Skip to comments.
The 51st and 52nd states
National Post ^
| June 7, 2003
| Lawrence Solomon
Posted on 06/07/2003 11:21:23 AM PDT by Mister Magoo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
To: Mister Magoo; stands2reason
OK, I was aware of the natural gas, but not so much the oil output of Canada.
However, given all the extra processing necessary to extract Canadian oil, the price per barrel would have to increase a whole lot to make it worthwhile. That of course, would have lots of repercussions. Looks like most of that Canadian oil is staying right where it is.
To: Mister Magoo
The most interesting part of this article is the Candian Supreme Court decision that any province could choose to leave Canada. This means Albertans can force the issue. With the exchange rate so bad, they might.
If any Canadian province leaves (We were all thinking Québec, weren't we?) Canada won't survive well. I wonder if it can be argued that Canada's health care system is essentially paid for by Alberta oil.
Now, with regard to the first sentence: Neither Bush nor the US in general is particularly eager to get Alberta's oil. Yes, it'd be nice to have it within US borders for national security purposes, but Canada needs to sell it more than we need to buy it and it won't be free -- US consumers still have to buy it no matter what. It just won't be subject to whatever tariffs or other taxes Canada puts on it.
To: Consort
23
posted on
06/07/2003 11:43:32 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: Mister Magoo
Vancouver Island would be a gorgeous addition to the Union. On its highways, careless drivers are yelled at as "Stupid American!"
The only problem is that, if they join the US, those provinces would have to give up speaking English.
24
posted on
06/07/2003 11:44:30 AM PDT
by
DonQ
To: fieldmarshaldj
British Columbia is beautiful... who cares about the residents.... buy more acreage and you don't ever have to see them.
To: Consort
26
posted on
06/07/2003 11:46:52 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: fish hawk
Actually there would still only be 50 states as we lose Kalifornia and Arizona back to Mexicocan't we trade these two to canada...
To: Cicero
Vancouver?
I've always called it "Tiajuana del Norte".
To: Consort
29
posted on
06/07/2003 11:49:52 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: Consort
30
posted on
06/07/2003 11:51:48 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: Mister Magoo
Can we get that 51st/52 state map redone with Aztlan removed to see what American will really look like? Thanks.
31
posted on
06/07/2003 11:52:14 AM PDT
by
xrp
To: Husker24
Ohh sure, a state can leave our Union, you just have to have somthing like a 3/4 majority of the state legislator and 3/4 of the Senate and 4/5 majority of the house. So basically you are free to succede of no one else wants you.
Interesting concept of self-determination, but true enough.
32
posted on
06/07/2003 12:00:52 PM PDT
by
Arkinsaw
To: Bill Davis FR; fish hawk
Actually there would still only be 50 states as we lose Kalifornia and Arizona back to Mexico can't we trade these two to canada...
Mexico has first dibs....
But that doesn't mean we can't downsize to 48 states and give 'em New York and Massachusettes. Heck, toss in Vermont and make it 47.
33
posted on
06/07/2003 12:01:41 PM PDT
by
Willie Green
(Go Pat Go!!!)
To: AmishDude
US consumers still have to buy it no matter what.
If Alberta joined the Union would the democrats allow the Albertans to drill for oil in the pristine Alberta environment even if they wanted to? I suspect they would make it into Grand Escalante north forthwith. Alberta should go for independence if they want to control their own destiny. Our Congress might prove to be more disadvantageous to them than their parliament and obviously their Supreme Court is less hostile to their interests than ours would be.
34
posted on
06/07/2003 12:05:19 PM PDT
by
Arkinsaw
To: Mister Magoo
Waiting for the day we take Canada and go to war against Quebec.
35
posted on
06/07/2003 12:07:22 PM PDT
by
Porterville
(Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
To: Mister Magoo
Forget it -- the author is confusing the conservative spirit of Alberta with a pro-American one. If anything, Alberta is probably more strongly opposed to joining the U.S. than any other Canadian province is.
When asked to choose between Ottawa and Washington, most Albertans would select Calgary.
To: Incorrigible
With Alberta as America's 51st state, the U.S. would secure 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves, more than exist in Saudi Arabia. With Alberta as the 51st state, this oil would promptly be declared off-limits as a result of endless litigation by environmentalists.
To: Alberta's Child
I think Poland would make a better 51st state.
To: Alberta's Child
I don't disagree with that. The only way for Alberta to have it's cake and eat it too would be to first declare independance, immediately tap the oil reserves, and then hammer out an agreement with Washington that they are off-limits to the environmental whackos. In other words, negotiate your entry on your terms, ala Texas.
As for BC, I think I'd rather have Regina or Saskatchewan as the 52'd state.
To: Alberta's Child
the author is confusing No Kidding. He's confusing a lot of things and doesn't know much about what he's writing about.
I suspect he's setting the reader up for his second article. Where he proves it.
40
posted on
06/07/2003 12:20:24 PM PDT
by
Snowyman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson