There is literally no non-rebuttable non-emotional reason for a Canadian to be opposed to peaceful US annexation.
Prove me wrong.
Prove me wrong.
The US should annex Canada
Posts
Total:
33
There is literally no non-rebuttable non-emotional reason for an American to be opposed to peaceful Russian or Chinese annexation.
Prove me wrong.
You blocked me, but sure.
America is an entire Ocean away from one of them and we speak a different language than both of them.
-->
@RemyBrown
You already made this thread, less than a week ago.
-->
@Lemming
So?
I learned from it that all the arguments used to justify Canada's independence from the US are either emotional or easy to rebut. If someone wishes to prove me wrong, then they should be yielded the floor.
I learned from it that all the arguments used to justify Canada's independence from the US are either emotional or easy to rebut. If someone wishes to prove me wrong, then they should be yielded the floor.
@RemyBrown You blocked me first. I'll undo it if I see that you've done the same.
Also, Canadians identify with their own country and would not consent to join the United States. Any annexation would be at gunpoint and violate their right to self-determination.
-->
@RemyBrown
There is literally no non-rebuttable non-emotional reason for RemyBrown to be opposed to peaceful extradition to North Korea.
Prove me wrong.
I forgot I blocked you when I thought your mind wasn't changable (which is largely true on the left as well, you can't block everybody). You're unblocked.
Also, Canadians identify with their own country and would not consent to join the United States. Any annexation would be at gunpoint and violate their right to self-determination.
The US violated self determination when we annexed pretty much a lot of our current land. The Dakotas were claimed without the consent of the locals. If it's a problem, then we would have to give the Dakotas independence (as well as so many American states).
-->
@Sidewalker
There is literally no non-rebuttable non-emotional reason for RemyBrown to be opposed to peaceful extradition to North Korea.
This is a bad opinion, but I'll present 1 argument:
1. It would be bad for the US economy to do that.
-->
@RemyBrown
*Conquer + colonize.
-->
@Mharman
Yeah; America is built on colonization (and so is Canada). Canada can't complain about colonization when their nation is built on colonialism.
-->
@RemyBrown
There is literally no non-rebuttable non-emotional reason for a Canadian to be opposed to peaceful US annexation.Prove me wrong.
The Canadians have spoken , they will not become the 51 state. They have also responded with tariffs of their own and a national boycott of all things American.
-->
@Shila
There is literally no non-rebuttable non-emotional reason for a Canadian to be opposed to peaceful US annexation.Prove me wrong.The Canadians have spoken , they will not become the 51 state. They have also responded with tariffs of their own and a national boycott of all things American.
You didn't say a reason; you merely said a response. You dodged like a corrupt politician. The Canadians who are doing that only have emotional and rebutable reasons.
If they want to boycott; then fine; start with BlueSky (made in America). Boycott with all major social media platforms (Bluesky; X, all US media stations), no more iphones (Apple and Android's headquarters are in the US), no more computers either (Microsoft is American). Hamburgers are American; Starbucks; McDonalds; all American. Chick Fil A; American. Their life will suck if they remove all their American trade (the majority of Canadian trade is American). No more immigrants either; as their planes are made in America. Even Canadian YouTubers and Canadian news stations use US search engines (and the Cadian model is always worse than the American one).
If the Canadians did all this, then their life will suck pretty badly.
Sometimes you got to learn the hard way that it's better to join the US instead of being a country of Juror 3s.
-->
@RemyBrown
I forgot I blocked you when I thought your mind wasn't changable (which is largely true on the left as well, you can't block everybody). You're unblocked.
Alright then, I'll do the same.
The US violated self determination when we annexed pretty much a lot of our current land.
Do crimes committed 150 years ago justify further crimes today?
-->
@Swagnarok
Do crimes committed 150 years ago justify further crimes today?
I would say no, but if you think the stuff we did 150 years ago was bad, then if you're being consistent, since we have the stuff at our disposal, you would then give the land back to the natives.
-->
@RemyBrown
We arguably already have. Single-race Native Americans were 1.12% of the population as of 2020 but have 2.3% of the total land area of the US set aside exclusively for them in the form of reservations. No one else is allowed to live there; only them. And of course, Native Americans are free to live anywhere else in the US if that's what they want.
-->
@Swagnarok
Not even close. Native reservations are a tiny portion of the land we took from them; it would be like giving back all of the US to the Natives.
-->
@RemyBrown
There is literally no non-rebuttable non-emotional reason for RemyBrown to be opposed to peaceful extradition to North Korea.This is a bad opinion, but I'll present 1 argument:1. It would be bad for the US economy to do that.
Why would it be bad for the US economy?
Don't tell me, let me guess first. Is it because the demand for Cheetos and Kool Aid would go down?
-->
@RemyBrown
There is literally no non-rebuttable non-emotional reason for a Canadian to be opposed to peaceful US annexation.Prove me wrong.
They don't want the electorate of the US to influence their laws? Similar to people in Texas who don't like having a president elected by people in California.
-->
@RemyBrown
At this point it's our land as much as it is theirs. A small minority of America's population has no special claim to all of its territory to the exclusion of everyone else.
And since a hunter-gatherer's quality of life is nowhere remotely close to that of even a poor American today, whereas it would've taken them at least several thousand more years to build a modern society in isolation, any value that our ancestors took from theirs must be weighed against the value added by their inclusion into and right to live in the America that the colonial-settler population (and the descendants thereof) built.
-->
@RemyBrown
Remy.
A North American "Native", is anyone born on the land mass regarded as North America.
Even the first settlers of North America were originally immigrants.
So the US is a Nation of come, take and move on...As is just about everywhere, other than somewhere in Central Africa, perhaps.
Thoughts on human development and it's associated nationhood, just depend on where people choose to start the human evolutionary clock.
So the Cowboys started theirs a few hundred years ago.
And the Injuns started theirs considerably earlier.
And relative to their Earthling heritage, everyone is entitled to inhabit Planet Earth.
Because there is nowhere else to effing go.
-->
@Sidewalker
Why would it be bad for the US economy?
It takes away earning potential for the nation.
-->
@Savant
They don't want the electorate of the US to influence their laws? Similar to people in Texas who don't like having a president elected by people in California.
10th amendment makes that null and void. If CA and TX became the same state, then they would need AZ and NM as well; if there is one very big south western state, then the governor of that state would have voters from all 3 states.
-->
@RemyBrown
10th amendment makes that null and void.
10th amendment doesn't apply to everything. Federal govt still controls a lot.
-->
@Swagnarok
You take the value from what YOU do; not your country.
Nobody calls it imperialistic when California doesn't liberate the State of Jefferson. That's different from one person stealing another's home.
Countries are not people; they are classifications.
-->
@Savant
What does the federal government control that Canadians would take issue with in the constitution?
-->
@zedvictor4
What does this have to do with annexing Canada?
-->
@RemyBrown
You are fond of the word "native".
-->
@Swagnarok
And since a hunter-gatherer's quality of life is nowhere remotely close to that of even a poor American today, whereas it would've taken them at least several thousand more years to build a modern society in isolation, any value that our ancestors took from theirs must be weighed against the value added by their inclusion into and right to live in the America that the colonial-settler population (and the descendants thereof) built.
Native Americans had different values and defined quality of life differently, so did Africans.
Your argument was also used to justify slavery, they have made it the law in Florida that teachers can't teach that slavery was bad.
Sure, we used murder, whips, and family separation, but that's what it takes to civilize savages.
I doubt the native Americans, or the Slaves would agree with your assessment.
-->
@RemyBrown
What does the federal government control
Immigration laws