User Tag List

View Poll Results: What would you think of a North American Union?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • I would LOVE it, bring it on!

    0 0%
  • I would like it.

    1 3.70%
  • I wouldn't know what to think about it.

    3 11.11%
  • I would be disturbed by it.

    7 25.93%
  • I would be deeply disturbed by it.

    16 59.26%
  • I hate polls

    0 0%
First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 73

  1. #31
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    I agree that the nature of terms can change, but I still don't see how buying the "popular" brand makes anyone an individual under any stretch of the imagination. We've become a nation of clones and drones.
    Oh, it's not that... It's that the definition of being individualistic no longer excludes being clones. The identity is seperate from the real meaning. Individualistic group identity... means exploitation. It means fitting into a smaller group. It means being elite. It means freedom. It means consumption. It means "us", whatever we are.

    Think of it this way - the group that originally identified itself as being individualistic, hardworking, etc has ceased to be those traits... but the group hasn't given up the label. Therefore the label continues to describe the new group... and as such, the meaning hasn't just drifted but completely been replaced.

    Every person in the group has rationalized the change, fixating on certain traits, transferring concepts to maintain the lable... In the US, it can be "We are free because it is a democracy" or "We are free because we can own guns". It can be "Free because he have lower taxes" or "Free because we have freedom of religion". The label must stick, no matter what the situation changes. Concepts like "We are free because we have guns" overrides concepts like "We are not free because we arrest and jail incredible amounts of people on minor charges" or "We are not free because the law is no longer blind". Those concepts of freedom, stuff like habeas corpus, a concept pre Magna Carta, no longer exist as a group identity - slowly transforming the concepts to something else.

    And yes, if it moves far enough, it can be used to justify war, terror and pretty much anything else. Such is the power of identity, groupthink and such.

    When you step back... yes, it seems ridiculous. It's just an offshoot of "Peace is War" doublethink/speak. Freedom is security. Freedom is owning lots of clothes. Freedom is taking whatever we want to ensure our standard of living.

    When push comes to shove Freedom is whatever we do, and freedom is good. Just look at the definition!

  2. #32
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Yes, PT double speak is the right word for it. Double plus good post!

    I have heard people say that freedom now means the choice between Coke or Pepsi.

  3. #33
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    In an Historic Vote, Congress Moves to Limit SPP Funding

    By Larry Greenley

    Published: 2007-07-25 20:28



    "...Although there is a resolution (H. Con. Res. 40) in the House of Representatives "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not ... enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada," there has been virtually no congressional oversight over SPP activities, such as the numerous "working groups" with representatives from the United States, Mexico, and Canada. That is to say, virtually no congressional oversight until yesterday, when the House voted overwhelmingly to approve Rep. Duncan Hunter's (R-Calif.) amendment to prohibit any funds appropriated by the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act of 2008 from being used for U.S. participation in SPP working groups.

    In a related development, on July 23, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) introduced an amendment to H.R. 3093 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008), stating "None of the funds in this Act shall be made available for the Security and Prosperity Partnership." Thus, this amendment would permit no funding for the SPP from the funds appropriated for the Commerce Department in 2008. This is highly significant because the Commerce Department coordinates the “Prosperity” component of the SPP, including maintaining the official SPP Home website. A vote is possible on this amendment as early as today or tomorrow..."

  4. #34
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Let me see if I have this straight: This would be more invasive than even the European Union's policies? What effect would this have on our laws and political systems? How can they do all this without even consulting Congress? I mean, depending on several factors, It might be beneficial, but I can't really see good coming out of it in terms of freedom, based my current understanding of political systems. (Although I concede it might eventually improve commerce and defense.)

  5. #35
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sdalek View Post
    I simply look at the problems with the unification of East/West Germany writ large to see that it might not be a good idea. Not enough time to elaborate my ideas this morning but tonight I might have time.

    I am open to change my mind on it, however it needs to be discussed and considerable proof provided on the benefits and how problems are to be addressed.
    East Germany never existed. It was an occupation zone. The day Moscow (Gorbatchov) lifted the bolster the thing collapsed. The so called unification was a restauration of a matter of fact = an end to the rodomontade.

  6. #36

    Default

    Over the long term, political integration is inevitable, and I honestly don't see why it should be viewed as a bad idea. Integration with the US? Why not? We are already economically ensnared, and with the Canadian dollar almost reaching parity with the USD, it would make sense in terms of economic efficiency to merge the two (at least in broad, simplistic view).

    We are a part of NATO and have been involved with the US for years in shared military operations (norad, dew line, etc.), so I don't see what the big deal is. Canadians and Americans are virtually identical these days, sharing the same cultures, buying the same cheap shit that's manufactured in China... If there's any opposition, I can see it coming from knee-jerk reactions to the Bush administration though anyone with any political literacy can see why that line of thought is erroneous.

    Not a big deal, personally, and I don't think much would change. Plus, I would love the extension to my freedom of mobility, which I currently find lacking.

  7. #37
    only bites when provoked
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    The US/Canadian border is the largest arbitrary border in the world and shows how artificial it is by the fact that the vast majority of the population north of the border live within 100 miles of it.

    Personally, though, I don't trust the Canadians and I wouldn't want them involved in our politics. Although they are closer to us than most of the rest of the world, the fact remains that they are socialists, and I don't want to see them influencing the power structure here because it would probably cause a war. They wouldn't like it because they aren't sure about us gun-toting conservative loonies down here, not to mention they love to insult us at every opportunity while trade between the two countries is huge, so they depend on us in spite of disliking us.

    Mexico is a bad idea, though. Canada would be endurable, but Mexico's difference would basically take everything from Mexico. They might as well have become part of the country after one of the times we totally defeated them in the past. They are so economically out-of-step with us that it would create the most massive two-way migration the world has ever seen, with Mexicans moving north for money and Americans moving south for cheap land/nice climates. Mexico would become a massive manufacturing center, moreso than it is now, while the US would increasingly stratify, and the most technical (indoor) work would all move north.

    Land value would equalize at both borders, too, which would be bad for those where I am, good for Mexico, bad for Canadians just north of the border (except their values are on paper, like ours, so they would have an imaginary loss), and good for those within a few hundred miles south of it.

    The upshot is that, really, vertical lines would have made more sense in America (the continent) than horizontal ones, due to the way migration occurred, especially in the US and Canada, but not as much in Mexico.
    I 100%, N 88%, T 88%, J 75%

    Disclaimer: The above is my opinion and mine alone, it does not mean I cannot change my mind, nor does it guarantee that my comments are related to any deep-seated convictions. Take everything I say with a whole snowplow worth of salt and call me in the morning, if you can.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    961

    Default

    The NAU is a stupid idea. Mexico, central and south america should form a Latin American Union. The US, canada, australia, N.Z. and the EU should form an expanded EU.

  9. #39
    only bites when provoked
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sassafrassquatch View Post
    The US, canada, australia, N.Z. and the EU should form an expanded EU.
    You mean the "Allies (Axis?) of Awesome", right? Once you add the US, Canada, Aussie-land, and NZ together you would get it. I'd take the UK, too, happily. Maybe some random parts of Europe, but we'd need to build a fence around Paris like the one around West Berlin.
    I 100%, N 88%, T 88%, J 75%

    Disclaimer: The above is my opinion and mine alone, it does not mean I cannot change my mind, nor does it guarantee that my comments are related to any deep-seated convictions. Take everything I say with a whole snowplow worth of salt and call me in the morning, if you can.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf View Post
    You mean the "Allies (Axis?) of Awesome", right? Once you add the US, Canada, Aussie-land, and NZ together you would get it. I'd take the UK, too, happily. Maybe some random parts of Europe, but we'd need to build a fence around Paris like the one around West Berlin.
    Just part of my imagined path to world government. Start by uniting like groups of people into trade unions like the EU based on culture so they would be more likely to get along politically. The expanded EU being a trade union for all the english speaking white people, then the spanish speaking latin/hispanic people in another, then africa, arab states, east asia, etc. Eventually those trade unions would confederate into a world union.

Similar Threads

  1. How would you feel after a day in these jobs? Part I, simple jobs
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 04-04-2013, 12:19 AM
  2. How would you feel after a day in these jobs? Part II, skilled labor
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-04-2013, 12:04 AM
  3. How would you feel in this kind of a environment?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-07-2008, 12:15 AM
  4. How would you feel if your child one day dies for his/her country?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 04:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO