do you think that canada will ever become part of the states

I was going to respnod, but then i realized how silly the whole thread became fast...

 

What's silly about it? At least explain yourself.

 

I hear ya

P_R... don't get me wrong, there is such a thing as a healthy dose of paranoia. But you're coming off as crazy-ranting-man, and it's just an approach taht most folks (myself included) don't find worth debating.

I still don't think it'll happen in my lifetime.. maybe they'll try but I don't think the public will allow it to happen.

 

hows that old saying go about knowing the truth but not being able to convince anyone?

 

But what do you know? You spend half your waking hours on a internet forum talking about crap. Have you read the information I have? I seriously doubt it. In all seriousness, this isn't a conspiracy theory. It is openly being talked about in the press, and if you want to ignore it, well, that's fine. But don't try to accuse me of being paranoid when this is now being talked about openly in the mainstream media and is part of the public record.

I could take the time to gather the many MAINSTREAM news articles that talk about this, but it's not worth my time when people should be getting off their duffs and looking up the facts for themselves.

It's about time people started to wake up to what's going on instead of being mindless idiots.

Nothing pisses me off more when I am accused of being paranoid by people who don't even follow current events, yet think they know everything based on the little they've heard on TV.

Hell, did you even take the time to actually READ the article Nimh posted?

 

Lol! What public!? We live in a culture of socially isolated individuals.

The only socially cohesive civilian factions left are the street gangs and the religious fanatics.

 

wow. paranoid delusional and passive aggresive. ya got it all.

 

"I'm always right, and if I'm not I should be."

 

Thanks for the attack
Was just trying to explain (my view at least) as to why people haven't really bothered debating you on here
And attacking a person that you know nothing about really isn't gonna make you more fun to debate or converse with. Just a little fyi babe

Addendum
That you can't accept a comment without having to attack the poster makes people less likely to debate the point.
Dont' get me wrong, sheer bullheaded determination can get great things done. Problems arise when you don't necessarily agree with that viewpoint... I know I can't change your opinion of things when you're soooo aggressive in stating them. It's kind of why I've given up debating with a few of my friends... I know I won't change their minds and all I do is make them frustratated that I don't wholeheartedly agree with everything they say.

We're allowed to have different opinions without getting rewarded with an attack or completely disrespecting that opinion. I'm not trying ot say that your stance is completely wrong, but I don't agree with it 100% either. It's ok for me to be inbetween somewhere, and it's ok for you to just leave me feeling that way too.

 

Well, enjoy your enslavement.

 

okay, i get this. paul martin made the mistake of actually standing up for canada~he wouldnt go along with bush, that's why the gomery thing happened and why he's not our prime minister anymore, now we've got puppet harper at the helm and i can see a lot of changes that are bringing us a lot closer to what you're talking about here, P_R. i do think that initially at least, we're going to see more americanization of north america, them being the 'superpower' and being hungry for canadian resources and mexican labour forces. we dont have many global corporate giants in canada and that's really what's running our world right now. the govt's make policy based on what the big companies want, really. who would benefit most from a north american union? follow the money...

::ignoring all the infighting on this thread, pull it together you guys! this is important! ::

 

trust me - i will.

enjoy your delusions of jewish conspiracies or whatever the hell you believe. just don't take off the tin foil hat, or the aliens will get you.

 

you'd rather die for no reason than be part of Canada?

you must really hate this country I hope you at least have a reason for hating Canada.

 

yeah. the world hates canada because we fund terrorism and invade foreign countries based on lies...

oh wait.

 

HaHaHaHaHa!!! There it is nimh.

Until we get that part down there's no point in talking about the rest of this shit (I have met the enemy and he is us--Pogo).

 

I have to disagree with your statement about Martin, which couldn't be further from the truth. Martin wasn't much different from Bush other than that he was against the war in Iraq (at least superficially speaking). Like Bush, he's still an ardent globalist and elitist (at a puppet level) who has attended Bilderberg meetings and is a staunch supporter of the FTAA and Pan-American Union. He would have never been elected as Prime Minister hadn't he been a player, which he most definitely was (is).

Here is a picture of Bush, Vicente Fox and Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, in 2005 for the FTAA. They look like three peas in a pod. Of course they're all the same in that they're working for the same global masters to enforce the same global plan. That might appear to be different in some ways, and they have to be in order for people not to catch on to the scheme that is being played on them. At the top, it's all staged. None of these people are quite as they appear. They're all puppets on strings.



A lot of people have the same misconceptions about Bill Clinton, who they think was "for the people" when he was a lying globalist criminal all the way. Just because a person is "liberal," is good at playing a role, and not attacking countries without reason, doesn't mean they're for the people's best interests. Paul Martin was never for the people of Canada, but always for the global masters. You don't get elected to any high seat in any western country without being a willing servant to the Elite. I am sorry if that's hard to accept, but it's the truth.

Who would most benefit from a North American Union? Well, the corporations, which have in many ways become larger than government. But, at the top it's the central bankers, and it's they who most want this one world government. It is THEY who are the top shareholders of the world's largest corporations.

The US is not the end, it's only the means to the end. It's a vehicle to acheive what it was created to acheive from its very beginning, which is a one world government.

When it's all said and done, America will be bankrupted only to find out they aren't the world's superpower anymore. I know this is what is coming because I know what they have planned. Like I have said, under the New World Order, there can be NO nation states, and certainly NO superpowers.... only a "global body" such as the United Nations, which was, in fact, created as the trojan horse for world government.

 

so what will they do about provinces/states?

People have an attachment to the area they're from. Canadians vs Americans. Saskatchewan vs Alberta. Saskatoon vs Regina. I can't think of any truly effective way to destroy that attachment/patriotism (not quite the right word, but close to what I'm getting at). I don't see enough people agreeing to letting thsi happen, I think there would be enough people protesting it in this day and age to prevent it from happening..

 

Well, states and provinces will simply become obsolete. Even Karl Marx, in Das Kapital, talked about a world made up of only three trading blocs under a central government and currency. The plan is nothing new and has been discussed for ages among elites.

I am not sure about Canada, but I know that in the US statehood will be abolished and instead be replaced by ten (10) regions as seen below.

I understand wholeheartedly what you are saying. And I agree with you that many people are attached to where they're from. But the masses can be easily manipulated under certain circumstances, as they have in the past. Would most Europeans have given up their national sovereignty to the creation of the United Nations and European Community (which would later become the EU) if they hadn't just been through a major world war (WW II) which left Europe in an economic, emotional and spiritual ruin? Not a chance!

In order to get the masses to give up their sovereignty and rights, you literally have to put them through something terribly traumatic, such as war, economic collapse, a biological outbreak, or a major act of terrorism that devastates the country economically and emotionally. You have to break the people down so they will accept whatever "solution" you present them.

America is in the early stages of bankruptcy, which would only be further accelerated by a massive "terrorist" attack. When America's economy goes belly-up, so will the entire global monetary system. It will be engineered by the same people who will then come forward with the solution to the crisis they created. It's referred to as Problem-Reaction-Solution.

This is just one of the ways it could go down. There are many.

Let's take 9/11 as an example of problem-reaction-solution. Myself and many others believe the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job carried out by factions high within the government as a means of conditioning the public, causing them to accept things they normally wouldn't accept. Would most Americans accept sending their loved-ones off to fight in a war without reason? No. So you have to create an enemy like Osama bin Laden to justify imperialism abroad and totalitarianism at home. Because not only did 9/11 result in the so-called War on Terror, it also resulted in a further attack on American freedoms and civil liberties. Now, we're seeing a police state being set up, not only in the US, but Europe and Canada as well, and part of this is in preparation for what's to come, because they ARE expecting MASS CIVIL UNREST from the people when this does happen.

It has always worked the same throughout history, and a global fascist state is not a conspiracy theory as it is in the making as we speak.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

 

I'm less familiar with American federal law, but I guarantee you there is no possible way this will happen in Canada.

A change in the constitution of this type has to be passed/signed by 7 provinces with at least 50 percent of the population. Many provinces require referendums before being able to pass such a law.

I don't see a single circumstance where any province would voluntarily resign all their power/benefits.

Hell, arguing that federalism is an outdated concept is pretty iffy. Its worked as well as any unitary state so far.

 

Have you ever spent a long time in Alberta?