N. American Union??
WTF if these guys are not B.S.-ing, and my canadian government is doing this behind closed doors(read hidden agenda) without public knowledge,
then this is anything but democratic....
bear with the video as it seems a little stupid at first but they get into the facts in the later part.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lODFHLZ1mAE
N.A.U.
I think it would work out a lot better if the Canadians spoke American.
It is so hard to understand those foreign languages, eh?
Seriously. I thing the Bilderberg folks are just bowing to the inevitable.
Now the question is: do we do it under the foundation of the American Constitution? That might work out OK. Free speech. Natural rights. The right to bear Arms. etc.
If it is done under some other governing form I wouldn't be so happy.
What always tickled me was the children of illegals here in America learning the American Constitution in Spanish. A move in the right direction. Although it could be part of the plot.
It is so hard to understand those foreign languages, eh?
Seriously. I thing the Bilderberg folks are just bowing to the inevitable.
Now the question is: do we do it under the foundation of the American Constitution? That might work out OK. Free speech. Natural rights. The right to bear Arms. etc.
If it is done under some other governing form I wouldn't be so happy.
What always tickled me was the children of illegals here in America learning the American Constitution in Spanish. A move in the right direction. Although it could be part of the plot.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
MirariNefas
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am
It's a nice dream. And one day, after the NAU has had time to stabilize and properly westernize everyone, it'd be ready to expand again and just become the AU. Or maybe it should expand westward and form some kind of Pacific Rim Union? Japan's economy is nice and big and Australia already speaks English. Yes, now that I think about it, that would definately be better than trying to educate Venezuala. Maybe in another hundred years.
Last edited by MirariNefas on Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
The USA Navy has always had Filipinos in its ranks. I trained with them in 1962. Their usual billet was as cooks for the ranks and mess aids to officers.
I don't know how far back it goes but I'm sure it was at least happening in WW2. That is about 70 years right there.
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/onl ... ipinos.htm
According to the above it started in 1901.
I don't know how far back it goes but I'm sure it was at least happening in WW2. That is about 70 years right there.
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/onl ... ipinos.htm
According to the above it started in 1901.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
In 1847 the USA could have annexed Mexico due to conquest and President Taylor declined. Some consider that this was a mistake.
In addition Due to a defeat of the US Armed forces in the War of 1812 Canada retained its independence.
I don't see a sinister plot. Just a bowing to the inevitable.
In addition Due to a defeat of the US Armed forces in the War of 1812 Canada retained its independence.
I don't see a sinister plot. Just a bowing to the inevitable.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Dr. Nebel is doing his work behind closed doors, yet in a general way we know what he is up to. Sinister?zbarlici wrote:"I don't see a sinister plot. Just a bowing to the inevitable."
...soooo, the fact that they`re doing it behind closed doors is not sinister? If that is really happening then someone needs to send them a message and shit in their breakfast cereal.... at least until they all come out of the closet!
In companies business meetings happen behind closed doors. Sinister?
Not everything that happens behind closed doors is a plot to steal your orgones.
They are out of the closet. It is easy to find out what they are up to in a general way by Googling.
Heck, even the Austrian Corporal laid out his general plans and ideas. Sinister? You bet. But he did what he did rather openly. Except for warmongers like Churchill no one believed him.
The American plan for world domination has been an open secret since WW2. So far it is going well. Get bases all around the world and assist the natives to self govern. If a particularly bad actor resists take him down. The purpose? To prevent a world war. And to prevent local discontents from disturbing the peace.
So far it has worked rather well. We shall see if the new guy can keep it up.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
And as a rule the Americans are rather nice about it. Once the Philippines decided they didn't want American bases the American's left.
The Iraqis are self governing. Had they asked Americans to leave we would have packed up (might have taken a couple of years) and been gone. A new agreement has been reached with the Iraqi government so (depending on the new guy in America) we will be there a while longer.
America is not a tributary Empire. It is a trading Empire. It prefers the natives govern themselves. And trade at prices they deem fit. The American job in all this? Provide the warriors to keep the peace. Did you know that when it comes to peace keeping Americans are preferred over all others by a large margin? Do we screw up from time to time? Sure. We are only human. But over all the plan is working pretty well for those that come in the American orbit. In fact a famous movie "The Mouse That Roared" explains the American plan in a rather humorous way. The thesis? Get conquered by the Americans and get rich. Which is pretty much the way it works.
The Iraqis are self governing. Had they asked Americans to leave we would have packed up (might have taken a couple of years) and been gone. A new agreement has been reached with the Iraqi government so (depending on the new guy in America) we will be there a while longer.
America is not a tributary Empire. It is a trading Empire. It prefers the natives govern themselves. And trade at prices they deem fit. The American job in all this? Provide the warriors to keep the peace. Did you know that when it comes to peace keeping Americans are preferred over all others by a large margin? Do we screw up from time to time? Sure. We are only human. But over all the plan is working pretty well for those that come in the American orbit. In fact a famous movie "The Mouse That Roared" explains the American plan in a rather humorous way. The thesis? Get conquered by the Americans and get rich. Which is pretty much the way it works.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
I've been saying for a long time that the solution to illegal immigration is to annex Mexico. First it's no longer illegal to immigrate then. Second, we might actually improve the local economy in Mexico, making there less of a population drift from south to north.
We need the population to create the worker base that we're lacking in the US. One reason that unemployment has been historically low (until very recently) is because we simply grow our economy faster than our population. Hence outsourcing to other nations. It's not just that it's cheaper, often you actually can't find people who want the jobs here.
That's hard to believe to anyone who looks at the unemployment statistics, I know. But I was involved in moving a call center to India, which we felt no guilt in doing, since the outsourcing company that we were using in the US could not keep itself properly staffed. Nobody wants that job, apparently. In the US, part of the unemployment statistics are based on people passing on jobs that they consider beneath them, demeaning, or just which they feel don't pay enough.
I mean... if you want to work at McDonalds, are you telling me that they're all out of positions there? I don't think so. But we need people to work there, because that brings profitability to the shareholders.
Interesting fact, the Asia Times recently reported that, while China's GDP has gone up substantially in the past decade, their average income has not budged one iota. Think about that, how can that be? Where is the money going? You get one guess.
Right, it's coming to the USA. To the companies doing their factory outsourcing in China. The only problem with this is that, since their economy is still developing, and wages have yet to rise, this causes local issues with wage deflation. Same with jobs sent to Mexico.
The solution to this? Put all of the countries on a level playing field, and have wages everywhere balance out in the long run (yes, after dealing with the tough questions of infrastructure and the like). The people in the developing nations benefit by higher wages, and then wage depression doesn't occur with outsourcing here. Already jobs are moving out of India because their economy has boomed so much that the wage differential has become less and less (I have first-hand figures on this).
I think that we're a ways off yet. But it's the eventual solution to the world's economic woes to have them all - more or less - be "Americans" at some point. We're not importing tribute, we're exporting productivity. An easy way to do that locally and equitably in North America is to all be playing by the same rules, because we have one elected body representing all of us. Enfranchise Mexico and Canada.
Yes, small-minded people will worry that the specific form of the liberties that they have become used to will be abrogated. But it won't happen until there's a compromise. Let's not adopt the Canadian Constitution, nor the Mexican, nor the US Constitution. Let's adopt a well constructed NAU Constitution. We did it before, when we needed something new to separate us from the English crown. Now it's time to do it once again to deal with the realities of a world made smaller by the technologies of our time, and economies of grand scale.
Yes, the US Constitution has never been improved upon... yet. But it's not a perfect document, as Jefferson et al were merely human. Let's make a new document to form an even more "perfect union."
What would be sinister is if the people meeting in secret suddenly came out and said that they were taking over, and putting their rules into place, and we all had to accept them. But, really, what are the chances that they could make that work? You'd have the American Revolution all over again. Except that the army would side with us in this case, and they'd all be dead in 24 hours. They're not stupid enough to try.
No, they'll have to come up with a marketing campaign, and sell it to the people. And once out in the open, we'll have the choice to buy or not.
Looking closely at the three constitutions in question, they are remarkably similar in general (you can't be surprised, considering that both were modeled after the US Constitution), and the specific variations don't look too problematic. Here are some potentially contentious areas.
1. Why it should be contentious, I don't know, but the right to bear arms is different in each country. The US is the most liberal on this, in theory, but in practice the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to arm bears does not extend to just any sort of arms. In practice the debate goes on around the level of assault weapons. Few people actually support a ban on all arms (Kitchen knives, anyone?) and few support allowing any weapon (home nuclear defense?). In practice it's pretty reasonable on both sides.
In Canada, there is no constitutional right, but in practice people do have some rights to have arms. Often they are very restrictive locally (some are required to keep them at gun clubs, etc), but, again, few enough are pushing for complete bans that it's unlikely that it'll ever happen.
In Mexico, there's a right to bear arms in the home, which arms to be determined by what is reserved for the military - in practice determined by federal law. The supreme court rules on the decisions, so it's effectively like it is in the US. Like in the US there is a lot of gun regulation in Mexico (even more, perhaps), but also even more non-compliance with these regulations. But gun fans in the US will like it if the language of the constitution specifically mentions guns in the home instead of just "for purposes of creating militias."
Basically Mexicans would be fine, I think, with our system, or we with theirs. The government would be less worried about the guns being in the hands of the rebels, I think, because there would be less rebels (I could be wrong about that, however). Canadians would be like "do we really need a specific right to bear arms? Eh, well OK. As long as it's interpretable reasonably."
I don't think it's really much of an issue.
2. Multiculturalism/Language. The constitution would have to recognize Spanish as an official language of the union. This is, to me, a fait accompli in the US anyhow. We would also have to recognize french, or let Quebec go it's own way. I'm pretty ambivalent there. In any case I have no problem with three great languages being the languages of the Union. I can already speak Spanish, however (and a petit bit of French), so I may be biased there. We'd also have to accept language that made multiculturalism equality part of the constitution. This would be, essentially, a final adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment. This, too, is a fait accompli in the US, with lots of legislation that's already occured to enforce it.
What... we're thinking we want to be able to take away somebody's rights with less than an ammendment? The harm involved? I find hilarious conservatives who, on one hand, harp about abrogation of their liberties, but then on the other hand, don't want language specifically giving rights to specific groups. Seems a tad hypocritical. But, that said, I think that if you had some strong language about how the constitution applies to absolutely everybody, that might well suffice. With Obama in office you can aruge "what glass ceiling do we need to shatter with specific language?"
3. Freedom of the Press - we might have to adopt this. Contrary to popular belief, there is no such freedom in the US, but there is in Canada and Mexico. In the US, such cases are argued as extensions of the freedom of expression from the bill of rights. And they usually lose, in fact. The press doesn't have the right, for instance, to refrain from telling the police their source if it relates to a case (popular TV scenario). They might with a freedom of the press ammendment.
I think American's could swallow this if it were well crafted. As an extension of protecting the general freedom to communicate without government interference.
4. Separation of church and state might change slightly. If worded well, I think this would be both acceptable to people, and would get rid of a lot of the current controversy over things like decorating public parks and buildings, school prayer, the pledge of allegiance, etc. The "establish a state church" clause is simply too interperable as it stands. What constitutes that? Let's spell it out more clearly.
5. Native American rights. These might have to be strengthened in a new constitution, over the US model, as Canada has some specific language, and in Mexico being a Native American means being part of the citizenry by definition. That is, the goverment would probably not have the current pretty much complete authority to do whatever they want in terms of dealing with treaties and such. We might have to honor our word. Heaven forfend.
Can anyone else see any big differences? Yeah, sure, lots of small details to bang out. But folks already talk a lot about modifying things like the Electoral College system to bring it up to date.
Where the real difference would occur is that, I would hope, enforcement would change. Hopefully to comply with the standards of the RCMP.
Once you have fair and effective enforcement of rights and laws, that's where the balance begins, and the payoffs start.
Mike
We need the population to create the worker base that we're lacking in the US. One reason that unemployment has been historically low (until very recently) is because we simply grow our economy faster than our population. Hence outsourcing to other nations. It's not just that it's cheaper, often you actually can't find people who want the jobs here.
That's hard to believe to anyone who looks at the unemployment statistics, I know. But I was involved in moving a call center to India, which we felt no guilt in doing, since the outsourcing company that we were using in the US could not keep itself properly staffed. Nobody wants that job, apparently. In the US, part of the unemployment statistics are based on people passing on jobs that they consider beneath them, demeaning, or just which they feel don't pay enough.
I mean... if you want to work at McDonalds, are you telling me that they're all out of positions there? I don't think so. But we need people to work there, because that brings profitability to the shareholders.
Interesting fact, the Asia Times recently reported that, while China's GDP has gone up substantially in the past decade, their average income has not budged one iota. Think about that, how can that be? Where is the money going? You get one guess.
Right, it's coming to the USA. To the companies doing their factory outsourcing in China. The only problem with this is that, since their economy is still developing, and wages have yet to rise, this causes local issues with wage deflation. Same with jobs sent to Mexico.
The solution to this? Put all of the countries on a level playing field, and have wages everywhere balance out in the long run (yes, after dealing with the tough questions of infrastructure and the like). The people in the developing nations benefit by higher wages, and then wage depression doesn't occur with outsourcing here. Already jobs are moving out of India because their economy has boomed so much that the wage differential has become less and less (I have first-hand figures on this).
I think that we're a ways off yet. But it's the eventual solution to the world's economic woes to have them all - more or less - be "Americans" at some point. We're not importing tribute, we're exporting productivity. An easy way to do that locally and equitably in North America is to all be playing by the same rules, because we have one elected body representing all of us. Enfranchise Mexico and Canada.
Yes, small-minded people will worry that the specific form of the liberties that they have become used to will be abrogated. But it won't happen until there's a compromise. Let's not adopt the Canadian Constitution, nor the Mexican, nor the US Constitution. Let's adopt a well constructed NAU Constitution. We did it before, when we needed something new to separate us from the English crown. Now it's time to do it once again to deal with the realities of a world made smaller by the technologies of our time, and economies of grand scale.
Yes, the US Constitution has never been improved upon... yet. But it's not a perfect document, as Jefferson et al were merely human. Let's make a new document to form an even more "perfect union."
What would be sinister is if the people meeting in secret suddenly came out and said that they were taking over, and putting their rules into place, and we all had to accept them. But, really, what are the chances that they could make that work? You'd have the American Revolution all over again. Except that the army would side with us in this case, and they'd all be dead in 24 hours. They're not stupid enough to try.
No, they'll have to come up with a marketing campaign, and sell it to the people. And once out in the open, we'll have the choice to buy or not.
Looking closely at the three constitutions in question, they are remarkably similar in general (you can't be surprised, considering that both were modeled after the US Constitution), and the specific variations don't look too problematic. Here are some potentially contentious areas.
1. Why it should be contentious, I don't know, but the right to bear arms is different in each country. The US is the most liberal on this, in theory, but in practice the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to arm bears does not extend to just any sort of arms. In practice the debate goes on around the level of assault weapons. Few people actually support a ban on all arms (Kitchen knives, anyone?) and few support allowing any weapon (home nuclear defense?). In practice it's pretty reasonable on both sides.
In Canada, there is no constitutional right, but in practice people do have some rights to have arms. Often they are very restrictive locally (some are required to keep them at gun clubs, etc), but, again, few enough are pushing for complete bans that it's unlikely that it'll ever happen.
In Mexico, there's a right to bear arms in the home, which arms to be determined by what is reserved for the military - in practice determined by federal law. The supreme court rules on the decisions, so it's effectively like it is in the US. Like in the US there is a lot of gun regulation in Mexico (even more, perhaps), but also even more non-compliance with these regulations. But gun fans in the US will like it if the language of the constitution specifically mentions guns in the home instead of just "for purposes of creating militias."
Basically Mexicans would be fine, I think, with our system, or we with theirs. The government would be less worried about the guns being in the hands of the rebels, I think, because there would be less rebels (I could be wrong about that, however). Canadians would be like "do we really need a specific right to bear arms? Eh, well OK. As long as it's interpretable reasonably."
I don't think it's really much of an issue.
2. Multiculturalism/Language. The constitution would have to recognize Spanish as an official language of the union. This is, to me, a fait accompli in the US anyhow. We would also have to recognize french, or let Quebec go it's own way. I'm pretty ambivalent there. In any case I have no problem with three great languages being the languages of the Union. I can already speak Spanish, however (and a petit bit of French), so I may be biased there. We'd also have to accept language that made multiculturalism equality part of the constitution. This would be, essentially, a final adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment. This, too, is a fait accompli in the US, with lots of legislation that's already occured to enforce it.
What... we're thinking we want to be able to take away somebody's rights with less than an ammendment? The harm involved? I find hilarious conservatives who, on one hand, harp about abrogation of their liberties, but then on the other hand, don't want language specifically giving rights to specific groups. Seems a tad hypocritical. But, that said, I think that if you had some strong language about how the constitution applies to absolutely everybody, that might well suffice. With Obama in office you can aruge "what glass ceiling do we need to shatter with specific language?"
3. Freedom of the Press - we might have to adopt this. Contrary to popular belief, there is no such freedom in the US, but there is in Canada and Mexico. In the US, such cases are argued as extensions of the freedom of expression from the bill of rights. And they usually lose, in fact. The press doesn't have the right, for instance, to refrain from telling the police their source if it relates to a case (popular TV scenario). They might with a freedom of the press ammendment.
I think American's could swallow this if it were well crafted. As an extension of protecting the general freedom to communicate without government interference.
4. Separation of church and state might change slightly. If worded well, I think this would be both acceptable to people, and would get rid of a lot of the current controversy over things like decorating public parks and buildings, school prayer, the pledge of allegiance, etc. The "establish a state church" clause is simply too interperable as it stands. What constitutes that? Let's spell it out more clearly.
5. Native American rights. These might have to be strengthened in a new constitution, over the US model, as Canada has some specific language, and in Mexico being a Native American means being part of the citizenry by definition. That is, the goverment would probably not have the current pretty much complete authority to do whatever they want in terms of dealing with treaties and such. We might have to honor our word. Heaven forfend.
Can anyone else see any big differences? Yeah, sure, lots of small details to bang out. But folks already talk a lot about modifying things like the Electoral College system to bring it up to date.
Where the real difference would occur is that, I would hope, enforcement would change. Hopefully to comply with the standards of the RCMP.
Once you have fair and effective enforcement of rights and laws, that's where the balance begins, and the payoffs start.
Mike
"In companies business meetings happen behind closed doors. Sinister?"
In this case all the board members, individuals who have a right to say in the company, would be present, and no, that is not sinister.
I say that if a country is like a company, then its citisens, the people who live, and pay taxes to the country, are the board members. We have an interest in this company so we are required to be at the table when negotiations are made.
By the way i understand that canadian citisens will not be given a chioce on these matters. We elect our govt. to power, then they make policy. Soooo, yeah.... closed-door meetings ARE sinister.. especially when making decisions that affect your sovereignty.
In this case all the board members, individuals who have a right to say in the company, would be present, and no, that is not sinister.
I say that if a country is like a company, then its citisens, the people who live, and pay taxes to the country, are the board members. We have an interest in this company so we are required to be at the table when negotiations are made.
By the way i understand that canadian citisens will not be given a chioce on these matters. We elect our govt. to power, then they make policy. Soooo, yeah.... closed-door meetings ARE sinister.. especially when making decisions that affect your sovereignty.
-
MirariNefas
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am
Or you could make it one of those fancy engineered languages like Esperanto or Interlingua. An easy second language for everyone, even adults, to learn. Then all laws, traffic signs, political debates, ballots, etc, could be done in the common language. Another hard sell, but I think it could help everyone be able to communicate with each other. High school Spanish just doesn't cut it.2. Multiculturalism/Language. The constitution would have to recognize Spanish as an official language of the union. This is, to me, a fait accompli in the US anyhow. We would also have to recognize french, or let Quebec go it's own way.
That would also mean, of course, that no matter how big you expand the union, you wouldn't have to just keep adding languages. We can reasonable expect every person in a country to learn English and Spanish and that would help keep the culture and politics cohesive, but adding Portuguese and French and whatever else would make things difficult. As in Europe, political agendas and standpoints would start seperating based on linguistic cultural boundaries, and any hope for unity and common action would disolve. A common language could help out a lot here.
Last edited by MirariNefas on Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.