15% of Canadians for Bush

[Gustaf]

I did not make this thread to try to expose JMF's xenophobic ways, but it has done just that.

Look, just because your educational path didn't lead you to stumble upon the fact that the GOP was known as the "conservative" party back in 40-60's, don't add insult to your own injury by taking the desire to live in an independent country and confusing it with the condition of xenophobic.

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

[Gustaf]

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

Nor do we cease to be independent by NOT allowing the Canadians to join.

No...but how is that relevant? That nothing changes if you change nothing is kind of obvious.

[Gustaf]

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

Nor do we cease to be independent by NOT allowing the Canadians to join.

No...but how is that relevant? That nothing changes if you change nothing is kind of obvious.

Well, Canada joining would mean that the US is no longer independent of Canada.

Why do you have a problem with American independence?  Does it offend you that we do not choose to give up our sovereignty to other country?  Does the world find the US's Declaration of Independence offensive?

What? In what way have I shown that I "have a problem with American independence"? All I am saying is that I do not believe you would be giving up you independece, Canada would be giving up their's, b/c they're much smaller. Got it?

[Gustaf]

I have heard that there is movement in UK which work for the joining to USA.

I suppose that in Finland only 5-10 percent of people would vote for Bush.

Would probably be that, or even less in Sweden, since we have no whacko conservatives here.

[Gustaf]

Keep on dreaming... It would prove the old truth that it is very hard to combine idelogical victories with political ones.

I disagree - I actually think it would help the GOP!

We'd become a more moderate party, having to do so in order to win national elections.  Being more moderate would help us in states like California and elsewhere which means the GOP would become stronger.

The Dems, on the other hand, would pull in the lefty whackos in Canada and would be un-electable anywhere in the current U.S.  This would end any relationship between moderates and the Dem party, and strengthen the GOP even more.

So the GOP becomes more moderate and wins more elections, the decent parts of Canada get responsible leadership, and the Democrat party ceases to exist - its a win, win, win situation!

I like Canada; I love America.

I'm just saying that it would be great to have Canada as part of the US; then the Democrats would have an even greater chance of winning the election

Plus also, I think most americans would like to have Canadians as US citizens, they are always so polite. it would help our world image no end

[Gustaf]

Yes. You must develop a British accent and stop brushing your teeth. Immediately.....Actually that is a mystery to most Brits. If a backwater like England...

Funny how you can get away making such comments with being labeled as xenophobic.  

*sigh* that was so obviously a joke, that I don't see why you even bother.

[Gustaf]

What? In what way have I shown that I "have a problem with American independence"? All I am saying is that I do not believe you would be giving up you independece, Canada would be giving up their's, b/c they're much smaller. Got it?

Well, if you have no problem with American independence, then there should be no problem with the US and Canada remaining separate countries.  Problem solved!

I never said there was a "problem with the US and Canada remaining separate countries" either. Stop putting words in my mouth, please.

[Gustaf]

Alright, I'm just going to say a few things here.  First, I don't think Canada would EVER join the USA.....All in all, Canada will never join the US in the near future, so all the debate is quite useless.

Also add to that the fact the US doesn't want to join with Canada.

Contrary to the opinion of others on this forum, it is totally healthy to want to be independent.  In fact, the mental illness is with those that mock independence.

I'd like to point out that I have not "mocked independece". i am all for it.

[Gustaf]

Why would a sovereign country want to give up their power to another?  

Look at Europe...

[Gustaf]

Why would a sovereign country want to give up their power to another?  

Look at Europe...

What else but "giving up their power" is any international treaty?
The difference is in the "to another" part, of course. But then, people sometimes have their reasons...The Moldovans voted a party in in the early 90s that wanted to merge the country with Romania. Now that option is dead, they are thinking about Ukraine.

That's a point, but there's a difference in a treaty and a merge, b/c a treaty still recognizes your independece. It's like the difference between borrowing money and doing compulsory military service.

[Gustaf]

What? In what way have I shown that I "have a problem with American independence"? All I am saying is that I do not believe you would be giving up you independece, Canada would be giving up their's, b/c they're much smaller. Got it?

Well, if you have no problem with American independence, then there should be no problem with the US and Canada remaining separate countries.  Problem solved!

I never said there was a "problem with the US and Canada remaining separate countries" either. Stop putting words in my mouth, please.

Then why even argue a case for a US/Canada union?  You're basically trying to advocate a shotgun wedding for two people who have no desire to marry each other.

I don't see this as a heated argument, maybe "frustrating" but not heated.  Its frustrating for me because I don’t understand this mentality that tries to make everyone a carbon copy of each other.

I am be very good friends with my next door neighbor, but that doesn’t mean I wish to build one big house in order to share the same roof.

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

[Gustaf]

You refer to "American fear" within a discussion of the desire to keep the US independent, yet you then turn around and ask us to cool down the personal retorts?  

There may be great economic benefit for me to share the same roof with my next door neighbor, but that doesn't mean that I care to do so.  And my desire to remain under separate roofs has nothing to do with "fear".

No, that really isn't much like what I said.

He was talking to Leip.

[Gustaf]

I know he was.

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

[Gustaf]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[Gustaf]

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

Border controls would be tough...

[Gustaf]

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.

Let's not start this all over again...

If someone contradicts themself, then that is obviously different, but it is not always obvious if someone does.

[Gustaf]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.