should be left to each independent nation to decide, usually, though protectionists laws and such that violate the purpose of the economic alliance will be made illegal.

1. Do you think it's a good idea or bad idea? Why?

2. What do you think it would take for your country (assuming you're a member of one of the above Anglo countries, to join?


Fundamentally, the idea is based on sound principles. Tariff-free trade and freedom of movement between countries of relatively similar economic development would not prove a problem. The difficulty arises in the situation that an international organisation to manage or oversee this trade comes to exist. In that event, the probability of the trade remaining legitimately free, and this union legitimately promoting economic freedom, is very low.

Likewise, the idea of a common currency rings of an overarching organisation managing said currency, and a reduction of economic freedom.

As for all the debate about the term "Anglo", honestly, get over yourselves. The name reminds me more of the real organisation la Francophonie -- the organisation in which French-speaking nations interact. Besides, none of the English-speaking nations listed are homogeneously White. The idea that this would be racially-based and support liberal ideals such as economic freedom and a small state is contradictory.

Regarding national concessions, the organisation should not have the ability to render laws that violate the free market ideals of this union illegal. Rather, nations should be free to alter their tariffs with the deterrent of their union partners acting in turn.

The fundamental assumption this union relies upon is that these nations all value a liberal, free market economy. If they do, they would understand these lower tariffs, free movement, smaller governments, and lower taxes are the best way to accumulate private capital, increase the standard of living, advance technologically, etc.

However, in contrast to this are the current measures being taken by governments worldwide, bailing out failing companies in a system of socialised losses, and privatised profits. With such values, the mere recognition of the free market's ability to maintain itself, not to mention the realisation of a plan of this sort, appears absolutely unattainable.

Why?

Cause secret clubs are fun.

*sticks "no girlz allowed" sign outside NATO building*

*snip*

I agree, Free Trade is a poor reason for joining in any alliance, I dont even like NAFTA, its hurt the US more than any other program of the 90's...

But, I do think a strengthening of our Military alliances (which is something we already have with the majority of nations mentioned) is needed, if for no other reason than letting petty arguments like who gives a better gift (ok,jk, but you get the point, lol) start putting us in a weaker position...

We have the same language, with almost identical accents

More like exactly the same. I have never been able to distinguish a Canadian from an American by accent alone.

As a purely economic "union" I'd have to say...maybe...probably...

More like exactly the same. I have never been able to distinguish a Canadian from an American by accent alone.

Listen to our accent then compare it with a Canadian, youll see the difference, eh?

In fact, my dad, who has a more pronounced accent, has a real problem getting service north of the Mason-Dixon line, we're not that popular for some reason, lol...

I agree, Free Trade is a poor reason for joining in any alliance, I dont even like NAFTA, its hurt the US more than any other program of the 90's...

NAFTA =/= free trade (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch20.html)

Listen to our accent then compare it with a Canadian, youll see the difference, eh?

In fact, my dad, who has a more pronounced accent, has a real problem getting service north of the Mason-Dixon line, we're not that popular for some reason, lol...

Being a Mississippian, you will obviously see a radical difference. Not so for a Minnesotan. ;)

NAFTA =/= free trade (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch20.html)

Exactly, thats what any of these supposed unions based on "free trade" will inevitably become...

Leave the Alliances to Diplomacy/Military...keep the Economy out of it...

You can base your diplomacy on it, just dont base your alliances on it...

I agree, Free Trade is a poor reason for joining in any alliance, I dont even like NAFTA, its hurt the US more than any other program of the 90's...

But, I do think a strengthening of our Military alliances (which is something we already have with the majority of nations mentioned) is needed, if for no other reason than letting petty arguments like who gives a better gift (ok,jk, but you get the point, lol) from putting us in a weaker position...
I do believe you've missed my point.

Free trade is an ideal reason to enter into a relationship with another nation. However, I cannot agree to an organisation with supranational power in the name of free trade. Such an organisation, rather than supporting liberal ideals such as the free market, economic freedom, freedom of movement, and so on, supports the coercive control of both the economy and nations. Establishing an organisation to facilitate free trade and a free market violates the fundamental attempt of the organisation: free trade need not be regulated.

A strengthening of the military solidarity between these nations would not be catastrophic; however, it would be very worrisome in our current state. A hawkish United States with increased military support sounds, frankly, horrible. Nonetheless, idealistically, were the situation to arise in which the mentioned states all stood in staunch support of an array of liberal values -- thus taking a non-interventionist stance, while promoting free trade and commercial relation with all nations -- military support for one another would not prove disconcerting, as it would be used solely in defence.

I do believe you've missed my point.

Free trade is an ideal reason to enter into a relationship with another nation. However, I cannot agree to an organisation with supranational power in the name of free trade. Such an organisation, rather than supporting liberal ideals such as the free market, economic freedom, freedom of movement, and so on, supports the coercive control of both the economy and nations. Establishing an organisation to facilitate free trade and a free market violates the fundamental attempt of the organisation: free trade need not be regulated.

Well, thats the thing, any alliance based on free trade, will inevitably fall into regulating one nation or another, because with differing economies, eventually one would need, and/or want something another would not, therefore someone's free trade rights would be trampled...


A strengthening of the military solidarity between these nations would not be catastrophic; however, it would be very worrisome in our current state. A hawkish United States with increased military support sounds, frankly, horrible. Nonetheless, idealistically, were the situation to arise in which the mentioned states all stood in staunch support of an array of liberal values -- thus taking a non-interventionist stance, while promoting free trade and commercial relation with all nations -- military support for one another would not prove disconcerting, as it would be used solely in defence.
Idk, I wouldnt call Obama and the Democrats "Hawkish" were it not for the fact that we are already in a war, id imagine thats how they would want to use the US Military, and presumably the supposed Alliance as a whole...

More like exactly the same. I have never been able to distinguish a Canadian from an American by accent alone.

No? There are variations within Canada and within US as well. I think it should be fairly easy even for non North Americans to recognize southern US accent.

Many (most?) Québécois have French accents. In eastern canada, "r" s are a bit different. Like when you say bar, the emphasis is on ae while americans emphasize r. Ou sounds are quite different too like "out". Newfies have their own accent. And then we have the accent of our news reporters, which is a bit British (like how they say toronto, last t sounds like a t instead of d-ish or winter sounds like winter instead of kinda like winder)

Edit: This is what I was trying to say:


Canadian raising

Perhaps the most recognizable feature of CanE is Canadian raising. The diphthongs /aɪ/ and /aʊ/ are "raised" before voiceless consonants, namely /p/, /t/, /k/, /s/, and /f/. In these environments, /aɪ/ becomes [ʌɪ~ɜɪ~ɐɪ]. One of the few phonetic variables that divides Canadians regionally is the articulation of the raised allophone of /aʊ/: in Ontario, it tends to have a mid-central or even mid-front articulation, sometimes approaching [ɛʊ], while in the West and Maritimes a more retracted sound is heard, closer to [ʌʊ].[22] Among some speakers in the Prairies and in Nova Scotia, the retraction is strong enough to cause some tokens of raised /aʊ/ to merge with /oʊ/, so that couch and coach sound the same, and about sounds like a boat (though never like a boot, as in the American stereotype of Canadian raising). Canadian raising is found throughout Canada, including much of the Atlantic Provinces.[3] It is the strongest in the Inland region, and is receding in younger speakers in Lower Mainland British Columbia, as well as certain parts of Ontario.

Many Canadians, especially in parts of the Atlantic provinces, do not possess Canadian raising. In the U.S., this feature can be found in areas near the border such as the Upper Midwest, although it is much less common than in Canada; raising of /aɪ/ alone, however, is increasing in the U.S., and unlike raising of /aʊ/, is generally not noticed by people who do not have the raising.

Because of Canadian raising, many speakers are able to distinguish between words such as writer and rider—a feat otherwise impossible, because North American dialects turn intervocalic /t/ into an alveolar flap. Thus writer and rider are distinguished solely by their vowels, even though the distinction between their consonants has since been lost. Speakers who do not have raising cannot distinguish between these two words.

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

Its largely beside the point anyway, it already exists...

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABCA_Armies

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_relations#Present_status

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Australia_Relations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_relations

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

And for those who want to expand membership, See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization

I've listed tons of reason . . . read the OP and through the thread.
What I've read still leaves me very, very dubious, just like before. I've seen no valid argument in favour.

EU doesn't apply and neither does Japan. I'm using liberal democracy in the terms of Comparative Political Economy. Thus, most EU states are social democracies and Japan is a rather mercantalist economy.

Excuse me: UK is more of a social democracy than Italy is, just to make an example. UK citizens (and even residents) get money from the government if they're unemployed. Italian citizens don't.
Ireland's growth ("Celtic tiger") has been largely financed by the EU (so, not very "liberal" - quite statalist instead).

No, really, I cannot think of a valid ground for that Anglothingy except for the Former British Empire thing.

(By the way: you left out Malta, Israel and Palestine!)

- Involves South Africans, who I personally dislike

Whom.

EU doesn't apply and neither does Japan. I'm using liberal democracy in the terms of Comparative Political Economy. Thus, most EU states are social democracies and Japan is a rather mercantalist economy.

So you wouldn't mind the social economies in the Republic of Ireland and the UK, just none of the other ones in the EU?

I don't know about everyone. Perhaps leave out nations with Human Rights violations, or especially strict command-esque economies that could drag other nations down.
So that's the United States out then.

We're left with, Canada, Australia, NZ and bit parts of the EU. Yeh, I'll just stick with the EU thanks.


Excuse me: UK is more of a social democracy than Italy is, just to make an example. UK citizens (and even residents) get money from the government if they're unemployed. Italian citizens don't.
Ireland's growth ("Celtic tiger") has been largely financed by the EU (so, not very "liberal" - quite statalist instead).

No, really, I cannot think of a valid ground for that Anglothingy except for the Former British Empire thing.

*gives a cookie* :)

We're left with, Canada, Australia, NZ and bit parts of the EU. Yeh, I'll just stick with the EU thanks.


We could always make the monarchies that are in personal union with the British Crown eligible for EU membership.

That is: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Fiji.

Though Saint Kitts and Nevis are bad because they reinstated the death penalty. Bad Kittens!

:fluffle: mmmh... biscuits...

We could always make the monarchies that are in personal union with the British Crown eligible for EU membership.

That is: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Fiji.

Though Saint Kitts and Nevis are bad because they reinstated the death penalty. Bad Kittens!

:fluffle: mmmh... biscuits...

I kind of like the idea. Although I think out of respect to the new members, we'd have to rename the whole thing. European Union would be a bit euro-centric, I would imagine.

I kind of like the idea. Although I think out of respect to the new members, we'd have to rename the whole thing. European Union would be a bit euro-centric, I would imagine.

EurAmOcian Union!

Or also: "Happy Federative Commonwealth Of More Or Less Democratical States All Around The World Be They Monarchies Or Republics".

Or also: "Happy Federative Commonwealth
Of More Or Less Democratical States All Around The World Be They Monarchies Or Republics".

I vote for this name on the merit of it making me laugh a lot. :D

Fair enough. With you, not your country.

Actually, Scotland is a fairly left wing country.

An alliance of nations based on race?

*twitch*

Where does it say anything about being based on race?

This "Anglo Union" smacks of a white pride, Aryan Nations, globalist fantasy, and would have just as much purpose.

That's why India, Pakistan, the Phillipines, a huge chunk of Africa, Papua New Guinea etc etc were all included then, is it?

-snip OP-.

Nope. I love my country (America). I won't stand for her to be anything but independent. If this were to occur you can bet your ass you'll be seeing my name on INTERPOL's most wanted list because I WILL be fighting against it, vociferously.

Nope. I love my country (America). I won't stand for her to be anything but independent. If this were to occur you can bet your ass you'll be seeing my name on INTERPOL's most wanted list because I WILL be fighting against it, vociferously.

What has given you the idea that the countries that belong to the EU aren't independent?

What has given you the idea that the countries that belong to the EU aren't independent?

Never said they were. But I assumed by Anglo-Union he meant a more centralized, Federal State. If he purely meant a European Union type situation I'm completely okay with that. Maybe I didn't read it closely enough, if thats the case then my bad.


Well, I shouldn't say completely okay. I don't believe that the EU is a good idea in itself. I'd oppose it, but not violently. The main issue I see with the EU is that it is, I feel, an economic hinderence to the growth of the more developed countries (i.e Germany, France), and only benefits the lesser developed nations (Italy, Spain, Greece, etc).

Never said they were. But I assumed by Anglo-Union he meant a more centralized, Federal State. If he purely meant a European Union type situation I'm completely okay with that. Maybe I didn't read it closely enough, if thats the case then my bad.

By what I read of the OP, that's exactly what was meant.

No problem though.

Nope. I love my country (America). I won't stand for her to be anything but independent. If this were to occur you can bet your ass you'll be seeing my name on INTERPOL's most wanted list because I WILL be fighting against it, vociferously.

I don't think you need to worry about Interpol, they usually don't pay much heed to people shouting loudly.

The main issue I see with the EU is that it is, I feel, an economic hinderence to the growth of the more developed countries (i.e Germany, France)
Ye....ah. Nevermind the free access to the open markets of 25 other countries surrounding them. We'll just forget that insignificant little point.

Ye....ah. Nevermind the free access to the open markets of 25 other countries surrounding them. We'll just forget that insignificant little point.

Or the freedom EU citizens have to move from country to the other. Such a hindrance.

Well, I shouldn't say completely okay. I don't believe that the EU is a good idea in itself. I'd oppose it, but not violently. The main issue I see with the EU is that it is, I feel, an economic hinderence to the growth of the more developed countries (i.e Germany, France), and only benefits the lesser developed nations (Italy, Spain, Greece, etc).

Dear o dear o dear.....

Did you say you were an intelligence gatherer or something?

1. Do you think it's a good idea or bad idea? Why?

2. What do you think it would take for your country (assuming you're a member of one of the above Anglo countries, to join?

I think it's a bad idea due to the great disparities in culture and economic systems.

...

Really, it's a gift of history that our countries are so similar and we should take advantage of that to create a huge free-economic/free movement/free trade zone.

A gift of history? Is that what you call British Imperialism? I highly doubt that the slaves in the hull would have agreed with you. I guess if you're a white, landowning anglo male, it could be considered that, but not for most humans.

....And if it was to be just for 'White man rule', as you said, why are we including:

India.
Those two tiny countries in South and Central America.
That country close to India, and Pakistan...

...And if he's so Racist, why is he including those other African Countries?

That's why India, Pakistan, the Phillipines, a huge chunk of Africa, Papua New Guinea etc etc were all included then, is it?

Did all of you forget to read the OP? TAI specifically excludes all those countries. Go back and reread the sentence above the map. I even quoted it for you so that you can't pretend that you didn't read it:

...
Would look something like this, minus the light blue countries (G-o-g:those would be the countries in Africa and Asia) and any south and central american countries:

Did all of you forget to read the OP? TAI specifically excludes all those countries. Go back and reread the sentence above the map. I even quoted it for you so that you can't pretend that you didn't read it:


...
Would look something like this, minus the light blue countries (G-o-g:those would be the countries in Africa and Asia)and any south and central american countries:



You missed the best line:

In terms of political alignment, the best thing the U.S. could do would be try to enhance the economic, social, political and militaristic bonds between the Anglo countries.....UK, US, Canda, AUS, NZ . . . and maybe 20 years ago South Africa, maybe.


Hmmm....what's changed about South Africa in the last twenty years, I wonder?

Oh, right. (http://www.africanaencyclopedia.com/apartheid/apartheid.html)

I don't know about everyone. Perhaps leave out nations with Human Rights violations...
There goes the US and the UK then.

You missed the best line:



Hmmm....what's changed about South Africa in the last twenty years, I wonder?

Oh, right. (http://www.africanaencyclopedia.com/apartheid/apartheid.html)

Trostia already pointed that out ad nauseam.

There goes the US and the UK then.

If we count human rights abuses against aboriginal groups, we can disqualify Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (I'm not sure about this actually), and that leaves....um....

There goes the US and the UK then.

There goes every nation on the planet, in reality.

If we count human rights abuses against aboriginal groups, we can disqualify Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (I'm not sure about this actually), and that leaves....um....
Apartheid South Africa!

Oh, wait...

We could always make the monarchies that are in personal union with the British Crown eligible for EU membership.

That is: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Fiji.

Though Saint Kitts and Nevis are bad because they reinstated the death penalty. Bad Kittens!

:fluffle: mmmh... biscuits...

w/ caribbean? Fuck no.

Really, it's a gift of history that our countries are so similar and we should take advantage of that to create a huge free-economic/free movement/free trade zone.

As I said b4, I dont see the "so similar" from this side of the border.

There goes every nation on the planet, in reality.

^ This.

Anyway, what it comes down to is the "culture" one wants in an economic agreement of any kind is not "Anglo culture," it is business itself. Is there good business to be had? Will it benefit those involved? Why not involve more? If the questions you're instead asking are, "Do they speak English at home?" then you're essentially saying there's no good business to be had between "Anglo" nations and anyone else. Trade between Japan and the US for example. Which is ridiculously short-sighted, since even companies from "non-Anglo" nations share enough language and economic interactions to add benefit to trade.

The EU works (allegedly) because it's a mostly contiguous geographic bloc. The only real connection the "Anglo" nations have are being once part of the British Empire. That ship's sailed.

Never said they were. But I assumed by Anglo-Union he meant a more centralized, Federal State. If he purely meant a European Union type situation I'm completely okay with that. Maybe I didn't read it closely enough, if thats the case then my bad.
I didn't mean a political union and 1 government, I meant an economic union with the creation of an Anglo-economic alliance that would be a free trade, single currency /free movement zone.

In action, economically, it would be like a HUGE expansion of the 'domestic' markets of the UK, America, Aus, Canada etc.

I think it's a bad idea due to the great disparities in culture and economic systems.
In comparison to their relations to the rest of the world, the countries I've mention are all ridiculously close, economcially, linguistically, historically, culturally and militarily, already. We now push them closer?


A gift of history?
Of course. Neither America, Canada, Australia nor New Zealand would have existed without the British.


As I said b4, I dont see the "so similar" from this side of the border.
I know that some Canadains, like you, love to try to at best downplay and at worst ignore the similarity and closeness between America and Canada, but it's a bit ridiculous, to be honest.
Anyway, what it comes down to is the "culture" one wants in an economic agreement of any kind is not "Anglo culture," it is business itself. Is there good business to be had? Will it benefit those involved? Why not involve more? If the questions you're instead asking are, "Do they speak English at home?" then you're essentially saying there's no good business to be had between "Anglo" nations and anyone else. Trade between Japan and the US for example. Which is ridiculously short-sighted, since even companies from "non-Anglo" nations share enough language and economic interactions to add benefit to trade.

The EU works (allegedly) because it's a mostly contiguous geographic bloc. The only real connection the "Anglo" nations have are being once part of the British Empire. That ship's sailed.
I'm not gonna talk to you about the cultural parts because you obviously don't agree, but economically it is good business:

I didn't mean a political union and 1 government, I meant an economic union with the creation of an Anglo-economic alliance that would be a free trade, single currency /free movement zone.

In action, economically, it would be like a HUGE expansion of the 'domestic' markets of the UK, America, Aus, Canada etc.

Man, most of those countries (including some of the light blue ones) are already in a commonwealth. It's your (Americans) own damn fault you're not in it.

Also, I fail to see the point. Canada already gets the short end of the stick from the US in NAFTA, why would we want another set of trade agreements your country won't hold its end of the bargain on? Not to mention the fact that we have one French speaking province... what do they get left out of this agreement despite sharing a country with others who are a part of it?

I didn't mean a political union and 1 government, I meant an economic union with the creation of an Anglo-economic alliance that would be a free trade, single currency /free movement zone.

In action, economically, it would be like a HUGE expansion of the 'domestic' markets of the UK, America, Aus, Canada etc.


Ah okay, my mistake then. I definitely didn't read it closely enough, thanks for clarifying! I wouldn't necessarily oppose it, but I'm not sure I'd be entirely for it either. I say that because I do not believe that, economically, we (Americans), would benefit from it. Maybe the whole (Anglo-world) might, but would it per se give any special advantages to the US? I don't believe so. Basically it'd be more or less a regression to the mean for the benefit of all type scenario, and I'm not too keen on that.

Ah okay, my mistake then. I definitely didn't read it closely enough, thanks for clarifying! I wouldn't necessarily oppose it, but I'm not sure I'd be entirely for it either. I say that because I do not believe that, economically, we (Americans), would benefit from it. Maybe the whole (Anglo-world) might, but would it per se give any special advantages to the US? I don't believe so. Basically it'd be more or less a regression to the mean for the benefit of all type scenario, and I'm not too keen on that.
Sure. More domestic markets to sell in. Bigger base of consumers to sell to.

Look, from an American viewpoint, though I hate to say this because it would sound offensive to the hypothetical non-American members, it would be (ONLY economically) like a bunch of new states were added to our union, where it's far easier to do business than abroad. That means no extra costs of shipping, doing business between 'borders', no visas nor passports to go between the countries, students can easily study in each other's universities, a single currency for all those countries, etc etc etc

Sure. More domestic markets to sell in. Bigger base of consumers to sell to.

Look, from an American viewpoint, though I hate to say this because it would sound offensive to the hypothetical non-American members, it would be (ONLY economically) like a bunch of new states were added to our union, where it's far easier to do business than abroad. That means no extra costs of shipping, doing business between 'borders', no visas nor passports to go between the countries, students can easily study in each other's universities, a single currency for all those countries, etc etc etc

Hmm...interesting idea, I didn't think of it that way. I'd be curious to hear what some actual economists would make of the idea.

I'm not gonna talk to you about the cultural parts because you obviously don't agree, but economically it is good business:

In what way is what you propose better business than existing trade networks in those nations?

Look, I'm a classic liberal, I believe in free trade. For that reason I have a very skeptical eye to the so-called free trade advocated by so-called conservatives - the same people who will be the first to whine about immigrants "taking jobs," like I guess the free market is cool except when it's too competitive. (I.E., NOT a free market policy.) But simply waving the flag of free trade won't do it when what I see is clearly not free trade. Like an economic union based on "culture."

In what way is what you propose better business than existing trade networks in those nations?

Look, I'm a classic liberal, I believe in free trade. For that reason I have a very skeptical eye to the so-called free trade advocated by so-called conservatives - the same people who will be the first to whine about immigrants "taking jobs," like I guess the free market is cool except when it's too competitive. (I.E., NOT a free market policy.) But simply waving the flag of free trade won't do it when what I see is clearly not free trade. Like an economic union based on "culture."
It's an economic union (since we already have a military-technological alliance with those nations) based on political-economic-cultural-linguistical compatability. The more we share in common, the easier it is to come together.

I know that some Canadains, like you, love to try to at best downplay and at worst ignore the similarity and closeness between America and Canada, but it's a bit ridiculous, to be honest.


I explained here. I still maintain that we do not share same values with US. So EU-ish measures w/ US would be bad for Canada.

I've been to the US too.

It does look similar. We have the same language, with almost identical accents, same city layouts (houses in suburbs and city centres w/ skyscrapers), which are different than Europe's. But we have fundamental differences, especially with respect to religion which forms a major component of culture. Our conservatives are more liberal than than their democrats. We have Quebec. There are major societal differences.


Maclean's Poll 2006: What we believe

We want to ban porn. We're unsure about abortion. But gay adoption is fine. Just how did we get here?

LIANNE GEORGE | Jul 04, 2006

In late 2003, around the time our government began experimenting in earnest with legalizing gay marriage and decriminalizing marijuana, The Economist pronounced -- rather grudgingly, and with all sorts of caveats -- that Canada had become "rather cool." Not cold. Cool. It was a giddy moment, and we've grown quite attached to this view of our country, forgetting perhaps that Canada the Cool -- the Open-minded, the Progressive, the Inclusive -- is actually a very modern concept. As recently as the early '70s, nobody would have accused us of that. Back then, contentious issues were bubbling to the surface. Activists, academics and policy wonks squabbled over how to establish feasible guidelines for gender equality, bilingualism and multiculturalism overnight. In 1975, Reginald W. Bibby, then an assistant professor of sociology at York University, took this charged moment as a perfect opportunity to conduct one of the first-ever wide-scale surveys designed to map out the values, attitudes and beliefs espoused by Canadians. As it turned out, your average Canadian circa 1975 -- despite a probable affinity for Bad Company and K.C. & The Sunshine Band -- was pretty square. More than a third of us, for instance, believed that a woman shouldn't work outside the home if her husband was capable of supporting her. Half of us believed that black people and white people should not marry. Three quarters of us believed homosexuality was aberrant -- and abhorrent. "The fact of the matter is," says Bibby, "the data back then really shows that bigotry was alive and well. We were pretty down on a lot of groups."

But even then, it was clear that baby boomers -- born between 1946 and 1964 -- held markedly different views from their parents and grandparents. As a group, they were veering off into some trippy social territory. "In a number of areas, like homosexuality, there was a dramatic, geometric jump in approval," says Bibby, now a professor of sociology at the University of Lethbridge. He continued his research, now referred to as the Project Canada Survey Series, for the next 30 years, presenting boomers with the same questions every five years, and comparing their answers to those of Canadians younger and older. His data, to be published this fall in a book called The Boomer Factor: What Canada's Most Famous Generation is Leaving Behind, explores how this generation has reformed, reshaped and reimagined the country, and the attitudinal legacy boomers will leave behind as their years of influence draw to a close.

Bibby's findings -- to which Maclean's was given exclusive advance access -- illustrate how, in only three decades, we have transformed ourselves from a relatively homogenous group into one of the most pluralistic societies in the world. More than anything, says Bibby, Canadians today identify personal freedom as our No. 1 goal -- above family life, friendship, a comfortable life, or a rewarding career. And because we demand the freedom to make our own choices, the thinking goes, we'd best be willing to grant the same privilege to others -- to live and let live. Which, it turns out, is what we've done. "Over a very short period of time," says Bibby, "we've taken a multi-everything outlook in Canada."

Today, we can see this philosophy starkly reflected in our views on non-traditional lifestyles and family configurations. Forty per cent of Canadians believe there is no one ideal family model. "Thirty years ago, there was only one type of family as far as most people were concerned: mother, father and 1.7 kids," says Alan Mirabelli of the Ottawa-based Vanier Institute of the Family. But the boomer generation and their children have grown familiar with divorced, single-parent and combined family scenarios, and Canadians are now less likely to say, with any certainly, that only the nuclear family model works. "By and large," says Mirabelli, "if people have had a good experience in their own family life growing up, they aspire to repeat that experience. If their family form was mother, father, 1.7 kids, then that's what they aspire to for themselves. If they've been through a divorce and had a step-parent relationship and it's been successful, they're more likely to say there is no ideal form."

This same attitude extends to our feelings about interracial and homosexual relationships. For example, in 1975, only 55 per cent of Canadians approved of whites and blacks marrying. Today, 94 per cent are perfectly happy with the idea. Likewise, approval of same-sex relationships hovered at only 28 per cent then; today, more than two thirds of us approve. "From 1990 to 2005, there was just a dramatic shift there," says Bibby of gay issues in general. "We're one of the world leaders there. I'd like to think AIDS awareness had something to do with it. And there's a sense of more compassion. The media and a lot of high profile people have certainly gotten behind the rights and the difficulties of people who are gay and lesbian." Gay marriage, while it remains a contentious issue, has the wholehearted approval of almost half of all Canadians, and an additional 22 per cent who disapprove on a personal level say they accept gay marriage as a matter of civil rights. Similarly, 61 per cent of Canadians believe that gay couples should be able to adopt, including the 21 per cent who personally disapprove of the idea.

Many of these changes have come about as a result of Canada's official policies of multiculturalism, and from personal experiences. Then there's the XX Factor: Canadians have become more tolerant, Bibby argues, as a result of women's increased public influence. According to his findings, women are quantifiably the more compassionate sex. And as they've come to establish a stronger voice in public life, they've helped to guide and shape the broader public's views on "person-related" issues such as same-sex marriage, child abuse, pornography, poverty, and racial and gender discrimination. "Whether it was in 1975, or in any survey since," says Bibby, "the proportion of women who saw these issues as very serious would invariably exceed that of males." Only one third of boomer men approved of homosexuality in 1975, compared to over half of boomer women. Today, 76 per cent of Canadian women say they approve of or accept gay marriage, compared to only 63 per cent of men.

This trend continues to accelerate among the younger generation. "Teens in general simply are so much more accepting of diversity," says Bibby. "They're more compassionate in areas relating to things like capital punishment and euthanasia, and open to religion and spirituality. But they're led by young women." Today, 83 per cent of women age 18 to 34 accept gay marriage, the highest acceptance rate of any group surveyed.

Part of what differentiates modern Canadians from our American counterparts is the fact that we generally tend to embrace the notion of relativism -- the idea that when it comes to lifestyle choices, there are no absolutes. "Americans still believe in truth," says Bibby. "They really do maintain that there are some things that are true and some things that are false." Canadians, however, are more likely to see things in increments of right-ish and wrong-ish. The most important reason for this, he says, is the religious composition of our respective societies. Roughly a third of Americans identify themselves as members of evangelical or conservative Protestant groups(compared to eight per cent of Canadians), which leads them to adhere to very traditional family values. "That kind of composition simply translates into some very important differences," he says. "If you look at the evangelicals in the U.S. and Canada, the percentage who are opposed to, say, gay marriage is almost identical. If you look at mainline Protestants here -- like Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- and you match them up against their counterparts in the U.S., they come out very much the same. Catholics come out very much the same on both sides, too. So the thing that tips the scale is that American life is characterized by such a large number of evangelicals. They shape the overall picture."

As such, the two countries' views on social and sexual diversity remain notably different. For instance, more than a quarter of Americans disapprove of marriage between blacks and whites. In the U.S., only 64 per cent of people believe that immigration is good for the country, compared to 78 per cent of Canadians. And while 60 per cent of Canadians approve of homosexual relations, only 38 per cent of Americans feel the same way. "There is a much stronger pocket of American society that holds what can still legitimately be called highly Puritan values toward sexuality, which are closely linked to taboo and shame," says Alexander McKay, research coordinator for the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada(SIECCAN)in Toronto. "That's why something like the exposure of Janet Jackson's nipple [on TV] would be seen as an inherently harmful thing, whereas here, we might scratch our heads and wonder what's the big deal."

When it comes to marijuana, that most contentious of plants, Canadians are, if anything, more in favour of legalization now than ever. Sixty-three per cent of us say we accept recreational pot use in general(including 29 per cent who wholly approve of the practice). Support jumps even higher -- to a whopping 93 per cent acceptance rate -- when it comes to the legal use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. By contrast, only about a third of Americans say they would support legalization.

And yet, while Canadians are collectively more open-minded than our southern neighbours, we still tend to aspire to very traditional lifestyles for ourselves. Most of us say that, ideally, we envision ourselves belonging to a traditional nuclear family. We plan to marry and have children, and we plan for those marriages to last forever. "Despite the family experiences of many Canadians in the post-1960s," says Bibby, "what is changing are the outcomes -- not the aspirations."

We also wish the same for our children. For instance, 73 per cent of Canadians approve of the idea of couples living together without being married; when it comes to their own child, however, only 53 per cent of people say they would approve. Similarly, while 70 per cent of people approve of divorce in the general population, only 41 per cent say they would approve of their own child getting a divorce. But there's an important distinction between "approve" and "accept": even if Canadians say they don't approve, the overwhelming majority of us say we would be willing to accept our children's choices. "The family is the most adaptive institution in the world," says Mirabelli. "It's very much like an elastic band. It stretches and contracts depending on the economy and the culture which surrounds it."

In other ways, certain groups have seemingly become more conservative in the decades following the sexual revolution of the late '60s and early '70s. During that period, and in the time immediately following, Canadians' acceptance of sexual experimentation was at an all-time high. For the first time in modern history, relatively large numbers of us mused openly about the possibility that monogamous relationships -- and by extension traditional marriages -- were passé. "In 1975, by way of illustration, the percentage of boomers who said they approved of extramarital sex was 26 per cent," says Bibby. "Now, it's down to 16 per cent. I think some of that reflected just the immediate impact of the sexual revolution. That was the mood of the time." Among younger Canadians today, those numbers are even lower. Only 12 per cent of Canadians age 18 to 34 accept the idea of married people having affairs. Similarly, in 1975, 94 per cent of boomers said they were okay with the idea of premarital sex. Today, among young Canadians age 18 to 34, that number is 77 percent. Bibby theorizes that more youth today may be willing to follow their churches' values than at the height of the sexual revolution.

McKay, however, suggests the drop is more likely the result of a generation of better educated young people. "Young people today are much more knowledgeable about sex -- what they're getting into, what the potential implications are," he says. "And they're far more likely to take precautions." For example, says McKay, recent research shows that sexually active Canadian youth are clearly limiting their number of sexual partners. "I don't think it reflects a return to conservative values," he says. "I think it's a logical extension of the sexual revolution because now people are able to make truly informed decisions."

Another significant shift has appeared in our attitudes towards pornography. "We've seen a gradual increase in favour of banning the distribution of pornography since the '70s," says Bibby. Currently, more than 40 per cent of the population -- and almost half of adult women -- would have us not just regulate, but prohibit pornography entirely. Younger women, age 18 to 34, are more open-minded about it than boomer women and, perhaps not surprisingly, men are far more likely than women to indicate approval of such pastimes as phone sex and viewing pornography on the Internet. "My hunch is that many people have linked pornography and phone sex with their concerns about things like child abuse and sexual assault," says Bibby. "But younger women, I think, are not as willing to waive individual rights -- even in an area such a pornography."

Of course, McKay points out that the findings may have a lot to do with how our interpretation of the word "pornography" has evolved. "I think many people today -- when you use the term 'pornography' -- are going to associate it with images that are clearly harmful, such as child pornography and sexually violent material," he says. "Whereas in the 1970s, when you mentioned pornography, that could include everything from Playboy to Lady Chatterley's Lover."

Perhaps the only area in which there has been very little movement is on the subject of abortion. In Canada, 43 per cent of adults agree that women should have the option of a legal abortion upon demand, up from 37 per cent in 1985.(Only a quarter of Americans feel the same way.)In Canada, however, levels of support tend to climb depending on the woman's reason for opting for abortion. For example, if she comes from a very low-income family and cannot afford more children, 58 per cent of people approve. If there is a strong chance of a serious defect in the baby, 86 per cent approve. If a woman's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, 92 per cent approve. These numbers, amazingly, remain virtually unchanged since 1975. "When you get into these specific kinds of areas, it seems like people are just locked into them," says Bibby. "Obviously the religious factor is an important one, but other people who are not necessarily actively involved in religious groups are still very much anti-abortion. It's simply an area where there hasn't been much movement over time."

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060701_130104_130104

It's an economic union (since we already have a military-technological alliance with those nations) based on political-economic-cultural-linguistical compatability. The more we share in common, the easier it is to come together.

You didn't answer the question: how exactly will this economic union do anything that isn't already being done?

I explained here. I still maintain that we do not share same values with US. So EU-ish measures w/ US would be bad for Canada.
Look, nobody here is doubting that the US is more conservative than Canada, in general. That doesn't mean that we do not share similar values, cultures, histories, nor that we aren't already extremely economicaly, militarily and politically close.

And honestly, we are talking about an economic union. Who the fuck cares about interracial marriage? Poland and Holland are in the same union. One place is just about the most anti-gay place I can think of, while the other had a far right, openly gay and extremely popular politician, Pim Fortuyn.
You didn't answer the question: how exactly will this economic union do anything that isn't already being done?

I'll copy and paste what I said above:

Sure. More domestic markets to sell in. Bigger base of consumers to sell to.

Look, from an American viewpoint, though I hate to say this because it would sound offensive to the hypothetical non-American members, it would be (ONLY economically) like a bunch of new states were added to our union, where it's far easier to do business than abroad. That means no extra costs of shipping, doing business between 'borders', no visas nor passports to go between the countries, students can easily study in each other's universities, easier to buy and sell property between those countries, a single currency for all those countries, etc etc etc

I'd be on the first thing smoking out of this hellhole.

Konnichiwa, Vancouver.

I'll copy and paste what I said above:

Sure. More domestic markets to sell in. Bigger base of consumers to sell to.

"More domestic markets" as in, "we're no longer calling it a foreign market!"

Reminds me a bit of legalizing murder to cut down on crime.

Bigger base of consumers - bigger why? Is this economic union going also to increase birth rates?

That means no extra costs of shipping

Ha.

, doing business between 'borders',

Are you even aware of how many laws regulate interstate business? Tons, anyway. And those are between states allied with something more than "ONLY" an economic agreement.

no visas nor passports to go between the countries

This wouldn't actually help the economy.

, students can easily study in each other's universities

Ditto here.

easier to buy and sell property between those countries

See the problem is you're stating these magically wonderful things that your proposal would allegedly do, instead of explaining HOW it would. Or in fact, even stating it in anything but vague, flowery terms.

, a single currency for all those countries, etc etc etc


See. The "etc etc etc" is the part where you actually answered the question. And no, it's not an answer. You've got a "cultural" (wink wink) alliance with a flimsy, vague and meaningless "economic union" thrown in.

Why not Nigeria? Why not India? There are more English-speakers in those nations than in the UK. But, they're not "Anglo" enough I guess - meaning White and Christian. And in the end that's all your "Anglo Union" is about.

Look, nobody here is doubting that the US is more conservative than Canada, in general. That doesn't mean that we do not share similar values, cultures, histories, nor that we aren't already extremely economicaly, militarily and politically close.

And honestly, we are talking about an economic union. Who the fuck cares about interracial marriage? Poland and Holland are in the same union. One place is just about the most anti-gay place I can think of, while the other had a far right, openly gay and extremely popular politician, Pim Fortuyn.


The difference is that EU isnt dominated by Poland. It'd be bad for Netherlands if it were.

Your Anglo Union, on the other hand, would be dominated by US due to its population size (and hence economic output) and military strength relative to other members.

And We do not share the same values and same culture. I wish people would stop saying that.

a single currency for all those countries, etc etc etc

This requires at least some level of political integration. As I said, fuck no. If that were to happen, I'd join Wanderjar in his vociferous fight :P

PS: Poland is less anti-gay than US.

I'd be on the first thing smoking out of this hellhole.

Konnichiwa, Vancouver.

We dont have to be in a Union for you to immigrate here ;)

We dont have to be in a Union for you to immigrate here ;)

I'm getting my degree first. It's normally a good idea to have some sort of skillset to offer your host country, rather than just being another cashier or trucker.

By the way, culturally, you are more like us that you may want to adnit. It's the values and laws part that makes you different and desirable.

Nope. I love my country (America). I won't stand for her to be anything but independent. If this were to occur you can bet your ass you'll be seeing my name on INTERPOL's most wanted list because I WILL be fighting against it, vociferously.

We could hire Blackwater to take you down, lol

w/ caribbean? Fuck no.

But we would have monopoly over cannabis! Think, Dutch seeds grown in Jamaica... yo, man, don't be hating on the rasta... ;)

i fail to see the point of this entire question. granted the colosus is cripled, may fall, and in falling, bring the rest of so called western civilization down with it. yet if anything, both need to cut their losses.

in america the heart of that loss is looking at everything in terms of symbolic value, instead of looking at symbolic value in terms of what, if any, real value, may remain for it to be a symbol of.

...
In comparison to their relations to the rest of the world, the countries I've mention are all ridiculously close, economcially, linguistically, historically, culturally and militarily, already. ...

Prove it.

...no visas nor passports to go between the countries, students can easily study in each other's universities, a single currency for all those countries, etc etc etc

Do you know how the 9/11 terrorists got into the US?

Why would Canadians, who have a strong economy relative to the US, tie the Canadian currency to the US when the US economy is heading down the toilet?

I'm getting my degree first. It's normally a good idea to have some sort of skillset to offer your host country, rather than just being another cashier or trucker.

By the way, culturally, you are more like us that you may want to adnit. It's the values and laws part that makes you different and desirable.

Jonas Brothers wear purity rings. Thats an alien culture.

Jonas Brothers wear purity rings. Thats an alien culture.

It is to the majority of us too...Dont you watch South Park? lol

It is to the majority of us too...Dont you watch South Park? lol

LOL, come on. I think abstinence is the official education policy there, thats completely foreign. Another example: this wouldnt happen in Canada (even in Alberta):

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4719578


So I will kindly ask everyone not to claim that US culture is so similar to ours. Honestly, its offensive.

PS: Also refer to this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=588076

i fail to see the point of this entire question. granted the colosus is cripled, may fall, and in falling, bring the rest of so called western civilization down with it. yet if anything, both need to cut their losses.

in america the heart of that loss is looking at everything in terms of symbolic value, instead of looking at symbolic value in terms of what, if any, real value, may remain for it to be a symbol of.

Are you gonna tell me what the hell is in your avatar? :D

Are you gonna tell me what the hell is in your avatar? :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqi5F5MqqTQ I think it comes from here, but I haven't actually watched it in years so tell me if I'm wrong.

LOL, come on. I think abstinence is the official education policy there, thats completely foreign. Another example: this wouldnt happen in Canada (even in Alberta):

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4719578


So I will kindly ask everyone not to claim that US culture is so similar to ours. Honestly, its offensive.


Abstinence isnt the official Education policy here, and im not sure youre going to find a more conservative section of America, cept maybe Texas...

ABC was trying to get shockvalue ratings, and this is not reflective the majority populace's opinions...

This is a practice referred to as Cherry Picking...Youre denying your similarities, which do exist whether you like it or not...Hell, your avatar is a kid skateboarding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skateboarding#History

The 1940s-1960s

Skateboarding was probably born sometime in the late 1940s or early 1950s when surfers in California wanted something to surf when the waves were flat. No one knows who made the first board, rather, it seems that several people came up with similar ideas at around the same time. These first skateboarders started with wooden boxes or boards with roller skate wheels attached to the bottom. The boxes turned into planks, and eventually companies were producing decks of pressed layers of wood -- similar to the skateboard decks of today. During this time, skateboarding was seen as something to do for fun besides surfing, and was therefore often referred to as "Sidewalk Surfing".

Abstinence isnt the official Education policy here, and im not sure youre going to find a more conservative section of America, cept maybe Texas...

ABC was trying to get shockvalue ratings, and this is not reflective the majority populace's opinions...

This is a practice referred to as Cherry Picking...Youre denying your similarities, which do exist whether you like it or not...Hell, your avatar is a kid skateboarding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skateboarding#History

Well there are similarities of course. I'm just saying its not so similar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqi5F5MqqTQ I think it comes from here, but I haven't actually watched it in years so tell me if I'm wrong.

Its not it.

Well there are similarities of course. I'm just saying its not so similar.

Well there are differences, Im just saying its not so different, lol :p

Well there are differences, Im just saying its not so different, lol :p
This.

Nova Magna Germania, nobody is saying "America and Canada are the same", at all.

What is being stated is that America and Canada are very similar in language, culture, history, society and also politically, economically and militarily.

And, America and Canada are two of the closest seperate nations on earth, as far as international relations and comparative politics goes.

Jonas Brothers wear purity rings. Thats an alien culture.

The fact that you know who the Jonas Brothers are kinda proves my point.

Canada and America are 2 of the only countries in the World that play any form of American/Canadian football. We share leagues (CFL, MLS, USL, MLB, NBA, NHL) something almost no other countries do. We eat basically the same food. We watch the same TV, on the same channels in some cases (Detroit/Windsor, Toronto, Rochester). We share the same basic tastes musically, sharing artists. Culturally we're pretty close, as we should be as non-warring neighbors with a shared history.

With all that said. don't change your political ways at all, I need somewhere liberal to move. If only Canada was warm...

This.

Nova Magna Germania, nobody is saying "America and Canada are the same", at all.

What is being stated is that America and Canada are very similar in language, culture, history, society and also politically, economically and militarily.

And, America and Canada are two of the closest seperate nations on earth, as far as international relations and comparative politics goes.

But in this thread we are focusing on the linguistic and economic aspects of the country.

Linguistically, both have English speaking majorities. That's where the similarity ends. Canada has Quebec, a large population of Francophones, where a lot of people who don't speak English live. In Canada, we have about 13 million people who don't speak English out of about 31 million (http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97-555/T401-eng.cfm?Lang=E&T=401&GH=4&SC=1&S=99&O=A). That's about 40%.

Now, unless you're going to tell me that about 40% of all USians don't speak English, and that most of these non-abglophones speak French, you cannot make the claim that both countries are similar linguistically. C'est ne pas vrai, t'es pas comme les têtes carrées.

Economically, I should point out that while both have markets that are a blend of free market and regulated markets, that is where the similarity ends. USians don't have public healthcare, USians have much less regulation (see current global crisis for evidence), USians have a huge miltary based portion of their economy in comparison to Canada, etc. etc. etc.

So, economically, we are not that similar either.

You know, you should maybe take some classes in political science or something. This stuff should be obvious.

What is being stated is that America and Canada are very similar in language, culture, history, society and also politically, economically and militarily.

Except that we have a province that doesn't share this language. We have another province which is bilingual. We also already deal with the fact that the US does not keep its end in existing trade agreements.

Further, the only way in which we are culturally similar is that the variety of cultures within each country are more different than the overall cultures of the two countries. I mean, I wouldn't say that the culture in Ontario is the same as the culture in Newfoundland. I wouldn't say that the culture in British Columbia is the same as the culture in Nunavut. I would say that Canada has a very diverse culture and it would be hard to pin down what "Canadian culture" is exactly.

Also, to claim that our histories are the same... I mean, yes, we're both British colonies, but Quebec was a French colony and the activities in these colonies and what built the respective countries are very different. Further, we're not similar politically. We don't have the death penalty, we have gay marriage, we have universal health care et c. And I'm not sure you want to claim that your military is like ours.

*snip*

Cant argue with you there, Nova Magna Germania on the other hand was trying to argue that America is an "Alien Culture" to Canada, which is simply untrue...

As far as what I had in mind with the supposed "Anglo Union" was more a purely Military/Territorial exchange, with some trade benefits thrown in...

However,as Ive previously mentioned, since the end of World War II this largely already exists...

Afterwards, my arguments were more of a "lets make sure it stays that way" kind of deal...

Cant argue with you there, Nova Magna Germania on the other hand was trying to argue that America is an "Alien Culture" to Canada, which is simply untrue...


I was objecting to stuff like this:


What is being stated is that America and Canada are very similar in language, culture, history, society and also politically, economically and militarily.

And, America and Canada are two of the closest seperate nations on earth, as far as international relations and comparative politics goes.

1) We are NOT very similar.
2) There are closer countries in the world: like Austria-Germany, Scandinavian countries, some arab gulf states, maybe some latin american countries, etc...
3) Values-wise US is NOT the most similar country to Canada in the world.


....

.....

Also, ethnically, we are different. US is a LOT more Latin American and African while Canada is more Asian.

And while US is a "melting pot", Canada is a "mosaic".

PS: Isnt this alien to US (eventho they look ridiculous to non-french speaking canadians as well :P) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_rQ-q88_Z8

I was objecting to stuff like this:



1) We are NOT very similar.
2) There are closer countries in the world: like Austria-Germany, Scandinavian countries, some arab gulf states, maybe some latin american countries, etc...
3) Values-wise US is NOT the most similar country to Canada in the world.




Well, you are whether you want to be or not...

But, although the inverse may not be as close as some would like, Id wager its hard to find a nation more similar to the US than Canada...

Well, you are whether you want to be or not...


Well, we disagree.

Well, we disagree.

Fair Enough...so how bout them Knicks? :p

Fair Enough...so how bout them Knicks? :p

Whats Knicks? :D :p