Thread: Should Blue States Join Canada?

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

Succession in the United States of America is not a singular act--nor one enacted over time. It is an act of defiance directed towards a common authority, borne out of an emotional context that overrirde any other consideration. The result: A war that killed or maimed more than a million Americans.

You seem to suggest we will again have a 1860's style civil war, no we won't. I maintain that if blue states decide to secede, it will be done peaceful way.
I hope you are not suggesting that the red states will mount an attack the blue states in order to keep them within the union.

How is the rise in "Born again christians" [sic] indicative of religious fundamentalism? Faith-based charities are a matter of choice--true conservatism, true freedom--not of government-sponsored, government-required "helping" that do not distinguish between the deserving and the leeches.

Rise of evangelicalism or other christian creeds in itself is not the problem, the problem is with their agenda, which is fundamentalist, and since they voted en mass for the Republicans they want payback in implementation of their agenda.
Yes faith based charities are a matter of choice, I have no problem with that. I have problem with Republican govt. faith based initiative program under which it is doling out 100's of millions of dollers to churches.
There are 100's of religion practiced in US, how money should go to each of these churcehs/synagouges/mosques/temples/fireplace ane what not.
Should it be govt. job to donate money to churches?

Any overturn of "Row v. Wade" would be at a federal level--the level at which so many liberals are willing to subordinate themselves to--until the conservatives are in power. That sort of flip-flopping is, more than anything else, a crystal clear example of Democratic dissatisfaction with the American democratic process.

The issue here is Woman's right to choose which is being threatened by rise of religious fundamentalism, not alleged flip-flopping.

Separation of church and state is a fine mantra, but its violation should embody more than a group of students desiring to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "...under God" or a desire to commit resources and money under the guise of the crucifix. Give me specific actions; specific pieces of legislation, and I will respond accordingly. But don't give me mere rhetoric and expect to me believe that our Bill of Rights is in jeopardy.

Specific example of violation of seperation of church and state doctrine is govt. faith based initiative program. Govt. ought to keep out of business of promoting faith.

As for displaying The Ten Commandments publicly, I'd really like to hear your opinions as to why the display of the tenets of that particular document violate said constitutional provision--or are a threat to a faith-free lifestyle. Our Constitution guarantees freedom from government-sponsored religion, not freedom from the implementation a faith-based moral code to disburse funds, an act which any reasonable person would regard as mere guidelines to maintain an orderly and progressive society.

I have no problem in public display of Ten Commandments , or verses from Quran, or Tora or the 100 other religions followed in US.
I have problem if the display is govt. premises, since it violates the doctrine of seperation of church and state.
If one has to be displayed then the rest 99 should also, and including a plaque by atheist which says that god does not exists and religion are only for fooling masses.

Crux of the matter is with Bush as president there indeed has been a rise in religious fundamentalism US, I don't see how you can deny it.
That is a real problem among others from the blue states perspective.

Originally Posted by donnie

a flip-flop then? sorry, but he would have gone to war, he said so, your saying that now that the war is this far into it he wouldnt have gone? BULL.

I am not saying anything I am just quoting Kerry who said that Iraq war was wrong war at the wrong time.
Before he made this statement he was significantly lagging in polls, but after this he was within strking disatance of Bush.

no you didnt pay attention to what i wrote, i said kerry was against abortion, you said i was wrong, im not. you can put his personal beliefs aside but i didnt when i made my statment, they both have the same beliefs, just different convictions.

Since you are saying that they have different convictions, would you at least concede that is difference between their stand on abortion?

at the federal level, didnt seem to have a problem with it on the state level. doesnt mater my point was they both believe it is wrong, and they do, you can make a DIFFERENT point about conviction, but that doesnt make my point wrong.

You are yourself saying that they are different in conviction, isin't that a big difference.
If Kerry conviction was identical to Bush he would not be a nominee of Democratic party.

really? can you back it up? cause i cant believe for 1 second that 33% of america is on the very far left of the spectrum.

I did not say say that 33% belonged to radical left. I said in general Americans tend to fall in three groups, 33% conservatives, 33% moderate, and 33% as left. In each of the category there is a wide varriation. However, I do think that 33% conservatives are hardcore.

Originally Posted by donnie

your wrong, sorry, that was not the criteria. if quebec had gotten 51% of the vote the court would have struck down thier question. (which they did without the 51%) then they would have had to get permission from the other provinces, and if any one group of people (including the indiginous, who have never voted for secesion) dont want to secede, then you would have a quagmire, there are so many loophole the canadian courts wouldnt let bloc out of any of them, plus the wording used on the referendom the last time around was decieving. read the clearity act, it gives no avenue for secesion. if 51% of quebec vote to secede all they would have is a popular vote, no secesion.

Pykin is a Canadian, he knows better. Here is what he wrote in his last post about Quebec secession;

Quebec Referendum. I've never claimed to be an expert on American history, and I'm not an expert on Canadian history, but I do know quite a bit, seeing as it is the country I live in, and I have been assigned to do extensive research on these matters in the past. Had the first referendum been succesful, Quebec would likely be independant now. Had the second referendum been succesful, it would have been debated, but there is a good probability that Quebec would still be seperate right now. Read the Charter, we provide quite a bit of freedom to our provincial governments, such as the right to opt out of federal decisions, under the notwithstanding clause. I live in Canada, I know quite a bit about it, and I'm proud of my country and the open mindedness and freedom we have. Ontario allows gay marriage. I am thrilled to hear this, because it means we are moving even farther towards true liberty and equality. Canada is and will likely continue to be a leader in Human Rights and equality. I'm proud to be Canadian.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

Pykin is a Canadian, he knows better. Here is what he wrote in his last post about Quebec secession;

Well, I'm Canadian and Pykin is wrong.

1 - The PQ went with with their Sovergnty Association bull which means that they wanted all the benefits of Canada (Ottawa pays for defence, welfare, transfer payments, Quebec Members of Parliment, a Seat on the Bank of Canada, Quebecois still working on Ottawa's Civil Service) but without paying the taxes nor allowing Ottawa a say in the matter.

2 - The First Nations sign their treaties with the Federal Government, not the Province of Quebec and hence, Quebec has no right to seceed with those lands.

3 - Newfoundland owns Labrador and is not obligated to share its revenue with a non-Canadian neighbour.

Quebec may very well have its sovergnty, not independence, whatever the hell that means, but it would not have been the shape nor the conditions that you both are advocating.

Lastly, this entire thing is insulting to those of us who served, fought, bled, and died for this country, especially today.