PrimeNumber

I'm not sure who but it will happen with changes to NAFTA first. Open borders might be another step, ease the cost of trade, maybe even a harmonizing of regulations eventually making things like business and trades industries flourish across all 3 nations. Seems like a pipe dream and a long shot but I could see something like this happening. If the Amero is ever created it will be to compete with the Yuan and the Euro if it is still around. I have a feeling America won't like being #2 for very long. Not their style, they may be looking for another way to get back on top and the Amero might be the answer. Only in purchasing power parity, reflected by the Yuan not American dollars. There are many other indicators that China has not surpassed the US in, yet. Some are not expected to happen until sometime next year others such as Nominal GDP, reflected in American Dollars, are not expected to happen until 2020.

That is entirely possible. The moon will be colonized in the next 100 years without a single shred of doubt. Central Bank of Luna could be the next Swiss Bank.

One of these will. NAFTA is just a precursor to what may become a larger Union. I predict that once China over takes the US economically, Canada, the US and Mexico will be looking for a way to unite their economies much like the EU has done. We may or may not benefit from this Union.

The Amero, maybe a centralized government like structure and completely seamless travel and relocation between all 3 countries. My bet at least one of these happens within the next 20 years. More and more smaller countries are joining together in local unions all over the world. It's only a matter of time before the larger ones do even though they will resist the transition the entire time, much like the U.K. has with the EU.

Downtown Chinatown in Vancouver is nothing like the Richmond experience as far as Chinese culture goes. With that being said the Richmond experience is nothing like Hong Kong as far as Chinese culture goes. Especially the Cuisine though Vancouver has much to offer it does not compare in any way to evening dining in Hong Kong. And the Richmond market is nothing like the markets you will find in Hong Kong If you're big on shopping, trust me Hong Kong is much better than the Aberdeen in Richmond or even the nearby Metropolis Mall. If you want the true Chinese experience go to Hong Kong, go to Vancouver to experience Vancouver.

It wouldn't cost us a damn thing, we would be saving money, time and effort. We have much more to offer the world than bodies and machines for war time. The right has such a hard time understanding this because all they want is for this country to be in never ending war, what do you think this accomplishes?

If it's in the best interests of the USA to invade Canada why have they not done so? One could argue that it is in the USA's best interest not to invade Canada considering how many countries would be against such an invasion. It would most certainly be a USA vs the World scenario. The length of the border is entirely relevant. I have not condemned anyone to slaughter, I simply refuse to support their internationally illegal military campaigns. whats the point of having international law if we allow Israel to break it? What happens after Israel no longer has our support is up to Israel. Peace is obtainable if they are willing to have it.

Well we share the worlds ongest land border so it would be in both of our countries best interests to try and get along. Israel has nothing to offer either of our countries.

I'm Canadian, it's not my way.

Who has ever said that? If anything Canada is the rogue ally, when we refused to support America on it's ridiculous military excursions.

Anyone can do whatever they wish to protect regional interests, who needs the Geneva Conventions? Let's just let our allies do whatever they want, we don't have to answer for the same crimes we hold our enemies to, its the American Way!

More violations of the 4th Geneva Convention by Israel. I guess international law doesn't apply to "allies" of the west, just the Muslims they oppose.

You have provided no evidence that they can and have been managed.

These harms continue to happen. When people fly through windshields during an accident we add seat belts. Nothing has been done in Canada in spite of the claims of harm and in fact the Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq just dismisses it every time its brought up, like she is instructed to do by the PMO. We can drive cars so long as the proper steps are taken to ensure all harm that is caused to people is within their own control. These people being harmed by fracking have no control over the regulations and suffice to say the government nor the energy industry do not care about them. When a car has a bad safety rating people may refuse to buy it for something else. Unfortunately we do not have that option with natural gas in certain Provinces.

I never once stated that those things could happen it was directed at Tim when he said nothing major has ever happened because of fracking, in which my reply was you'll only be convinced if something major ever happens. It was completely sarcastic. i don't even know why I need to defend that statement. If you wish to attribute those things to me, be aware that I am not defending anything you're saying so it's a moot point. I refuse to comment any more on the matter. I am still waiting for Tim and poochy's "science" to disprove the fact that hydraulic fracturing has not caused harm in humans and live stock, contaminated ground water and caused seismic activity.

hahaha you obviously didn't the comment you quoted in full or you would have seen that I was referring to Tim that he would not be convinced unless one of these things happen. I never once said any of them WOULD. Where in this sentance does it say "Fracking will cause major earthquakes?" where does it say "Thousands of people will die from fracking?" I don't see it, how about a any Mods of the forum? Do you see me referencing that fracking causes major earthquakes or kills thousands of people? I simply said Tim would not be convinced until one of these things happen. Which more or less was me saying, there is no convincing him... But of course you're only argument is against an argument I'm not even making. I'm not entitled to fact? What kind of argument is that? Am I not allowed to use facts? What does that even mean? You're calling my opinion irrelevant when you haven't brought a single noteworthy comment to this entire discussion. Just a bunch of misquoting and assumptions. You remember what happens when you make assumptions poochy? You call me anti-science? Well how about you bring to the table one shred of evidence that fracking has not harmed people and livesstock, caused seismic activity, however small or large it may be and contaminated drinking supplies? Let's see your "science" proving that none of this has happened. Considering there are legally documented cases of all of them in this country. Or are you just going to deflect the argument back to something I never said again. I eagerly await your informed response.

I heard this as well, from multiple sources.

It's in your hands if you choose to try and make a difference otherwise you just let it get out of hand. If everyone tries something will happen, if no one tries well you get the picture. Also aren't all commandments just statements? it's a rule the allows rather than forbids.

So what you are saying is that to be against a society that uses oil we must exile ourselves from said society? Did you get the point at all of what I'm saying? I didn't say fracking would cause major earthquakes, but the fact of the matter is in Alberta it has caused seismic activity, in fact a women is taking the Alberta government to court because of that fact. My point is that Tim would not be convinced of the problems associated with fracking unless a major earthquake occurs, never once did I say it would. How about you read the whole conversation before spouting your drivel? You anti-science, anti-fact, anti-earth right leaning individuals find no fault in fossil fuels. You're pathetic and illogical argument that we must abandon society in order to be taken seriously about not using fossil fuels is absolutely ridiculous and is just so typical of Conservatives when they know they have lost the argument. You argument is a fallacy and if this were a debate you would be laughed off of the stage,

I imagine the climb to Mount Sinai in the winter would have been much easier if Moses was rockin' a Ski-Doo Renegade.

I read this article a few days ago, much better than Moses' original commandments.

hahaha wow you are beginning to sound ridiculous. You said there is no evidence of any harm caused by fracking, when in fact there is. I have admitted these risks are manigable but absolutely nothing is being done to manage them, in fact there are very little restrictions on fracking in this country, far less than even the regulations the US has in place. You also now admit that there are risks we don't know about but should continue to do so anyways, fair enough that is your opinion. My opinion is that it is an unnecessary risk. Why do these things if we do not need to? I'ts an exercise in futility and possible fatality. I have refuted a lot of things such as your claims about wind energy, your fear mongering claims on nuclear energy and your claims that fracking hasn't caused any harm. Except for the fact that there is. Our reactors are equipped to use thorium. The biggest drawback from this is the by-products being able to be used in nuclear weapons other than that it's process' are no different than Uranium. The unknowns are known about thorium. The second largest drawback is weather its viable economically. The only thing it might hurt is the industries wallets. ahhh I see so your entire argument is based on the fact that I might be hiding the fact that I don't like fracking because of CO2 emissions. Well you are partially right I ALSO, aside from the fact it can cause our fellow human beings harm which is legally documented in this country, dislike fracking because it can cause CO2 emissions. But the part you have left out is I also don't like it because it can cause extensive methane emissions too.

Having an evil-eye is too! I think that means anyone with a lazy eye is going to suffer in eternal hellfire.

In fact it is, because as stated you have provided nothing to support your claims on fracking and have also provided nothing to support your claims about the Canadian Nuclear Industry. Everything you provide is just your opinion, which I have proven to be wrong several times. I didn't say the risk was unmanageable I said there is risk of harm from fracking, that is not being managed as it continues to happen in this country. We don't have any recorded risks in this country from CANDU nuclear reactors so there is no evidence to support the claim that it is even dangerous in this country. You're saying i should support fracking even though there is physical evidence it can cause many things in this country but if I don't support fracking then I can't support CANDU nuclear reactors even though they don't have a history of causing any harm whatsoever in this or any other country. You're are trying to make my argument illogical based on no evidence, while dismissing my evidence to support that your argument is the illogical one. This is what is known as a false equivalence and is an illogical fallacy in debate. The difference between your greenpeace argument is that it is speculative. My Nuclear argument is based on fact. Fracking evidence isn't speculative, it has actually occurred in this country. Therefor logically Nuclear is a better option than Natural Gas.

In the end it might not even be the CO2 that does the warming. Methane is impossible to stop but we sure are helping it. Methane has been proven to reverse ice ages. So it's needed in the natural flow of things but adding fuel to the fire may have consequences. We can not be certain of that at this point. the equator around the earth would be largely unlivable though if enough methane is present which would have dire effects on immigration north ward which Conservatives are always against. You think they would be trying to siphon the methane out of the air and cause an ice age to keep all of them foreigners out.