North American Union

[Turtle]

I know there have been plenty of nationalists here too, Turtle, but that isn't the point.

 

i honestly have no idea what that means.

 

Where have the U. S. Whigs gone?

 

the heads of British barristers? :hyper:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_currency_union ...Secondly, several problems could arise in regards to macroeconomic management. By submitting to a common currency, both countries would lose considerable autonomy in the setting of interest rates among other issues.

 

In addition, some have posited that the formation of a "North American Union" is being approached without the knowledge and consent of the majority of the people who would be affected by this. One concern raised by the public is that the value of both United States and Canadian currency would fall in order to absorb the historically troubled peso. ...

 

i boldened my main concern* in all this. :phones: :hyper: :lol:

 

 

* SPP Home

[Qfwfq]

But that's where the U. K. Whigs have gone! :D I wasn't castigating the US, only having a joke with Boerseun about patriots.

 

If the bold is your main concern, it seems you ought to be relieved by the SPP and especially its Myths vs. Fact page; anyway the whole thing looks slightly more like an initiative of US hegemony than a threat to what you believe in.

 

Such concerns (whether fact or myth) and creeds are of course a matter of opinion. Thatcher would still never do without the pound and she persuaded Britons to vote against the Euro, they still don't have it. Everything has pros and cons, some politicians like full control over their nation's monetary policy. Maybe the governors of some states, Wisconsin, Indiana or whichever, would secretly like the same thing but dassn't say so. As for concerns of constitutionality, I'm of the camp that the very idea of democracy is "let the people decide"; what obligation do today's US citizens have toward the Founding Fathers? When the children have become adults and no longer live with their parents? And what import does an old piece of paper have, except by the fact that the people agree with it and find it suites them?

 

If there's nothing wrong with a state chusing to ratify the US constitution, why should the idea of the several states joining a larger federation be so outrageous? Apart from patriotic flair or embracing a newfangled outlook, it's all a matter of pros and cons.

[Buffy]

...what obligation do today's US citizens have toward the Founding Fathers? When the children have become adults and no longer live with their parents? And what import does an old piece of paper have, except by the fact that the people agree with it and find it suites them?

 

They were, like, rilly smart dudes! Like, way smarter than the dudes we have now! If they came back, they'd think we were all like, totally bogus!

 

Do you realize you have just stranded one of Europe's greatest leaders in San Dimas, :P

Buffy

[Turtle]

But that's where the U. K. Whigs have gone! :D I wasn't castigating the US, only having a joke with Boerseun about patriots.

 

If the bold is your main concern, it seems you ought to be relieved by the SPP and especially its Myths vs. Fact page; ....

 

I love joking with Boerseun; proceed with the plan. :D

 

The thing is, the 'Myths vs. Fact' bit is damage control added only after activists started raising an alarm.

 

Our obligation to the old rags is constant vigilance; don't tread on us. :P

[Pyrotex]

Well, pilgrims, Ima thinkin' it's about time that Texas declared its independance, and started catching illegal immigrants trying to get over ANY of our borders. Needless to say, without Texas, the economy of the disunited states of washington deecee would go right down the toilet.

[Freddy]

As for concerns of constitutionality, I'm of the camp that the very idea of democracy is "let the people decide"; what obligation do today's US citizens have toward the Founding Fathers? When the children have become adults and no longer live with their parents? And what import does an old piece of paper have, except by the fact that the people agree with it and find it suites them?

 

If there's nothing wrong with a state chusing to ratify the US constitution, why should the idea of the several states joining a larger federation be so outrageous? Apart from patriotic flair or embracing a newfangled outlook, it's all a matter of pros and cons.

First, the USA is not a democracy, rather it is a constitutional republic with a supreme law of the land, the US Constitution. There are two methods for amending the Constitution and it is open to interpretation by the courts. However, leaving the union was settled in 1865 and most Americans would not want to have to revisit that tragedy again when 630,000 lives were lost. There are no provisions in it that allow the USA to unite and create a new nation or federation legally. The only legal method is the USA allows other countries to join the USA as a territory and then they apply for statehood. Perhaps the USA may consist of more than 50 states in the future.

[Qfwfq]

I didn't say the USA "is a democracy" I was arguing on the assumption of it being democratic and one of the various forms of democracy; that you count this out of the wording "being a" is totally beyond my point (and even surprising). I didn't mention amending the US constitution and I'm not so persuaded it would so strictly be necessary, it depends on exactly how the larger federation was devised; it's outside the point anyway. If the US people wanted something that implies amendment, the possibility is contemplated and the details aren't relevant to my point.

 

Only a very radical scenario would imply replacing it altogether; constitutions never have provisions about termination simply because it would be pretty much beyond their purpose, but this shouldn't mean it's impossible; it's only up to the party which ordained them. The idea of modern national constitutions is to be above the rulers and governors, not to be above the people; that's what I meant with my point about democracy and the provisions for amendment are even a recognition of this (in a sense, the purpose is to avoid necessity of in toto replacement when the people only want a specific change). The idea that a constitution cannot be replaced is absurd and has counterexamples. It is simply considered an epochal event, by no means run of the mill. Arguing against the suggestion on the grounds of the constitution itself is pointless; the only valid reason is the people still wanting the current one. :)

 

My point was even less about secession and the opinion that there should be an opt-in but no opt-out is a matter of mentality I don't embrace, just as the opinion that 1865 settled the matter and that the war was necessary. I only pointed out the similarity between two concepts: that of a state opting in and that of the whole federation opting into a larger one. Whether there being no provisions that explicitly allow the USA to unite and create a new nation or federation makes it an illegal action is also not so consequential; unless there is an explicit ban it simply leaves the matter undecided and at the very most needing an amendment. Anyway, from the few times I have read it, I can't even remember the US constitution giving explicit opt-in provisions, even less what you say about applying for statehood only after having joined as a territory; first kiss our arses, then humbly request to be our equals. The wording of "the Several States" (rather than 13) can be construed as not excluding an increase of the number. And yet... even the Louisiana purchase met heavy opposition, with some folks calling it unconstitutional on the sole grounds that the US constitution doesn't contain any provisions for acquiring new territory.

 

They were, like, rilly smart dudes! Like, way smarter than the dudes we have now! If they came back, they'd think we were all like, totally bogus!

I'm sure they would be dismayed by the state of things of the current USA. I don't however consider them to have been insurpassably smart. Anyway, adult people even have the right to be less smart than their parents, if they choose. :cup:

[Cuauhtzin]

Well i see this thrad has some time without answer but i cannot stay quiet. I will lie if i say you i dont want to argue debate or polemyc, i love the three of them!

 

First, We all have seen that amero has not been yet, praise the currency gods do not allowed it.

 

As some as you say, and what im going to said represent my opinion of what most of latin american people feel, but not necesarily is the reality or the opinion of all. The problem with Amero and a Union of that way is that for experiencie, the U.S. does not give without take (and maybe is a rule for every nation), but as a 100% capital and industrial nation it takes more what it gives.

The history of the latin american natios is one of constant struggle against imperialist nations. fromthe colonies against Spain and Portugal, to the fight for the right of manage our own goverments without the intervation of the France, England, Great Britain and of course, the United States.

The problem becomes stronger when one of this potencys, decide to "help" one nation against another, to "help" them by taking down a dictator to put one that "please" more the interests of people (or i mean of the international market).

The latin american nations, especially those in south america are "brother nations", a lot of them share the same heroes, martyrs and mother cultures.

Is truth that many would like the ameros, but is really truth that many others would not allowed it, because that would mean to eventaully become a star more in the American flag.

Maybe a lot of you love your nation and find a lot of ideals there, in your history... and that is okey, but as well, much of us, the latin american nations find other values, that represent us like people in our own countrys we have fight and died for.

 

...

 

About some things you mention about mexican history.

 

Agustin the Iturbide, he born as a "criollo", this means a spanish (but i think his mother was mestiza) born in the land of Nueva España (or México). He was first fighting against the independence, but then he join the insurgents, and he, without a drop of blood gather all the insurgent bands and proclame the independence.

In my general opinion he was a great beguining and he could make great things, but eventually he couldnt fight againts the masonry that was very strong in mexican politics. From here beguins the intervation of the united states in the national life of mexico; There were two logias, the Scotish from europe, and the Yorkine from U.S. (you can imagine wich one won).

 

The texas bussnises beguins with the u.s. trying to buy it to Iturbide, and other figures of power, because the negative form them it was clear that it wa snot going to be sold.

the problems between Texas and México were for three main causes:

1- Mexico had a central goverment. And Santa anna was a.. how can i say it a... ¿Jerk?

2- Mexico give permision to every people, mexican and american to take land from Texas, ant to worke it (obviously, as all we know americans and europe inmigrants were the first to take the land, because in this time... well, mexico was huge!)

3- probably the most unkown and important. When Mexico became

independent, the slavery was abolish (there was another "slavery" class), texans want they slaves, mexican goverment say no... and the struggle beguin.

 

Why texas could have its independence so easily?... Santa anna was a coward and a jerk, the texas could be a lot of things like people that want slaves, but they were not cowards.

 

When the U.S. put texas in its side, beguin the oportunity from them to take therest of the territorys they need. United states was industrious shinny and he has not war in his country, mexico for the other side had a lot of improductive land, huge territories, corruption legacy from spanish domain and the problem of hundreds of different indian cultures living there.

 

There was a pact between U.S. and Mexico for the boundories of each nation, the U.S. try to put new bounderys give them more territory, mexican governet did not want it... and the rest is history.

 

Well, i i make see the United state govermetn as evil... well.., probably it was, mexican goverment was evil too in that years (it still is). But this las paragraph is only mi opinion.

...

 

So, this is my particular opinion, and i would want to hear the one of yours...

I will like to note that this i write i dont copy from any book, but if some one wants to argue some point, facts or something like that, im open to that and to do it properly as it has to be done we the bibliography and things like that,

 

Saludos damas y caballeros,

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

What would be wrong with Mexico becoming a state or a part of the U.S.. Many Mexicans risk their lives to come here. So many that we spend billions on trying to stop and return them. Why not save all that misery? Being an American doesn't mean you have to abandon your history and your culture you know.

 

I for one would celebrate.

It would mean no more super fence.

No more billions wasted on keeping people out that want in.

More jobs on both sides of the border open to people on both sides.

Yup to me it would be a great thing:)

[Buffy]

What would be wrong with Mexico becoming a state or a part of the U.S.. Many Mexicans risk their lives to come here. So many that we spend billions on trying to stop and return them. Why not save all that misery? Being an American doesn't mean you have to abandon your history and your culture you know.

You want to pay to try to civilize what is about to become a narco-terrorist state?

 

Before you go saying silly things like that, go spend a few days walkin' around Juarez, dude!

 

And ya know what? Those messicans don't *want* to be "helped"...ask Cuauhtzin!

 

Cuauhtzin's actually got the idea: lots of idiots on both sides, and it doesn't make either one worthy of "ruling" the other...

 

It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees, :confused:

Buffy

[freeztar]

What would be wrong with Mexico becoming a state or a part of the U.S.

 

There would be enormous challenges to such a proposition.

 

The drug trafficking and violence in Mexico is quite bad right now. So bad, in fact, that the US has sent lots of support in the form of money and personnel to Mexico in the hopes that collectively we can tackle the problem and prevent it from jumping the border more than it already has.

 

For example: Mexico's drug violence respects no borders - Los Angeles Times

[Cuauhtzin]

What would be wrong with Mexico becoming a state or a part of the U.S.. Many Mexicans risk their lives to come here. So many that we spend billions on trying to stop and return them. Why not save all that misery? Being an American doesn't mean you have to abandon your history and your culture you know.

 

I for one would celebrate.

It would mean no more super fence.

No more billions wasted on keeping people out that want in.

More jobs on both sides of the border open to people on both sides.

Yup to me it would be a great thing

 

Well, dude. Don´t take it personally, but you maybe think that because you live in the american lifestyle, probably you have been raised with some values, maybe not to exagerated as the cristian ortodoxes oy.. you understand me.

What would you think if a Russian from the soviet union had tell you the same?

México and the U.S. have different values, i can respect a lot fo american values, others not (and i think most of people in this forum are going to feel the same about my values).

Simple things like sing your national himne, that you have inference in some way in your political life.. are little details that make the men die for their countrys.

 

Yes, like 10 million of mexicans are in the U.S. working legal or illegaly (without count the chicanos and the ones who were bron there), but know what?, theres a lot of more mexicans in Mexico!

I really aprecciate this:

I for one would celebrate.

but probably i would give my life to defend my country for an invasion.

....................

 

You want to pay to try to civilize what is about to become a narco-terrorist state?

Before you go saying silly things like that, go spend a few days walkin' around Juarez, dude!

And ya know what? Those messicans don't *want* to be "helped"...ask Cuauhtzin!

Cuauhtzin's actually got the idea: lots of idiots on both sides, and it doesn't make either one worthy of "ruling" the other...

 

well, a nation can not have to states and live in peace. You can see it in Mexico, you can see it in Israel (who i personally think they are invaders to palestine land). Is war, i was going to happen eventually because the political and the social relations between mexico and the U.S. Centro america produce and mexico become a bridge to pass the drug to the great consumer U.S.. Eventually Mexico became a producer and a consumer, and rencently the goverment of mexico (because evil reason we dont uderstand) decide to fight the narcotraffic. (The foght to the narcotraffic, i think you can understand it better if you compare ir as the fight agianst the phantom "terrorism". That paranoia, beguin and broke the social order.

 

and yes, im totally agree, i really think U.S. goverment sucks, as mexican govermente really sucks. Im miss Emperor Santa anna:(

...

 

The drug trafficking and violence in Mexico is quite bad right now. So bad, in fact, that the US has sent lots of support in the form of money and personnel to Mexico in the hopes that collectively we can tackle the problem and prevent it from jumping the border more than it already has.

Yes, and that support probably is vinculated with the new reforms to the TLC (tratado de libre comercio) that has debilitated mexican economy and selfsustainment to make mexico more productive for the international market, and not its own necesitys.

 

Saludos

[Buffy]

:confused:

 

I'll complain that the Israel comparison is strained, but that's not the topic here!

 

A bunch of us--Republicans too!--are working on legalizing drugs in the US. This of course is an evil gringo plot to bring Mexico and Columbia and Venezuela (not because they produce drugs but because Chavez is paranoid) to their knees! :note:

 

...because it is the very nature of Imperialism to turn humans into beasts, :note:

Buffy

[Cuauhtzin]

Well, im not sure about drugs legalize, not very against it, but i dont think thats gonna resolve the problem. The criminals are still going to control the markets, but instead of being in the underworld, they are going to be called Busnisses.

 

I´m not sure of know the meaning of strained.. si something like "forced¿?", any way, in the cultural case they have not similaritys, but in the two states or two political forces trying to governate is whay i emphazises. (i dont know U.S., in mexico narcotraficantes are politic forces too -.- F...Ck politcis...)

[maikeru]

What would be wrong with Mexico becoming a state or a part of the U.S.. Many Mexicans risk their lives to come here. So many that we spend billions on trying to stop and return them. Why not save all that misery? Being an American doesn't mean you have to abandon your history and your culture you know.

 

I for one would celebrate.

It would mean no more super fence.

No more billions wasted on keeping people out that want in.

More jobs on both sides of the border open to people on both sides.

Yup to me it would be a great thing:)

 

No quiero. Before we annex and take over more people, let's do a thorough job of annexing and taking over ourselves. :confused: (In other words, we have a lot of problems we need to work out. They have a lot of problems they need to work out. Invasions, annexations, etc. are trouble unless they're willing and wanted. Otherwise, let's not consider the thought. Don't go where we're not wanted.)

[freeztar]

Simple things like sing your national himne, that you have inference in some way in your political life.. are little details that make the men die for their countrys.

 

Indeed. But, it's deeper than a song. People will die for nationality as we see in most modern wars, they will die for family as we see in Romeo and Juliet and mafias, and they will die for rights as we saw with the American Civil War and the Civil Rights movement.

 

In other words, I don't think that pride in nationality (orgullo) is necessary for men to die for a cause. Culture is probably a larger factor.

 

Yes, like 10 million of mexicans are in the U.S. working legal or illegaly (without count the chicanos and the ones who were bron there), but know what?, theres a lot of more mexicans in Mexico!

:note:

I know several Mexicans that really want to live in the US, but they don't want to leave Mexico. :doh: It's a cultural tie.

 

well, a nation can not have to states and live in peace.

Yep! Imagine having fifty! :confused: :note:

 

You can see it in Mexico, you can see it in Israel (who i personally think they are invaders to palestine land). Is war, i was going to happen eventually because the political and the social relations between mexico and the U.S. Centro america produce and mexico become a bridge to pass the drug to the great consumer U.S.. Eventually Mexico became a producer and a consumer, and rencently the goverment of mexico (because evil reason we dont uderstand) decide to fight the narcotraffic. (The foght to the narcotraffic, i think you can understand it better if you compare ir as the fight agianst the phantom "terrorism". That paranoia, beguin and broke the social order.

 

Why is it evil for the government to fight narcotics trafficking?

What I find interesting is that they recently legalized small amounts of narcotics for possession in Mexico.

 

Yes, and that support probably is vinculated with the new reforms to the TLC (tratado de libre comercio) that has debilitated mexican economy and selfsustainment to make mexico more productive for the international market, and not its own necesitys.

The TLC is known to Americans as NAFTA.

 

We've discussed it here before and though I'm tempted to say a lot, it's probably best saved for a new thread.

[Buffy]

Well, im not sure about drugs legalize, not very against it, but i dont think thats gonna resolve the problem. The criminals are still going to control the markets, but instead of being in the underworld, they are going to be called Busnisses.

Oh sure, but they'll have a *lot* less dinero to bribe the federales and the Presidente.... :confused:

 

Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something, :note:

Buffy