kengs333 Posted October 6, 2008 Author Report Posted October 6, 2008 Yes....they had every right to die for a right that did not exist....and still doesn't. What does any of this have to do with Canada permitting such states to join confederation? This was about Canada...remember? So you're admitting that states within the Union don't have the right to self-determination, a fundamental human right, and a right that the US has used as a pretex for war and other meddling in foreign countries? Quote
kengs333 Posted October 6, 2008 Author Report Posted October 6, 2008 I live in Michigan. You don't want Michigan absorbed into Canada, trust me. The economy here is shit. You would inherite a million welfare recpients in Detroit over night. Waste of your time. Alaska New hampshire, vermont Maine on the other hand. Might be worth a shot. I doubt you will get the US to give up Alaska because of Oil though. Arguably, though, by joining Confederation, Michigan would become part of a more stable economy and more just society, and some of the problems would no doubt decline. It would take time, but I think it could work. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 6, 2008 Report Posted October 6, 2008 So you're admitting that states within the Union don't have the right to self-determination, a fundamental human right, and a right that the US has used as a pretex for war and other meddling in foreign countries? States are not human beings....it is not a "fundamental human right". As far as meddling goes, what's Canada's excuse (e.g. Kosovo, Haiti, Iraq, Afganistan, etc.) Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kengs333 Posted October 6, 2008 Author Report Posted October 6, 2008 States are not human beings....it is not a "fundamental human right". As far as meddling goes, what's Canada's excuse (e.g. Kosovo, Haiti, Iraq, Afganistan, etc.) The concept of self-determination entails that the people (ie. human beings) have the right to form a nation. That is considered a human right. Canada doesn't orchastrate coups, fund revolutionary movements, send troops into foreign country without sanction, etc. Remember, the problems in Afghanistan originated in large part because of American interference in the region... Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 6, 2008 Report Posted October 6, 2008 The concept of self-determination entails that the people (ie. human beings) have the right to form a nation. That is considered a human right. No..that is a total fabrication with no foundation in natural law or legal system. Nation states are political and economic constructs, often without regard to "human rights". Canada doesn't orchastrate coups, fund revolutionary movements, send troops into foreign country without sanction, etc. Yes it does....but I understand that the "peacekeeping" myth is fundamental to the Canadian psyche. Remember, the problems in Afghanistan originated in large part because of American interference in the region... So the Americans forced Canada to violate the "human rights" of Afghans, Serbs, Iraqis, and Haitians? Whatever gets you through the night.... In any event, what does any of this have to do with Canada embracing seceding US states? For "human rights"...LOL! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Radsickle Posted October 6, 2008 Report Posted October 6, 2008 It would be great to be able to snowboard on Mount Baker without having to show a passport. Quote
kengs333 Posted October 7, 2008 Author Report Posted October 7, 2008 No..that is a total fabrication with no foundation in natural law or legal system. Nation states are political and economic constructs, often without regard to "human rights". Oh, okay, so the whole deal with the founding of the "United States" is not legitimate then? I'll agree with that. Yes it does....but I understand that the "peacekeeping" myth is fundamental to the Canadian psyche. When and where. Give one example. So the Americans forced Canada to violate the "human rights" of Afghans, Serbs, Iraqis, and Haitians? Whatever gets you through the night.... Canada always acts in duress. And why do you keep mentioning Iraq? In any event, what does any of this have to do with Canada embracing seceding US states? For "human rights"...LOL! We will get to that when you've finally managed to comprehend the fact that groups of people have a right to self-determination, and that this gives states within the US the right to seceded if there is a political and social desire to do so. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 Oh, okay, so the whole deal with the founding of the "United States" is not legitimate then? I'll agree with that. Nope..that's why there was a "Revolutionary War". I know this is a difficult concept to grasp when still a Queen's subject. When and where. Give one example. Several to choose from...the Balkans will do as an example....Canadian Forces were "peacekilling" while the home front was sold a bill of goods. Canada always acts in duress. And why do you keep mentioning Iraq? Duress? Oh you mean Canada can't help itself? I doubt that. Said "No!" to Iraq after bombing, sanctioning, and strangling same since 1991. We will get to that when you've finally managed to comprehend the fact that groups of people have a right to self-determination, and that this gives states within the US the right to seceded if there is a political and social desire to do so. Bullshit....they can move to Quebec! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kengs333 Posted October 7, 2008 Author Report Posted October 7, 2008 Nope..that's why there was a "Revolutionary War". I know this is a difficult concept to grasp when still a Queen's subject. So you're saying that the only way that a group of people can secede from the so-called beacon of democracy is by armed insurrection? And that the United States has now evolved into what the British Empire once was? Several to choose from...the Balkans will do as an example....Canadian Forces were "peacekilling" while the home front was sold a bill of goods. This doesn't substantiate your claim that Canada has been involved in staging coups, funding revolutionary movements, and other subverse tactics. Duress? Oh you mean Canada can't help itself? I doubt that. Said "No!" to Iraq after bombing, sanctioning, and strangling same since 1991. Yes, duress. Bullshit....they can move to Quebec! Why? They have every right to remain where they are and demand self-determination. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 So you're saying that the only way that a group of people can secede from the so-called beacon of democracy is by armed insurrection? No...I have already articulated the mechanism for admission and secession from the Union, supported by adjudicated case law at the highest level. Armed rebellion is always an option, but not likely to succeed. And that the United States has now evolved into what the British Empire once was? For all practical purposes, yes...but the Americans don't do it for the Crown. This doesn't substantiate your claim that Canada has been involved in staging coups, funding revolutionary movements, and other subverse tactics. Are you remotely aware of what happened to Aristide in Haiti? Why? They have every right to remain where they are and demand self-determination. They can demand in one hand and poop in another. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
White Doors Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 There are several states, primarily in the New England region, that have strong seperatist movements, and I'm thinking that these states would be better served if they joined Canada rather than trying to go it alone. The most likely candidates:1) Vermont 2) New Hampshire 3) Maine 4) Washington and/or Oregon 5) Michigan 6) Montana New Hampshire and Montana joining Canada? Are you serious? Are you that clueless? Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
margrace Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 Interesting discussion, too bad some people can only resort to attacks and name calling Quote
scribblet Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 I cannot believe anyone would even ask that question - have these States been making noises about ceceding? Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
moderateamericain Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 I cannot believe anyone would even ask that question - have these States been making noises about ceceding? god no. I have not heard anything mainstream about it. I think its safe to say thats not happening in our lifetimes. Quote
kengs333 Posted October 7, 2008 Author Report Posted October 7, 2008 god no. I have not heard anything mainstream about it. I think its safe to say thats not happening in our lifetimes. What is your definition of mainstream? If 12% of people in Vermont want to secede, that's not mainstream, but if 8% of Quebecers do, that is mainstream? I wouldn't be so sure. People were convinced that the Cold War was going to last for a very, very long time, but the Soviet Union collapsed and Iron Curtain came down quite rapidly. Quote
kengs333 Posted October 7, 2008 Author Report Posted October 7, 2008 I cannot believe anyone would even ask that question - have these States been making noises about ceceding? 1) it's a legitimate question 2) yes Quote
kengs333 Posted October 7, 2008 Author Report Posted October 7, 2008 New Hampshire and Montana joining Canada? Are you serious? Are you that clueless? There is a secesionist movement in New Hampshire and in New England in general. Quote
kengs333 Posted October 7, 2008 Author Report Posted October 7, 2008 No...I have already articulated the mechanism for admission and secession from the Union, supported by adjudicated case law at the highest level. Armed rebellion is always an option, but not likely to succeed. Like I said, the laws are determined by a judiciary representing the government that would be being seceded from. Is a fair, objective, and reasoned ruling expected in such a case? No, absolutely not. Also, case law is not set in stone; it can, and is always, being challenged and modified. If that wasn't the case, then your country would still have significant civil rights issues. Moreover, the case law that you refer to predates the Civil War and is from a period where slavery was legal. Okay, so the only way to create a state from a democratic country is to wage a war. How peachy... For all practical purposes, yes...but the Americans don't do it for the Crown. So what if they don't do it for the Crown; the fact that they do it for a republican democracy underscores the fact that it is an even more flawed system. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 Like I said, the laws are determined by a judiciary representing the government that would be being seceded from. Is a fair, objective, and reasoned ruling expected in such a case? No, absolutely not. Was a fair, reasoned "ruling" provided for admission to the Union? Also, case law is not set in stone; it can, and is always, being challenged and modified. If that wasn't the case, then your country would still have significant civil rights issues. Moreover, the case law that you refer to predates the Civil War and is from a period where slavery was legal. Wrong....White v. Texas was argued before the USSC in 1869. Okay, so the only way to create a state from a democratic country is to wage a war. How peachy... Wrong again...as I posted earlier, states can join or leave the Union with constitutional process. So what if they don't do it for the Crown; the fact that they do it for a republican democracy underscores the fact that it is an even more flawed system. OK...but I am even more convinced that the purpose of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with Canada embracing seceding US states. As for your true motives, come back when you figure out that Quebec thing and necessity for the Clarity Act. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kengs333 Posted October 7, 2008 Author Report Posted October 7, 2008 Was a fair, reasoned "ruling" provided for admission to the Union? We're talking about the legal right to leave the union. Wrong....White v. Texas was argued before the USSC in 1869. Just checking. Doesn't change the fact that case law can't be challenged and changed. Wrong again...as I posted earlier, states can join or leave the Union with constitutional process. I think it's quite clear that the "United" States would never allow such a thing to happen. OK...but I am even more convinced that the purpose of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with Canada embracing seceding US states. As for your true motives, come back when you figure out that Quebec thing and necessity for the Clarity Act. You've attempted to derail this discussion by avoiding admitting the validity of the right to self-determination. Once you've acknowledged that States have this right, then we can chat about the possibility of those states joining Confederation. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) We're talking about the legal right to leave the union. No...the thread is about states joining the Canadian confederation. Just checking. Doesn't change the fact that case law can't be challenged and changed. Just proving you wrong..... I think it's quite clear that the "United" States would never allow such a thing to happen. By your own admission, established precedent is meant to be changed (i.e. "case law"). I don't think you are qualified to know what is quite clear for the United States. You've attempted to derail this discussion by avoiding admitting the validity of the right to self-determination. Once you've acknowledged that States have this right, then we can chat about the possibility of those states joining Confederation. Absurd of course, since you started this thread..."Should Canada"...and clone..."She Canada...." Edited October 7, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 I cannot believe anyone would even ask that question - have these States been making noises about ceceding? No. They haven't. I live in one of the states mentioned and I've never heard any noise what-so-ever about seceding. I found the question quite off-the-wall too. Quote
kengs333 Posted October 7, 2008 Author Report Posted October 7, 2008 No...the thread is about states joining the Canadian confederation. Right, exactly, and you can't even admit the fact that states should have the ability to leav e the union and join confederation if they choose to. Just proving you wrong..... Just proving that the supposed legal ground for denying the right to self-determination is based on archaic laws. By your own admission, established precedent is meant to be changed (i.e. "case law"). I don't think you are qualified to know what is quite clear for the United States. If I'm not qualified, then you certainly aren't qualified in your own right. But it looks to me like you're agreeing that there could be a legal basis then for states seceding without having to stage an armed rebellion. Now we're making progress. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 Right, exactly, and you can't even admit the fact that states should have the ability to leav e the union and join confederation if they choose to. They shouldn't have the ability to leave the union. We're a nation of United States. If people don't like it, they can move somewhere else. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 Right, exactly, and you can't even admit the fact that states should have the ability to leav e the union and join confederation if they choose to. Jesus Christ man..are you daft? I have already articulated the process for doing so as ruled on by the USSC. States cannot join/leave the Union unilaterally. Just proving that the supposed legal ground for denying the right to self-determination is based on archaic laws. You have proven nothing. Using your logic, every human being on the planet could incorporate as a single nation state. If I'm not qualified, then you certainly aren't qualified in your own right. But it looks to me like you're agreeing that there could be a legal basis then for states seceding without having to stage an armed rebellion. Now we're making progress. Thank you for admitting the obvious after I told you three times. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.