Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Union -- but what kind? (Canada The 51st State?)
Globe and Mail ^ | October 14, 2003 | Mark Lovewell and Anthony Westell

Posted on 10/14/2003 6:05:19 AM PDT by Loyalist

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: saluki_in_ohio
Alberta would be a great addition as either a state or a close trading partner with the United States. The Athabasca Oil sands deposit has enough oil to accomidate the United States for the next 50-100 years, depending on the technology used to refine it. It also has decent hunting opportunities.
21 posted on 10/14/2003 7:34:27 AM PDT by CollegeRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All
The Free Republic Lifeform


"... This is a wonderful description of what Free Republic really is. It is a living and evolving Life Form to battle the left wingers and those who would destroy this country!

The Free Republic Life Form enables us to discover the truth about what is happening. We can avoid the spin of the major mediots as they work 24/7 to weaken this country. We come to the Free Republic Life Form to find the truth! ...

Free Republic needs a constant infusion of cash to keep the Free Republic Life Form alive, viable and to grow. If we believe in Free Republic, we must donate each month or quarterly to keep this incredible life form alive...

Good stewardship is what this world needs, not good intentions. Good conservative stewards will insure that the Free Republic Life Form continues to grow, be viable and thrives!"


Thank You for your support!

Click The Logo to Donate
Click The Logo To Donate


Or mail checks to

FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

22 posted on 10/14/2003 7:38:36 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
This article which manages to do some creative leaps and bigger leaps, is for the most part if not stupid at least foolish. If for example Or a continent-wide environmental crisis -- perhaps a water shortage in the U.S. -- would require a continental response. This would well require a continental response . An economic and an environmental response , not a political union . And the U.S. might demand the right to control security at Canada's borders The US has every right to control it's Canadian borders and failing to do that is a US problem , not a Canadian one . That doesn't eliminate co operation between the two countries. It hardly requires an union.

With the Treaty of Union in 1707, the Scots ceased their struggle for political independence

Really. The writers need to review the history of Scotland. Especially the part about the Jacobites and the 'Highland Clearances' . That was a real fun time on the road to Union.

And are we to assume that Mexico is included in this little get together. Does it follow , as the writers say, Now, Canada and the U.S. are moving toward union, and Mexico may join later.

English Canada has her French problem , English US an increasing Spanish problem. Only an idiot would believe the three would politically survive together?

23 posted on 10/14/2003 7:52:08 AM PDT by Snowyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
It's a good point, but also why we have a Senate. The best way around this would be to have the provinces join as a single state. They would add another 10% to our population. That would give them about 5 reps?
24 posted on 10/14/2003 7:57:07 AM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: retrokitten
Oh, but we have to change the name of British Columbia to something better.

Uhmerikin Columbia

25 posted on 10/14/2003 8:06:45 AM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
Canada can just stay Canada. We don't need them meddling in our affairs and turning us into a morally and intellectually bankrupt in leadership cesspool. Too liberal and it can stay that way.
26 posted on 10/14/2003 8:22:44 AM PDT by bushfamfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
offering admission to the Union to any Canadian Province that chose to join

I'll take British Columbia and Alberta, eh?

there are certain Canadian Privinces that the United States wouldn't want on a bet

Quebec and the maritimes come to mind, eh?

27 posted on 10/14/2003 8:53:22 AM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pogo101
Send the Montana National Guard up highway 2, I have my white flag and Stars and Stripes at the ready.
28 posted on 10/14/2003 11:41:27 AM PDT by albertabound (It's good to beeeeeee Alberta bound.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
Fine by me, except for Quebec. And no more Indian reservations, thank you.
29 posted on 10/14/2003 11:59:41 AM PDT by Stingray51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
It's not hard to imagine the U.S. accepting ... Quebec with its hydro power.

I have only one problem with getting Quebec, especially if we get their hydro power: where to send the Quebecois.

30 posted on 10/14/2003 12:46:05 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Current time travel velocity: 3600 seconds/hour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Each province becomes a state.

The Maritime provinces are probably too small the become individual states (Prince Edward Island has 100,000 or so people). You'd probably see about 6 new states- British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Sasketoba (Manitoba + Sasketchewan) and combined Maritime State. Canada is about 1/10th the size of the US, population-wise, so creating 5-6 states probably is about right.

31 posted on 10/14/2003 12:49:37 PM PDT by Modernman ("Oh, you all talk big but who here has the guts to stop me!" -Mr. Burns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
What drives unification?

Pompous, arrogant ambition of the political class everseeking greater control over the masses?

32 posted on 10/14/2003 12:51:23 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
There's no rule I know of that says the United States was supposed to get to 50 and then stop.

56 sounds better to me.

And manifest destiny says it will someday include the states of Mexico, Latin America, and the Carribbean Island nations. The United States of North America.
33 posted on 10/14/2003 12:59:22 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Snowyman
'Highland Clearances' . That was a real fun time on the road to Union.

Whoa! You're not going to accuse the English of starting the Clearances are you?

34 posted on 10/14/2003 1:11:54 PM PDT by Da_Shrimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xzins
There's no rule I know of that says the United States was supposed to get to 50 and then stop.

50 is a nice round number, but it doesn't really mean anything. We haven't added a state since 1959. Personally, I would have been in favor of adding Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philipines as States when we got them from the Spanish in 1898. Who says the US needs to stop expanding?

35 posted on 10/14/2003 1:18:12 PM PDT by Modernman ("Oh, you all talk big but who here has the guts to stop me!" -Mr. Burns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
I just don't see the Canada thing happening. At the Vancouver World's Fair ('86 I believe) our High School Band went up, played 3 songs for 10 people in the morning and then had two days at the World's Fair to play. One friend of mine would ride the sky tram thing which held about 5 people. He and another guy would ride it and get in with some Canadians and then he would have political discussions with them. The stories were most amusing, but through them (and things have become even more liberal since then) I just don't see the Canadians fitting in with the U.S. ideologically.

Gum

36 posted on 10/14/2003 1:27:37 PM PDT by ChewedGum (http://king-of-fools.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ChewedGum
I just don't see the Canada thing happening

As an ex-patriate Canadian, I probably agree. The country might fall apart and a couple of provinces might join the US, but I don't see a merger.

37 posted on 10/14/2003 1:35:58 PM PDT by Modernman ("In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women."-Homer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Not me.

I like the sound of The United States of AMERICA....the whole enchilada.

The entire flipping land mass from the Arctic Circle to the Straights of Magellan.
38 posted on 10/14/2003 2:22:56 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
What drives unification?

"Pompous, arrogant ambition of the political class everseeking greater control over the masses?"

Bingo!

39 posted on 10/14/2003 2:39:36 PM PDT by kanawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
Canada already has one dysfunctional marriage. Last thing we need is another.
40 posted on 10/14/2003 2:54:03 PM PDT by kanawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson