North American Union to Replace USA
POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Saturday, July 8, 2006 03:31
VIEWED: 10071
PAGE 4 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The only difference is that "Tax and Spend" liberals tax the rich and poor to help those that need it.
"Spend and Cut" conservatives tax the poor so they can afford a cut for the rich, that need the money more, obviously, to afford an engorged millitary.
At least thats how it works over here.
The only difference between over there and over here is that over here it's more along the lines of the poor get taxed more than the rich. That's probably due to our close proximity to the US.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
There was a vote, and Harper "won" because the Liberals could not vote against extending their original mission. Let's not forget that the Conservatives hold a minority Government so Harper cannot do whatever he wants. An election can be triggered at any time by a vote of non confidence on any issue. Harper realizes the opportunity of a leaderless official opposition and has the acumen to exploit it.
Actually, extending the Afgan this is _not_ the original mission. Part of what is going on is adding a distinct offensive military component. Something which was _not_ discussed in the house, but Harper is just running with.
The Conservatives may have a minority government right now, BUT, they also have the support of the Bloc. He's promising everything they want for there support and is getting it. But, I imagine that he will pull the rug from underneath them when the time is right. Anyone remember Mulroney? He did the exact same thing.
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I would like to see an actual workable solution then to keep flogging the dead horse that is Kyoto. Tell me how the environment will improve by sending cash to non-industrial countries as carbon credits? I think the Conservatives are on the right track by mandating 10% ethanol in all gasoline by 2010.
Where are you? In Alberta? Tell me how reducing greenhouse emittions won't help the environment. Perhaps you should look into Germany and how it's imporved there environment. Forests are getting heathier, etc. And this is all after they reduced there emissions.
Your also going to have to let me in on, how the local population won't benefit from cleaner air, cleaner ground water, etc. Do you honestly think that we're meant to be this sick?
Basically, this isn't just a global issue, it is a local one too. And the benefits have already been proven at least on the local scale.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah yes, Alberta. I think of it as 'The Texas of Canada'.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, I just noticed something! PN hasn't posted here in an entire day! This is how we need to deal with him. Just ignore him and start discussing Canadian politics! It appears to shut him up.
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Or you can take my route. Either a)say "I'm a better person than you and I'm done or b)say "You're not going to win this argument with me. Blah blah blah . . . UT sucks" Still hasn't gotten back to me on that one.
Canada can't fall to a closet Bush! Where will I run to when I eventually need to escape? I'm not sure I want to spend the rest of my life in Vietnam and the EU (Germany or other English country) is too hard to bust into!!!!
I'M SCREWED!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know I should know better than to respond to a thread that PN started, but I just can't resist a discussion on Canadian politics 
Oh - and a note to PN: if you're going to post loooooooong posts of info, at least try to check if it's accurate/up to date. Everyone knows there are no robins on the back of the two dollar bill. It's a polar bear on the front of the two dollar coin.
Quote:
Actually, extending the Afgan this is _not_ the original mission. Part of what is going on is adding a distinct offensive military component. Something which was _not_ discussed in the house, but Harper is just running with.
The problem with Afghanistan is that at this point, the mission almost has to be offensive to be successful. This isn't a case where peacekeepers can just stand between two sides and keep them from fighting. That said, command needs to go back to NATO.
Quote:
The Conservatives may have a minority government right now, BUT, they also have the support of the Bloc. He's promising everything they want for there support and is getting it. But, I imagine that he will pull the rug from underneath them when the time is right. Anyone remember Mulroney? He did the exact same thing.
There may not need to be any rug pulling. Conservative support is increasing in Quebec, and Harper's best PM-Premier relationship appears to be with Charest (despite his being Liberal). At a certain point the Bloc may decide it's simply not worth it to cooperate - there getting what they want, but losing their base, the reward isn't worth the risk.
Of course, this will likely happen after the Liberals choose a new leader and an election is approaching.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ah yes, Alberta. I think of it as 'The Texas of Canada'.
Why yes, I am from Alberta. And we consider Texas the Alberta of the States. Now what other places can we make broad generalizations about?
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey SigmaNunki, It's some kind of fun hijacking someone else's thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
The Conservatives may have a minority government right now, BUT, they also have the support of the Bloc. He's promising everything they want for there support and is getting it. But, I imagine that he will pull the rug from underneath them when the time is right. Anyone remember Mulroney? He did the exact same thing.
I remember Mulroney. Wasn't he one of the author's of the Meech Lake Accord which failed due in large part because of Trudeau. Regardless, Harper and Mulroney are both Conservatives so that means they both follow the same secret agenda and will do the exact same thing.
Quote:
Tell me how reducing greenhouse emittions won't help the environment. Perhaps you should look into Germany and how it's imporved there environment. Forests are getting heathier, etc. And this is all after they reduced there emissions.
Your also going to have to let me in on, how the local population won't benefit from cleaner air, cleaner ground water, etc. Do you honestly think that we're meant to be this sick?
I am all for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Cleaner burning fuels, tax rebates for purchases of low emission vehicles and transit passes. Subsidies for producers and users of alternative power sources such as wind and solar. The Kyoto targets are not attainable which means buying credits from Chad to continue going along our merry instead of working on sensible at-home solutions. I think the environment could be happy in Rona Ambrose's hands, I know I would be.
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It is fun hijacking threads. Alberta as the Texas of Canada is a sweeping but well founded generalization. I listened to every single minute of the constitutional convention. Alberta - 'tar sands Alberta' - considered itself better off unattached and owning 'its' resources. Anything business is good, anything national government is bad. Oil, anti-national government, religious and conservative, wild-west. Yep, it's the Canadian (or Canadien) Texas.
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ah yes, Alberta. I think of it as 'The Texas of Canada'.
Why yes, I am from Alberta. And we consider Texas the Alberta of the States. Now what other places can we make broad generalizations about?
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Advantages to having a North American Union from a Canadian perspective:
1) Canadian money would be the legal tender because it's so pretty
2) Starbucks would have competition in the form of Tim Horton's
3)Canadian rock group "Rush" would sing the national anthem (whatever that would be) at all baseball, hockey and other national sport games. Beauty, eh?
4) Beavers would replace the eagle as the national symbol - we would train them to damn rivers for electricity.
5) Toques would become high fashion
I picks them up, I drops them off.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME