Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We already have cooperation with the U.S... Isn't the worlds largest trading relationship, shared intelligence and defense enough? It is for me - we're already doing well here.. We have the worlds richest middle class and we are a top 10 country in terms of S.O.L... Why do we need to change anything?..
Here's the latest bestsellers list for non-fiction in Canada
Be honest - you are the one with the U.S obsession.. You live there and always post about how the U.S is A++++++++++++++++++++ while Canada is just well little bity innocent envious Canada.. Get real - you are what you are accusing everyone else of being.. You're PROjecting
You would gain tremendously and to pretend otherwise would be disingenuous of you.
Actually as far as who would gain most it would be Canadians since the GDP of the provinces would increase more then the states would if annexation occurred. Not to mention you all would finally have an interstate commerce clause the fact Canada lacks that has been holding it back for years economically.
Quote:
The proposed annexation bill of 1866 was more than a little responsible for the BNA and confederation of Canada in 1867
America has actually put more planning into the annexation of Canada using military incursion than they did with invading Iraq
Okay so your argument that the United States wants Canada is a bill that was passed just shy of a 150 years ago. A military plan the United States cooked up to take out it's biggest rival the British empire. And regurgitating what I said about the Canadian author arguing for the United States to annex Canada. That is what you are presenting as proof?
Okay for one the annexation bill is just shy of being 150 years old so to be blunt no one from that period is still alive let alone cares about that because it doesn't apply to the present day. As far as war plan red that was a plan to take out the British Empire because back then the United States didn't have the "special relationship" it does now with the UK. The UK and the United States for that matter constantly tried to undermine each other so it's not surprising this plan got cooked up. As far as the Author goes she got national attention in Canada and it got everyone talking. In the United States outside of academia no one really cared and it didn't get national attention. The Hilary Clinton and Jeb Bush saying they supported her book is interesting but until there is confirmation on that I'm not taking it seriously.
Quote:
Dianne Francis is a nutbar and does not speak for Canadians. Canada as a country is not under any such belief, many Canadians however are and for very good reasons.
Whether she is a nut job or not she got national attention in Canada with her book where as in the United States she didn't do to lack of interest.
Quote:
So maybe I won't and just call it a day instead,
That would probably be a good idea on your part.
Quote:
as annexation of Canada has been an American Wet Dream since at least the mid 1800's.
That's funny because it's not talked about nationally at all in the United States where as in Canada it is talked about.
Quote:
We can go around and around on this forever with both of us having entrenched positions on this one aspect.
Indeed there is generally a lot of inaccurate perceptions from Canadians in regards to the United States desire to annex Canada.
I agree that Canada was a leader in gay marriage. Other than this issue am not so sure. Canada is absurdly poor when it comes to environmentalism (the US is far superior), as the other said the US is making legal weed. Canadians are more accustomed to keeping things the same and rejecting new thoughts. The US in comparison is far more diverse in ideology and thinking and open to thoughts. Canadians live in fear of thoughts coming across the border from Americans and changing things from how they are. This is what I mean by a conservative perspective. Gay marriage is a fine example although other than this example what is Canada moving forward on? An independent Quebec would be more forward moving but it is strapped down by similar fears of moving forward (another conversation). This fear keeps Canadians afraid of change. Hostile to new thoughts. It only serves to divide and keep down the populace. I see Canadians desire to see themselves in a progressive light, but in the real world we live in this is not what I see at all (other than Quebecois). It is a country that is dedicated to keeping things the same and filtering thoughts coming across the diverse thinking giant to the south.
There you go. Half of these so called "liberals" are unbelievably close minded and hate the idea of anything new or different. They make the US into an imaginary threat in order to intimidate others away from anything new. Label something "American" and watch as the so called "tolerant" and "multicultural" liberal display their true colours. I'm tired of this close minded tactic. But don't tell them this, they think they are the holy vanguard of an ultra progressive all inclusive movement and actually believe they are the model of tolerance and open mindedness. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
Actually as far as who would gain most it would be Canadians since the GDP of the provinces would increase more then the states would if annexation occurred. Not to mention you all would finally have an interstate commerce clause the fact Canada lacks that has been holding it back for years economically.
Okay so your argument that the United States wants Canada is a bill that was passed just shy of a 150 years ago. A military plan the United States cooked up to take out it's biggest rival the British empire. And reguitating what I said about the Canadian author arguing for the United States to annex Canada. That is what you are presenting as proof?
Okay for one the annexation bill is just shy of being 150 years old so to be blunt no one from that period is still alive let alone cares about that because it doesn't apply to the present day. As far as war plan red that was a plan to take out the British Empire because back then the United States didn't have the "special relationship" it does now with the UK. The UK and the United States for that matter constantly tried to undermine each other so it's not surprising this plan got cooked up. As far as the Author goes she got national attention in Canada and it got everyone talking. In the United States outside of academia no one really cared and it didn't get national attention. The Hilary Clinton and Jeb Bush saying they supported her book is interesting but until there is confirmation on that I'm not taking it seriously.
[/color][/color]
Whether she is a nut job or not she got national attention in Canada with her book where as in the United States she didn't do to lack of interest.
That would probably be a good idea on your part.
That's funny because it's not talked about nationally at all in the United States where as in Canada it is talked about.
Indeed there is generally a lot of inaccurate perceptions from Canadians in regards to the United States desire to annex Canada.
Kudos to you for bringing some facts and sanity to counter this insecure hyperbole.
I agree that canada was a leader in gay marriage. Other than this issue am not so sure. Canada is absurdly poor when it comes to environmentalism (the us is far superior), as the other said the us is making legal weed. Canadians are more accustomed to keeping things the same and rejecting new thoughts. The us in comparison is far more diverse in ideology and thinking and open to thoughts. Canadians live in fear of thoughts coming across the border from americans and changing things from how they are. This is what i mean by a conservative perspective. Gay marriage is a fine example although other than this example what is canada moving forward on? An independent quebec would be more forward moving but it is strapped down by similar fears of moving forward (another conversation). This fear keeps canadians afraid of change. Hostile to new thoughts. It only serves to divide and keep down the populace. I see canadians desire to see themselves in a progressive light, but in the real world we live in this is not what i see at all (other than quebecois). It is a country that is dedicated to keeping things the same and filtering thoughts coming across the diverse thinking giant to the south.
You have an odd way of rationalizing things... Very vague and general as well.. Some people make the mistake of equating commonalities and similarities as being the same.. One thing I find funny about what you said regarding Ontario being Midwestern or Upstate New York - lol... really hun? Can you please elaborate on how the GTA which represents 50-60% of Ontario is the same as Syracuse, Buffalo or Albany... Please enlighten me on that.. Is the GTA the same as Indianopolis or Lima Ohio or Cincy?.... How are they the same and do you think there are differences?
"hun"? Oh, come on, fusion. That is so beneath you.
I know you and some others don't like some of what IlikeMike has to say, but I happen to think she can be very insightful, especially for such a young woman. And kudos to her for having the gumption to move to the other side of the continent for a whole new experience.
At least she has a better idea of what the US is like than does Canadiangirl. She makes some of the most ridiculous statements I've read in the Canadian threads, yet so many have been willing to hold her hand and encourage her thus far. Wonder why?
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 01-02-2015 at 09:02 PM..
There you go. Half of these so called "liberals" are unbelievably close minded and hate the idea of anything new or different. They make the US into an imaginary threat in order to intimidate others away from anything new. Label something "American" and watch as the so called "tolerant" and "multicultural" liberal display their true colours. I'm tired of this close minded tactic. But don't tell them this, they think they are the holy vanguard of an ultra progressive all inclusive movement and actually believe they are the model of tolerance and open mindedness. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
Actually as far as who would gain most it would be Canadians since the GDP of the provinces would increase more then the states would if annexation occurred. Not to mention you all would finally have an interstate commerce clause the fact Canada lacks that has been holding it back for years economically.
Okay so your argument that the United States wants Canada is a bill that was passed just shy of a 150 years ago. A military plan the United States cooked up to take out it's biggest rival the British empire. And regurgitating what I said about the Canadian author arguing for the United States to annex Canada. That is what you are presenting as proof?
Okay for one the annexation bill is just shy of being 150 years old so to be blunt no one from that period is still alive let alone cares about that because it doesn't apply to the present day. As far as war plan red that was a plan to take out the British Empire because back then the United States didn't have the "special relationship" it does now with the UK. The UK and the United States for that matter constantly tried to undermine each other so it's not surprising this plan got cooked up. As far as the Author goes she got national attention in Canada and it got everyone talking. In the United States outside of academia no one really cared and it didn't get national attention. The Hilary Clinton and Jeb Bush saying they supported her book is interesting but until there is confirmation on that I'm not taking it seriously.
Whether she is a nut job or not she got national attention in Canada with her book where as in the United States she didn't do to lack of interest.
That would probably be a good idea on your part.
That's funny because it's not talked about nationally at all in the United States where as in Canada it is talked about.
Indeed there is generally a lot of inaccurate perceptions from Canadians in regards to the United States desire to annex Canada.
So proof that American leadership has had an interest in annexation as late as the start of WWII does not refute your assertion they've never been interested? Want to speculate on topics of discussions in the halls of power of the U.S. during the run-up to any one of the Quebec referendums?
Even idiots like Pat Buchanan have written articles suggesting annexation of Canada and he's a contemporary of the times.
Your generalizations know no bounds. First with the suggestion the lack of an interstate commerce regulation holding Canada back.
Canada wasn't the one that just went through 7 years of meltdown due to the stupid lack of financial regs. Canada is not the country currently repeating that debacle of questionable lending practices in a Darwinian example of repeating failures while expecting differing results.
Canada's median income level has not declined, rather their middle class is now enjoying prosperity superior to America's.
Canada's banks are not threatened with credit rating degradation from year to year and Canada is not in debt to it's eyeballs with desperate maintenance of it's reserve currency status the only thing keeping it solvent.
Nationally Canadian citizens do not talk about annexation to any greater degree than Americans do. Very little to none at all.
Dianne Francis's book was not about annexation it was about a "merger" or have you not read it?
You know for a fact Diane Francis book didn't get talked about in the U.S.? How did you go about stripping out those sales figures to determine that?
Indeed there is generally a lot of inaccurate perceptions from Americans in regards to Canada...full stop.
Dianne Francis's book was not about annexation it was about a "merger" or have you not read it?
Diane Francis is a dual American-Canadian citizen, and right-wing newspaper columnist. As an American, she has a vested interested in seeing such a merger. Nonetheless, her views on a US-Canada merger are largely dismissed by Canadians.
So proof that American leadership has had an interest in annexation as late as the start of WWII does not refute your assertion they've never been interested?
Please point out when I said there was never interest? Yeah you had the articles of confederation but that was centuries ago and is not legally binding anymore. Also war plan red was designed to take out the British Empire first and foremost.
Quote:
Want to speculate on topics of discussions in the halls of power of the U.S. during the run-up to any one of the Quebec referendums?
Yeah they talk about the scenarios that might happen if Canada fell apart if Quebec separated and that I would consider smart since it would effect the United States. Yet Bill Clinton told Quebec separatists in public to there face he would not support them. Rather strange thing to do if your "wet dream" is to take over Canada.
Quote:
Your generalizations know no bounds.
That would be Canadiangirll actually.
Quote:
First with the suggestion the lack of an interstate commerce regulation holding Canada back.
It is. If you had an Interstate commerce clause you wouldn't have inter-provincial tariffs.
Quote:
Canada wasn't the one that just went through 7 years of meltdown due to the stupid lack of financial regs.
Considering the United States is growing faster than Canada at the moment and the recession is over and jobs are coming back to the United States from China and other places I would say the US is doing rather well right now.
Quote:
Canada is not the country currently repeating that debacle of questionable lending practices in a Darwinian example of repeating failures while expecting differing results. Canada's median income level has not declined, rather their middle class is now enjoying prosperity superior to America's.
You do realize your currency is at 5 year low right?
Quote:
Canada's banks are not threatened with credit rating degradation from year to year and Canada is not in debt to it's eyeballs with desperate maintenance of it's reserve currency status the only thing keeping it solvent.
At the end of the day the United States is growing faster then Canada is. The sky is not falling. The United States has positive population growth unlike Europe and Asia and the United States has survived far worse.
Quote:
Nationally Canadian citizens do not talk about annexation to any greater degree than Americans do. Very little to none at all.
Yet it's brought up nationally on TV shows in Canada where it isn't even mentioned in the United States on national TV.
Quote:
Dianne Francis's book was not about annexation it was about a "merger" or have you not read it?
The end game is annexation because her alternative suggestions were essentially bs that would never happen.
Quote:
You know for a fact Diane Francis book didn't get talked about in the U.S.? How did you go about stripping out those sales figures to determine that?
Fine if you don't believe me find where this book is mentioned on national TV in the United States like it was in Canada.
Quote:
Indeed there is generally a lot of inaccurate perceptions from Americans in regards to Canada...full stop.
Pot calling the kettle black here.
Quote:
Good night now.
Sleep well.
Last edited by cwa1984; 01-03-2015 at 01:27 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
