15% of Canadians for Bush

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I know he was.

OK...then why the "that really isn't much like what I said"?

Read this thread starting at page 4 and you'll understand.

No, sorry, but I don't... I guess I am just tired from sitting up late yesterday watching Sweden-Australia in tennis.

Don't bother, MiamiU is attempting to go off on a tangent because I have made a sound point in my argument with him.

He desires to illogical label those wanting independence as xenophobic in order to justify his attempts at controlling their lives.

[Gustaf]

In fact, I basically told Leip the same thing.

You see hwat I mean now, Gustaf?

Yes, but you quoted the wrong post, that's what caused the confusion in the first place.

[© tweed]

In fact, I basically told Leip the same thing.

You see hwat I mean now, Gustaf?

Yes, but you quoted the wrong post, that's what caused the confusion in the first place.

Oh...well, I'm not perfect

[Gustaf]

I have not argued the "case for a US/Canada union". Again, please stop labeling me with opinions tha i haven't expressed.

OK, this is probably a case of you getting into the middle of an debate between me and someone else.  I was arguing a case for independence and you inserted the following comment:

"I don't think the US would cease to be an independent country if you allowed Canada to join..."

A US/Canada union would obviously end US independence from Canada.

Living under the same roof as my next door neighbor may still have me independent of you, but I have still lost some independence nonetheless.

What I meant was that in the union you would decided everything, since you're a much bigger country, so you wouldn't lose much independence, instead you would gain control over Canada, so they would be the ones losing independece, mainly. I am a strong supporter of independent nation states and think that it's a good thing to let different nations maintain their individual ways of government.

[© tweed]

Don't bother, MiamiU is attempting to go off on a tangent because I have made a sound point in my argument with him.

He desires to illogical label those wanting independence as xenophobic in order to justify his attempts at controlling their lives.

I do not blame you for wanting independence from canada. (I don't think the USA should unite with Canada.)  I do blame you for being the only forum member to openly stand up against the Europeans at the forum.  You did this alot at the old forum.

[Gustaf]

In fact, I basically told Leip the same thing.

You see hwat I mean now, Gustaf?

Yes, but you quoted the wrong post, that's what caused the confusion in the first place.

Oh...well, I'm not perfect

Few people are. Funny with these things, it was kind of a long-shot, since any other misquote would have given it away at a much earlier stage.

[© tweed]

Maybe this thread wasn't such a good idea after all, I just thought it was a cute little poll I found.

[Gustaf]

Maybe this thread wasn't such a good idea after all, I just thought it was a cute little poll I found.

Well, a lively debate is usually nice, but this one got kind of carried away.

[© tweed]

Maybe this thread wasn't such a good idea after all, I just thought it was a cute little poll I found.

Well, a lively debate is usually nice, but this one got kind of carried away.

I didn't think this would be a debate thread...but then it just happened

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What I meant was that in the union you would decided everything, since you're a much bigger country, so you wouldn't lose much independence, instead you would gain control over Canada, so they would be the ones losing independece, mainly.

OK, but I have no desire to take control of Canada, I have no desire to muck around in their business.  So let's just let sleeping dogs lie.

[Gustaf]

What I meant was that in the union you would decided everything, since you're a much bigger country, so you wouldn't lose much independence, instead you would gain control over Canada, so they would be the ones losing independece, mainly.

OK, but I have no desire to take control of Canada, I have no desire to muck around in their business.  So let's just let sleeping dogs lie.

I didn't say you had, I was, for the last time, not stating a position, since I am not from any of these countries it's not really my business anyway, I was just making an empirical evaluation of the "what-if" scenario. That's all.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I didn't think this would be a debate thread...but then it just happened

Actually this thread has exposed some of the differences between modern conservatives and liberals:  Liberals want to force agreement, conservatives want the right to agree to disagree.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What I meant was that in the union you would decided everything, since you're a much bigger country, so you wouldn't lose much independence, instead you would gain control over Canada, so they would be the ones losing independece, mainly.

OK, but I have no desire to take control of Canada, I have no desire to muck around in their business.  So let's just let sleeping dogs lie.

I didn't say you had, I was, for the last time, not stating a position, since I am not from any of these countries it's not really my business anyway, I was just making an empirical evaluation of the "what-if" scenario. That's all.

OK, but you shouldn't be surprised that you were thrown into the middle of the argument when you decided  to throw in your two cents.

[© tweed]

I don't want forced agreement...however the point of debate may be to persuade other people to take your side of the argument.  That rarely happens, but I do believe that is the purpose of debate.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I do not blame you for wanting independence from canada. (I don't think the USA should unite with Canada.)  I do blame you for being the only forum member to openly stand up against the Europeans at the forum.  You did this alot at the old forum.

Yet you attributed my agrument with a fellow American on the subject of a US/Canada union as further evidence of my supposed "xenophobia".

But, as a matter of fact, I do find odd the desire to debate another country's internal politics.  

BUT...BUT...BUT...BUT...I also find odd the desire to debate your next door neighbor's internal family business.

So my supposed "xenophobia" is not tied to fact that someone is a foreigner, rather it has to do my lack of understand of the desire to mettle in someone else's business.

And I have taken great pains to explain my relationship with my next door neighbor, in order to make the point perfectly clear.

Yet you repeatedly keep labeling me "xenophobic" merely to stir up trouble between me and the foreign posters on this forum.  And you always seem to bring up the label when you have no other point to make.  Kinda like a white person labeling a black person a “n” in order to discredit their opinion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't want forced agreement...however the point of debate may be to persuade other people to take your side of the argument.  That rarely happens, but I do believe that is the purpose of debate.

Agreement can only take place when there is a common foundation so that the standard of "truth" can be defined and opinion measured against the standard.

[Gustaf]

What I meant was that in the union you would decided everything, since you're a much bigger country, so you wouldn't lose much independence, instead you would gain control over Canada, so they would be the ones losing independece, mainly.

OK, but I have no desire to take control of Canada, I have no desire to muck around in their business.  So let's just let sleeping dogs lie.

I didn't say you had, I was, for the last time, not stating a position, since I am not from any of these countries it's not really my business anyway, I was just making an empirical evaluation of the "what-if" scenario. That's all.

OK, but you shouldn't be surprised that you were thrown into the middle of the argument when you decided  to throw in your two cents.

No, but I don't generally expect to be attacked for opinions I haven't expressed and don't hold. But I will approach debates with more caution in the future, prepared for the unexpected...

[Gustaf]

I don't want forced agreement...however the point of debate may be to persuade other people to take your side of the argument.  That rarely happens, but I do believe that is the purpose of debate.

Agreement can only take place when there is a common foundation so that the standard of "truth" can be defined and opinion measured against the standard.

I would rather say that an agreement on facts have to be in place in order for a debate to be meaningful at all. People can draw different conclusions from facts, and it is often not objectively possible to distiguish who's right.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No, but I don't generally expect to be attacked for opinions I haven't expressed and don't hold. But I will approach debates with more caution in the future, prepared for the unexpected...

You know from personal experience, that when two people are arguing it is best to stay out of the argument unless you want to become the center of it.

You walked aboard this boat by your own choice.  The waves were just higher than you expected.

[© tweed]

<<But, as a matter of fact, I do find odd the desire to debate another country's internal politics.>>

The USA is the world's lone superpower, the USA has a large impact on the lives of foreigners, so they have the right to take part in debate on the subject of the USA.

<<BUT...BUT...BUT...BUT...I also find odd the desire to debate your next door neighbor's internal family business.  And I have taken great pains to explain my relationship with my next door neighbor, in order to make the point perfectly clear.>>

Different Countries cannot be accurately labeled as neighboring families; the international relationships between countries is far more complex than that.

<<And you always seem to bring up the label when you have no other point to make.>>

If you nread this thread from the beginning, slapped the 'xenophobe' label on your back before this debate even started, so your last point is not truthful.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I would rather say that an agreement on facts have to be in place in order for a debate to be meaningful at all. People can draw different conclusions from facts, and it is often not objectively possible to distiguish who's right.

Yes and no.  Sometimes it is extremely obvious which party is contradicting themselves.  For example:  a Christian that believes they know more than Christ.

[Gustaf]

No, but I don't generally expect to be attacked for opinions I haven't expressed and don't hold. But I will approach debates with more caution in the future, prepared for the unexpected...

You know from personal experience, that when two people are arguing it is best to stay out of the argument unless you want to become the center of it.

You walked aboard this boat by your own choice.  The waves were just higher than you expected.

I don't know what other personal experience you are referring to, but being a moderate can be tough. But I agree that I participate at my own risk, so I guess I will have to become tougher and meaner in order to survive in the forum jungle...

[opebo]

This is one of the strangest threads I've encountered on the Board.  The idea of Canada or Britain joining the US and making it more left-wing makes me think of the converse - what if the US got rid of its more left wing parts?  I know plenty of people in the 'Bush states' (or 'red states' as the media has referred to them since 2000) that would be much happier if places like California and the Northeast would secede.  

I'm interested in the idea that union with Canada or GB would increase GDP.  I'm unconvinced - I think GDP growth is largely allowed/encouraged by right-wing (Liberal) economic policy, and retarded by left-wing policies.  Therefore a smaller, more right-wing country should actually be more prosperous.  For example Hong Kong.

[© tweed]

Liberal Nation:

ME, VT, RI, MA, CT, NY, NJ, ILL, MI, CA, WA, HI, WV, MN, DE, DC, MO

Moderate Nation:

NH, VA, FLA, AR, WI, IA, PA, IN, OH, AZ, NM, CO, OR, TN, NV

Conservative Nation:

AL, AK, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE, NC, ND, OK, SC, SD, TX, UT, WY

[© tweed]

Red is liberal nation, blue is conservative nation, and grey is moderate nation:


Liberal nation actually leads in EV's, with 215 compared to conservative nation's 146 and moderate nation's 177.  

President of liberal nation: Al Gore
President of Conservative nation: George W. Bush
President of moderate nation: Colin Powell