CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › North American Union meeting announced by State Dept...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

North American Union meeting announced by State Dept...

post #1 of 34
2/28/08 at 12:52am
Thread Starter 
And people still don't believe it's coming.....



The Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) will meet on Monday, March 10, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 1105 of the Harry S. Truman Building. The meeting will last until approximately 4:00 p.m. and is open to the public.

The meeting will be hosted by Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs (EEB) Daniel S. Sullivan and Committee Chairman Theodore Kassinger.

The Committee serves the U.S. Government in a solely advisory capacity concerning current issues and challenges in international economic policy. Topics for the March 10 meeting will focus on “Regulatory Dialogues: Current State and Future Prospects” with a particular emphasis on the US-Canada-Mexico Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the US-EU Transatlantic Council (TEC).

The public may attend this meeting as seating capacity allows. Admittance to the State Department building will be by means of a pre-arranged clearance list. In order to be placed on this list, please provide your name, title, company or other affiliation if appropriate, valid government-issued ID number (i.e., U.S. Government ID [agency], U.S. military ID [branch], passport [country], or drivers license [state]), date of birth, and citizenship to the Office of Economic Policy Analysis and Public Diplomacy by fax (202) 647-5936 (Attention: Sherry Booth), e-mail (boothsl@state.gov), or telephone (202) 647-0847 by March 6.

For further information about the meeting, please contact Senior Coordinator Nancy Smith-Nissley, Office of Economic Policy Analysis and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, at (202) 647-1682 or Smith-NissleyN@state.gov.

Source: U.S. Department of State
Reply
post #2 of 34
2/28/08 at 1:26am
It's really a meeting about Canada's annexing of the United States. We have had enough of your hillybilly ways and are going to civilize you.
Reply
post #3 of 34
2/28/08 at 2:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
And people still don't believe it's coming.....
Really, though, it only matters if

a) it's coming within my lifetime, AND
b) that would be a bad thing, AND
c) I can do something about it.

b) seems true, a) I don't know, but c)? Come on. I honestly think it's rational to ignore this stuff, for the most part.
Reply
post #4 of 34
2/28/08 at 3:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordelsey View Post
It's really a meeting about Canada's annexing of the United States. We have had enough of your hillybilly ways and are going to civilize you.
The biggest redneck I've ever met was a transplant from Canada.
Reply
post #5 of 34
2/28/08 at 3:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordelsey View Post
It's really a meeting about Canada's annexing of the United States. We have had enough of your hillybilly ways and are going to civilize you.
Fries and gravy for some, little American flags for the rest.
Reply
post #6 of 34
2/28/08 at 4:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Kimbell View Post
Really, though, it only matters if

a) it's coming within my lifetime, AND
b) that would be a bad thing, AND
c) I can do something about it.

b) seems true, a) I don't know, but c)? Come on. I honestly think it's rational to ignore this stuff, for the most part.
I'm trying to wrap my head around why it would be a bad thing. See, other than the cold war-era knee jerk anything socialist is almost pinko communist bad, I'm not coming up with a real reason to auto-hate this idea.

The Euro is whipping the dollar's ass, after all.
Reply
post #7 of 34
2/28/08 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared Melton View Post
I'm trying to wrap my head around why it would be a bad thing.
It'd be a bad thing because:

A) We want no part of your national debt.

B) Few provinces will be willing to trade the political representation they have now for that enjoyed by such populous states as Kansas and Iowa.

C) Our political system works fine, thank you. We have no need for your clown show with its endless primaries and empty debates and its obvious vulnerability to corruption on a massive scale.

D) We've got enough guns.

E) We've got enough religion too.

Be an American? Not a chance. However, if Washington and Montana and maybe North Dakota wanted to secede and become a fourth Canadian Territory I can't see any reason not to honor their request. There might be one, but it doesn't come to mind.
Reply
post #8 of 34
2/28/08 at 12:50pm
I, for one, welcome our new crueller-eating overlords.
Reply
post #9 of 34
2/28/08 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
However, if Washington and Montana and maybe North Dakota wanted to become secede and become a fourth Canadian Territory I can't see any reason not to honor their request. There might be one, but it doesn't come to mind.
Can we swap out ND and Montana for Minnesota and Wisconsin? I've spent some nice weekends in Washington but have yet to have a good time in the Dakotas or Montana (pretty enough, though). Bonus: we'd get Prince in the bargain.
Reply
post #10 of 34
2/28/08 at 12:57pm
Back off Wisconsin, champ. Them are good American people. Plus, Madison is great.
Reply
post #11 of 34
2/28/08 at 1:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Be an American? Not a chance. However, if Washington and Montana and maybe North Dakota wanted to become secede and become a fourth Canadian Territory I can't see any reason not to honor their request. There might be one, but it doesn't come to mind.
You might want to check with Eastern Washington before that happens. I remember right after the Gregoire-Rossi quagmire, a (very small) group of people wanted to secede from Western Washington because Gregoire winning didn't 'represent the views of Eastern WA' or something like that.

But, yeah, Washington? We have mountains. And Seattle. You might not want Spokane, though.
Reply
post #12 of 34
2/28/08 at 1:07pm
Well, Seabass pretty nails it.

The only thing Canada would gain from that is the ability to be hated all over the world.

But we could get the Adirondacks. There's some places over there.
Reply
post #13 of 34
2/28/08 at 1:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
The meeting will last until approximately 4:00 p.m. and is open to the public.
Damn this shadow government of ours!
Reply
post #14 of 34
2/28/08 at 1:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S~ View Post
Bonus: we'd get Prince in the bargain.
You already have three!
Reply
post #15 of 34
2/28/08 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S~ View Post
Can we swap out ND and Montana for Minnesota and Wisconsin?
Excuse me? My accent is already ridiculous enough, thank you. I'd rather not have to upgrade.

LD, Madison is great. You're absolutely correct. But Milwaukee is the reason to keep Wisconsin. Believe me.
Reply
post #16 of 34
2/28/08 at 1:24pm
All the countries in Europe didn't adopt the exact same form of government when they formed the EU. It's an economic union, not a political one, and I imagine this would be the same thing.
Reply
post #17 of 34
2/28/08 at 3:11pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
All the countries in Europe didn't adopt the exact same form of government when they formed the EU. It's an economic union, not a political one, and I imagine this would be the same thing.
When you have control of the money you have control over the people no matter who represents and leads them.
Reply
post #18 of 34
2/28/08 at 3:22pm
Alright, your job is done. Go back to your cave and fetch us another conspiracy.

And remember, you have until December 21st, 2012.

Then, you win a prize.

EDIT: Sorry LD, but someone had to say it.
Reply
post #19 of 34
2/28/08 at 3:26pm
Damn it, that was my next joke.
Reply
post #20 of 34
2/28/08 at 3:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti View Post
You already have three!
Yeah but I'd like at least one to have talent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissZooey View Post
Excuse me? My accent is already ridiculous enough, thank you. I'd rather not have to upgrade.
It's a small upgrade on the accent. You have to change about, roof and sorry to a-boot, ruf and sew-ree but you do get the added bonus of adding eh to the end of your sentences. Oh, and forget pronouncing the letter 't' ever again.

Spelling will change radically, however.
Reply
post #21 of 34
2/28/08 at 11:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S~ View Post
Can we swap out ND and Montana for Minnesota and Wisconsin? I've spent some nice weekends in Washington but have yet to have a good time in the Dakotas or Montana (pretty enough, though). Bonus: we'd get Prince in the bargain.
ND's out, Minnesota and Hawaii are in. How's that?
Reply
post #22 of 34
2/28/08 at 11:39pm
Will this happen before or after the formation of Mega City One?

Oh, and I concur with a poster above--one of the biggest rednecks I know is originally from Canada.
Reply
post #23 of 34
2/29/08 at 12:12am
Thread Starter 
So you guys think there will NEVER be a North American Union??? Even 100 years from now?
Reply
post #24 of 34
2/29/08 at 12:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
So you guys think there will NEVER be a North American Union??? Even 100 years from now?
I think in 200 years they will resurrect the corpse of Ron Paul. His body will be made of pure gold and he will lead the charge against the evil NAU.
Reply
post #25 of 34
2/29/08 at 12:26am
Ron Paul is Serpentor?
Reply
post #26 of 34
2/29/08 at 12:29am
I wonder how much of a resurrected gold corpse would be taxed...
Reply
post #27 of 34
2/29/08 at 12:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
When you have control of the money you have control over the people no matter who represents and leads them.
Is the North American Union run by Tony Montana?
Reply
post #28 of 34
2/29/08 at 12:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
So you guys think there will NEVER be a North American Union??? Even 100 years from now?
The point is if there is an NAU is it really that big of a deal?
Reply
post #29 of 34
2/29/08 at 12:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
The point is if there is an NAU is it really that big of a deal?
Yeah really, what's so bad about it? Pretty soon maybe we'll all be a bunch of mindless consumers, and the US will no longer be responsible for the majority of the worlds pollution and waste. Even Canada will want to tear down their forests and kill off their wildlife and build shopping malls everywhere. We'll drill for oil in the Arctic Circle, and maybe to even things out we all get universal health care, so that we can all live a bit longer and healthier and make more money and spend more money and burn more fossil fuels and continue the cycle for further generations. It'll be great.

I'm not worried about this at all.
Reply
post #30 of 34
2/29/08 at 2:45am
I'm a cynic but damn if there isn't still a part of me (and believe me I've tried to kill that bastard. He's the John McClane of my Id..he just won't die) that believe in the good things this nation can and does represent.

An NAU can be a good thing, maybe even a great thing. Ideals aren't people and I realize that but I just can't totally push the belief out of my mind that human beings can be more than petty, fearful assholes.
Reply
post #31 of 34
2/29/08 at 2:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Fries and gravy for some, little American flags for the rest.

Without cheese curds this union isn't going to go very far.Long live the POUTINE!!!!!
Reply
post #32 of 34
2/29/08 at 3:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
All the countries in Europe didn't adopt the exact same form of government when they formed the EU. It's an economic union, not a political one, and I imagine this would be the same thing.
With England, France and Germany, the Power in the EU is much more spread out and balanced than it would be in a union of Canada/Mexico/USA.
Reply
post #33 of 34
2/29/08 at 3:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Alexor View Post
With England, France and Germany, the Power in the EU is much more spread out and balanced than it would be in a union of Canada/Mexico/USA.
To be fair, this is exactly right...

In Europe, the unionizing countries were on relatively equal terms. But here, even if we actually WERE on equal terms, the United States wouldn't dare admit to it and would never allow Canada and especially Mexico as big a chair at the union table.
Reply
post #34 of 34
2/29/08 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
ND's out, Minnesota and Hawaii are in. How's that?
Done. Now let's get busy on building the bridge from Vancouver to Honolulu.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › North American Union meeting announced by State Dept...