• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

School Shooter was a "Legal Gun Owner"

Absolutely not. The facts on voter Id are well established.

1. there is little to no evidence that voter fraud is even a significant problem
2. Voter Id in the states it has been instituted have been shown to disproportionately affect certain populations. Namely democrats
3. Politicians who support voter ID.. have even made statements to the effect that "we passed Voter ID which is going to help us win......"

Really...BWWAAAHHHH.... absentee ballots are addressed with "signed affdavits". That's funny. What a laugh.



The same excuse was said of Jim Crow laws.

Dude.. there really is no argument on your part. The facts are already in.
Point 1. Voter fraud does exist at a given level and is problematic in some areas whether you want to admit it or not.

Point 2. Bull****. There is nothing disproportionate about how voter ID laws are carried out all voters rich, middle class and poor must show a valid ID to vote. And everyone not living the life of an isolated hermit has valid ID'S as they are required for much more then voting.

Point 3. Well ofcourse voter ID helps many politicians win as they no longer have to worry about people registering names off of cemetery markers, registering family pets, or people filling out multiple voter registration cards and voting multiple times.

As for absentee ballots, that will require some thinking on your part to understand how it can work. Those affadavits are signed by other registered voters. Most of those signed witnesses are not likely to risk jail time to help a friend commit voter fraud.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Point 1. Voter fraud does exist at a given level and is problematic in some areas whether you want to admit it or not.

Point 2. Bull****. There is nothing disproportionate about how voter ID laws are carried out all voters rich, middle class and poor must show a valid ID to vote. And everyone not living the life of an isolated hermit has valid ID'S as they are required for much more then voting.

Point 3. Well ofcourse voter ID helps many politicians win as they no longer have to worry about people registering names off of cemetery markers, registering family pets, or people filling out multiple voter registration cards and voting multiple times.

As for absentee ballots, that will require some thinking on your part to understand how it can work. Those affadavits are signed by other registered voters. Most of those signed witnesses are not likely to risk jail time to help a friend commit voter fraud.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

1. Fine... show me good research that prove it. Because the preponderance of good research shows NO EVIDENCE that voter fraud is a significant issue.

2. Sorry . not what research show. And the question is not about valid ID. In many of these states... minorities may hold "valid ID".... that would say be accepted by the police as identification. But those types of ID are not acceptable for voting. Listen. the evidence is clear. You just don't want to believe it.

3. Politicians never had to worry about that in the first place. There is very little evidence that supports voter fraud has happened on a mass basis or is significant. What republicans had to worry about was an upsurge in minority voting. And by putting obstacles in the way of letting them vote... they felt that they could win the state this way.

Its pretty easy..... lets say you had 100,000 minorities in a community that typically don't vote. They COULD legally. but they don't because they never felt it mattered. Now week before the election... a grass roots campaign goes into the neighborhood and explains to these folks why their vote matters. etc. They decide that they do want to vote now.

Well... if they haven't already prepared to vote well in advance. now they can't.


As for absentee ballots, that will require some thinking on your part to understand how it can work. Those affadavits are signed by other registered voters.
BWWWAAAAHHHHHH


That's funny. Okay.. lets get this straight. So you are afraid that a person.... IS GOING TO WALK INTO A PUBLIC VOTING AREA... and commit fraud in front of everyone.

But they won't be willing to commit fraud by signing someone elses name to an absentee ballot?

BWWAAHHHHHH.....
 
The founding fathers after taking on and defeating King Richard's tyrants had a healthy distrust of overzealous government. That's why they wanted to make sure that if the newly founded government were to become tyrannical, the population would have the means to take it back.

George ... King George. It's funny you take one side defending your "rights" using king GEORGE and then the other quoting the prime minister of the most ruthless empire ever on earth (not my opinion ... read up on it).
 
That's one possibility, and it may well be a large part of the puzzle, but I think there are more factors than climate. Political history is significant, too. After America broke off from England's control, a l arge number of loyalists moved to Canada, and I would presume that people who wanted to secede moved to the states.

You've maintained friendly relations with the United Kingdom on a level that many Americans would have difficulty understanding - if I'm not mistaken, the English monarch had an official role in your government up until 1982. You've spent a fraction of the time we have at war, never had a civil war over slavery, and you weren't founded after a violent rebellion over a technicality with tax classification.

Canada's culture may have been shaped by native cultures, but your government is also rooted in far more peaceful tendencies than ours; America was born in the blood of our parent nation, and that made a significant impact in how we turned out, for better or worse.



I hadn't realized you wanted to get as deep into this and you have surprised me with your knowledge...I have never met an American who was as aware.

Yes, I only used the climate aspect, geography figures in too, Canada is slightly less than three times the area and then there are thousands of other factors.

All had an impact on Canada's settlement, as did economics. By 1850 the US had become an economic engine in itself, where Canada still hadn't connected east and west by train, and in order to police the area an new kind of army had to be formed, the Northwest Mounted Police or, later the Royal Canadian Northwest Mounted Police. That lone created a huge difference, where the US was "winning the west" with gun slingers, the RCNWMP was keeping a stiff upper lip and peace across the largest ever policed area in the world. (still is I think). That move changed everything and did more to united Atlantic with Pacific and the Arctic. The RCMP remains the largest standing police force in the world and had a huge impact on the west, from transportation, to economics, to a safety of the people that did not exist in the US. "we always get our man" came from the record of RCMP to locate, arrest alive, and return wanted criminals to the US who thought they would have sanctuary.


The people who emigrated during the revolutionary war were Whigs headed south (many of whom soon returned), the people who went north were "loyalists" many of whom fought against their former neighbors. If I am not mistaken the majority of people in Vermont, North New York, and New Hampshire supported the loyalists and had a movement grow to leave the US and join the new North West British Territories, mainly all French speaking and they too moved north.
Canada has never had a war, although Canadians have fought against the US in both the revolutionary war and the war of 1812; we are making the distinction as even then, like the US many Canadians were identifying as Canadian in both languages.

But the majority all wanted Britain to stay, even if for no other reason than to not become a part of the violent chaos happening south.

We have retained civility with mother Britain sometimes friendly but never hostile enough to take serious action save a part mad man half Indian half French Metis named Louis Riel, as part of what was the rather tepid "Upper Canada Rebellion" and was hanged as one of two rebels. That civility was steeped in true love of mother Britain. And yes, we signed our first constitution in 1982 (with Quebec abstaining), but is a result of a long history of agreements between Canada and Britian: Bill of Rights (1689), Act of Settlement (1701), Treaty of Paris (1763), Royal Proclamation (1763), Quebec Act (1774), Constitutional Act (1791), Act of Union (1840), Constitution Act (1867), Supreme Court Act (1875), Constitution Act, 1886, British North America Acts, (1867–1975), Supreme Court Act (1875), Constitution Act, 1886, British North America Acts (1867–1975), Statute of Westminster (1931), Succession to the Throne Act (1937), Letters Patent (1947), Canada Act (1982), Constitution Act (1982)

Notice we had a bill of "rights" a hundred years before Tommy Jefferson got wordy.

From about 1850, the "Crown" as we call it, had what was accepted as a "ceremonial roll" in government and still does. Elizabeth is still our "Head of State" through the Lieutenant Governor in her absence and signs all bills into law, calls elections based on "advice of Parliament" and most recently played a political roll in rejecting prime minister Stephen Harper's request for an early election because he couldn't get bills passed.

(More)
 
...2...


From the mid seventies Canada began a ten year quest for its own constitution. They chose to do so by gathering the Prime Minister and Provincial (Prime ministers called "premiers) together face to face and meet regularly and argue. That was my job from 1976 to 1982 I attended the so called "Group of 11" as they argued, sometimes bitterly over real Canadian issues, from Indigenous rights to cross border trade, and finally to individual rights. We, journalist knew we were watching a nation being born and as boring news as it was, it was the most exciting period of my career.

And they hit a nasty snag....the lawyers among them saw the chaos of the US bill of rights and didn't want it. So they started from scratch and created The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, at first seen as dishwater, vague, and over intrusive has since been held at very high esteem by other countries especially clauses protecting culture of minorities.

There are many who like to point to this or that as the cause or tipping stone, some dramatic event that tipped the scale and we left mother Britain. The truth is except for Quebec and its unique needs the whole deal is boring as ****. In the 100 year interest/quest for "independence" a total of two people died. To the average Canadian its a huge interference with beer drinking and hockey

The charter is where we find the true difference between between Canada and the United states in human terms. The reasons and causes are likely to be debated for another 100 years. But, one day when the first ministers amid some of most angry and intense debate I realized that "this is our revolution", our "bringing forth a new nation....yada"

As to war, a fraction perhaps if you count the wars America fought alone, but we have been in the big ones and have established a reputation of no nonsense, get the job done from liberating The Netherlands and taking out AL Kaeda in Kandahar. We just don't make epic movies worshiping our involvement.
Canada was in World one as an "expeditionary forces", fought in the Boer War for Britain and was in WWII with in % population terms three times the US three years before Pearl Harbor, and was the first military force to engage the Japanese chasing off a sub with circa 1875 frigate with two guns and no depth charges. The "crazy Canadian" of the ski slopes has always been.

After having covered Canadian politics near three decades I believe the people get the politicians they deserve. Every election I have parsed after the fact had enough "ifs" in it to tell me there is something un-measurable in the minds of the people when voting, maybe even an emotion we haven't identified, but we get what we deserve.

Canada's leaders have been peace oriented because the nation is. Natives are peaceful as part of their culture. So many of our immigrants have come from war, my own grandparents on my mother's side escaped the Naxi's. Our west coats is strewn with multi-ethinicty Irish, Scots, Poles, South Africans, French, Italian and all across Asia they come to escape brutality, war, and famine. As one new Canadian recently told me he had had enough hate an came to 'the nation of love'. He was not yet 21, turbaned and had never been allowed to speak to a white person.

These are the tiny influences that have influenced the original version, one of humans needing their neighbors, and those neighbors becoming leaders.

America's anthem glorifies bombs bursting in air, ours celebrates "from sea to sea to shining sea..." and being one.

To close an already too long post in my life, having straddled the border, lived in both country's throughout my life I have found that you allow your politicians far too much power. They do not fear you. What has always amazed me how American politicians **** on their constituents and get re-elected.
Your governments never get kicked out, the people do. Kick out Bill Clinton and get George Bush, kick him out and get Obama.....and nothing changes. If we had illegals taking Canadian jobs there would be blood on someone's political floor, not allow ALL parties to ignore it.

In 1988 the Then Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney pissed off Canadians over one lie. His party was reduced from a majority of 151 seats in parliament to two. Two seats out of 300+. It took two and a half decades and four years of Liberal stumbling before the conservatives got a peek at power again.

There is SO much to study in this. It has been a muse of mine since I first moved to the US, a distance of 100 miles, which was then to me an alien environment. I had never seen live "negroes" and did not know we were not supposed to speak to them, and, this is true, a kid I met saw a hockey puck and a stick I had brought and asked what they were for.

I yearned to go home immediately
 
Until they are not. Right?

Such is life Calamity, such is life.

That's very much the point. You and others want me to believe, as you have for 30 years or more, that the government can craft a regulation that will stop crazy people from doing crazy things.

Sorry, but it cannot.
 
Snipped. If it's too big for just one of your posts, it's definitely too much for one of mine.

I'm flattered by your assessment that I'm the most "aware" American you've ever met. I'm a history major with an interest in how legislation interacts with culture, and my advisor got his PhD in Ontario. As a result, I know just enough about your nation's constitution to pass myself off as informed. :lol:

If I continue me education past a Bachelor's degree, I'm interested in writing my thesis on either the Weimar Constitution or the Canadian Constitution. If I go with the latter, do you mind if I get in touch with you for a few discussions on the process of its creation? Not everyone gets to talk with someone who got to witness the legal birth of their nation when researching a subject.
 
I'm flattered by your assessment that I'm the most "aware" American you've ever met. I'm a history major with an interest in how legislation interacts with culture, and my advisor got his PhD in Ontario. As a result, I know just enough about your nation's constitution to pass myself off as informed. :lol:

If I continue me education past a Bachelor's degree, I'm interested in writing my thesis on either the Weimar Constitution or the Canadian Constitution. If I go with the latter, do you mind if I get in touch with you for a few discussions on the process of it's creation? Not everyone gets to talk with someone who got to witness the legal birth of their nation when researching a subject.

Not at all!

I would be honored.

I have a few notes left, but I recall all the players - the five key players three were Rhodes scholars, a football star and Rene Levesque who was the most interesting politician I have ever met and one of few who would sit down with "the boys" and have an off-the-record chat over a beer.

And, or course, the master string puller, "pay attention to the man behind the curtain", Pierre Trudeau, who will one day be likened to "the father of the country" once those who knew him are long dead. Smartest man I ever interviewed, and cruel. He loved carving reporters into cube steaks
 
I'm flattered by your assessment that I'm the most "aware" American you've ever met. I'm a history major with an interest in how legislation interacts with culture, and my advisor got his PhD in Ontario. As a result, I know just enough about your nation's constitution to pass myself off as informed. :lol:

If I continue me education past a Bachelor's degree, I'm interested in writing my thesis on either the Weimar Constitution or the Canadian Constitution. If I go with the latter, do you mind if I get in touch with you for a few discussions on the process of its creation? Not everyone gets to talk with someone who got to witness the legal birth of their nation when researching a subject.

Knows his stuff, don't he? And he's not like Matthew, Mark, Luke or John- he actually spoke to Jesus.
 
I'm flattered by your assessment that I'm the most "aware" American you've ever met. I'm a history major with an interest in how legislation interacts with culture, and my advisor got his PhD in Ontario. As a result, I know just enough about your nation's constitution to pass myself off as informed. :lol:

If I continue me education past a Bachelor's degree, I'm interested in writing my thesis on either the Weimar Constitution or the Canadian Constitution. If I go with the latter, do you mind if I get in touch with you for a few discussions on the process of its creation? Not everyone gets to talk with someone who got to witness the legal birth of their nation when researching a subject.



You know more than most Canadians.

We know we have one, we know it inscribes what most of us have been practicing and we know there is a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" but I would bet no more than one in ten can name three 'rights' protected.
 
Not at all!

I would be honored.

I have a few notes left, but I recall all the players - the five key players three were Rhodes scholars, a football star and Rene Levesque who was the most interesting politician I have ever met and one of few who would sit down with "the boys" and have an off-the-record chat over a beer.

And, or course, the master string puller, "pay attention to the man behind the curtain", Pierre Trudeau, who will one day be likened to "the father of the country" once those who knew him are long dead. Smartest man I ever interviewed, and cruel. He loved carving reporters into cube steaks

Thanks, FaL. I'll keep you in mind when I'm planning the next step of my college career.
 
I feel like there's quite a story behind that comment.

No, just a comment on journalism. The difference between direct access and second or third hand sources.
 
So much for the moronic argument made here repeatedly that legal gun owners are not violent offenders.



Of course, most of us know that the argument about legal gun owners is just another gun zealot lie. But, I thought I'd remind everyone about that fact.

The Florida school shooter was indeed a prohibited person that was able to get his gun due to lack of follow through by the FBI. A person becomes a prohibited person the instant the make the decision to use that firearm unlawfully.
 
The Florida school shooter was indeed a prohibited person that was able to get his gun due to lack of follow through by the FBI. A person becomes a prohibited person the instant the make the decision to use that firearm unlawfully.

He didn't obtain his gun after he made the "professional school shooter" remark. He already had them. Gun control won't fix a thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom