Canada is what the Unites States could be if we were more Liberal - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Canada is what the Unites States could be if we were more Liberal
in Politics

By billbatardbillbatard 132 Pts
The Liberal party has run Canada for most of the pst 100 years, and done a very good job I might add . Not perfect you is perfect, but with strict gun laws an up to date politically correct constitution , and universal health care, and the best quality of life in the world it is an idea of what the USA has to look orward to if Progressives get their way https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWDXE9Pbjic  no matter where i go i am proud to be canadian
AlofRI
The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • TKDBTKDB 293 Pts
    edited March 30
    @billbatard

    The United States isn't Canada, and if Canada is liberal oriented, then good for them.

    Best Countries for Quality of Life


     I wonder why the United States, should be like this or that country, because some countries maybe tolerate, how some of their citizens carry on, that wouldn't work in the United States, because of its laws? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2050 Pts
    And why, do you think, would we want strict gun laws, "politically correct constitution" and universal health care? Canadians might like these; does not mean we do. Different societies have different preferences.

    Canadians are pretty conformist and collectivist. We, on the other hand, are freedom-loving and individualist. Canadians are being told what to do and what not to do, and they follow by the book. We are being told that the speed limit is 50 mph, and go 90 mph, just because we (mostly) can get away with it. Most Canadians are okay with working a regular job and living a regular life; many Americans want to try something new, and are not willing to be held back by the need to fund someone else's healthcare.

    I like both Canada and the US. Yet prefer to live in the US. On a similar note, Japan is my favorite country to visit - but to live here? Eh, only if I get a VERY attractive job offer.
    One can appreciate what different systems have to offer, yet have a strong individual preference for one of those systems.

    That is why I want the US to stay how it is, and Canada to stay how it is. Let there be two different systems, so people can choose what they prefer. On the other hand, trying to install the same system everywhere leads to a boring grey monotonous world in which one has no choice, but to live in that system, even if they hate it utterly.
    Zombieguy1987AlofRIApplesauce
  • we could be@TKDB
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @MayCaesar Cnada is a democracy if we were a democracy we would have these things majority of americans favor strict gun laws and universal health care
    AlofRICYDdhartaZombieguy1987
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • TKDBTKDB 293 Pts
    edited March 31
    @billbatard

    Why don't you spell out your individual opinion, instead of just pointing me out, as you did? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2050 Pts
    @billbatard

    Good thing then that the US is a constitutional republic, rather than a democracy. The desire to escape the tyranny of the majority and to live in the society that respects unalienable individual rights was one of the main reasons for me immigrating to the US.

    As someone put it eloquently, democracy is a sheep and two wolves voting for what is for dinner. Not everyone is thrilled to live in such a system. Some do, as they think themselves the wolves - but the system quickly puts them in their place once installed.
    Zombieguy1987AlofRICYDdharta
  • John_C_87John_C_87 226 Pts
    @billbatard ;
    an up to date politically correct constitution ,

    You do understanding that Constitution means basic principle that is applied to legal precedent? When done correctly basic principles are timeless. It is arguable if Canada even has a Constitution at this point. A politically corrects principle in context to legal precedent is no longer Constitution as whole truth. Isn’t it just another case of plagiarism?

     While the right to common defense in the form of bearing arm is a legal choice, Canada as a united state is will to take as risk on a legal strategy for its future, its public, and its Armed Service men and woman.



  • John_C_87John_C_87 226 Pts
    with strict gun laws.

    Can I just say in whole truth there are only so many basic principles in which a legal precedent can be combined as united state. While in Constitution gun murders in Canada would be replaced with the official stopping of life by use of exposure. Freezing the person to death as a much more basic available way to kill/murder a person in Canada.

    Canada, Canadians may be content in punishes both guilty and innocent people equally as a political balanced legislation, while exposing those who would have to defend a strictly unconstitutional legislation, a  now political principle in a united state by lethal force without common defense to the general welfare. As they are to surly become political tool in negotiations to what may become a human sacrifice in the name of obscure truth and tranquility.   





  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 836 Pts
    edited April 1
    @billbatard

    I'm also Canadian and honestly, I'd rather we were a republic than an old bicameral parliamentary system in which, the Queen is still, in 2019 the official head of the government...  

    The US problem (if there is one) is that presently, the political center in the Houses (Congress, Senate), is not aligned with the ground's (the people) political center and that the Judicial branch has devolved into a openly political tool... Canada also has an overall better public education system IMO. 

    As for gun control, it's not even a political matter IMO, it's a cultural matter... Americans have a relation to firearms that just doesn't compute for Canadians... Since I don't intend to ever move to the US, I don't care what laws they pass or not, ain't my business... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AlofRIAlofRI 308 Pts
    @TKDB:  Those countries you listed are at the TOP of a recently released list of the "Happiest Countries in the World". Funny thing, they are mostly socialist countries, though NOT in the communist/Marxist form like most people, (including ME), are afraid of. Besides that, the U.S. comes in at #12 BELOW just about every democratic socialist (or what other technical description you may want to call them). Most, if not ALL have what is REFERED to as "free health care" (NOTHING is FREE from a government, actually). But it should be a LOT less expensive, and it should NOT be allowed to bankrupt a family!!
    Something to think about. ;-)
  • AlofRIAlofRI 308 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen: I've been in every Canadian Province (most many times), except Yukon and Saskatchewan. I LOVE Canada! Today, in light of what the U.S. has become since our Republican Party has "changed", and if I was younger, I'd consider moving there! I have a cousin that did and she loves it, wouldn't come back. She says she couldn't afford to, due, primarily, to health care.

    It's only "certain Americans" that have that "gun culture" that's so abnormal. Even NRA members WANT (by over 60%), better gun control. I USED to be a proud NRA member when their #1 position was gun safety. 

    There IS NO "perfect" political setup in the world. We should take the best of the best and combine them, and continue to improve what we end up with. I probably should have sent this as a PM, but it still makes a couple of points worth "debating".
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
  • @AlofRI

    I agree that the vast majority of US citizens are in favor of common sense gun regulations (universal background checks for example, about 80-90% are in favor), it goes back to my comment about the political center of the Houses and the people's political center not being aligned... The citizens are more to the left than the legislators are... :/  Good news though, the NRA may go bankrupt soon apparently so there's that on the positive side...

    And regardless of your age, you're still welcome north of the border! ;) 
    AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1204 Pts
    edited April 1
    @MayCaesar Cnada is a democracy if we were a democracy we would have these things majority of americans favor strict gun laws and universal health care
    But we are not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic.  The Founding Fathers considered democracy and decided against it.
    Applesauce
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1204 Pts
    @AlofRI

    I agree that the vast majority of US citizens are in favor of common sense gun regulations (universal background checks for example, about 80-90% are in favor), it goes back to my comment about the political center of the Houses and the people's political center not being aligned... The citizens are more to the left than the legislators are... :/  Good news though, the NRA may go bankrupt soon apparently so there's that on the positive side...

    And regardless of your age, you're still welcome north of the border! ;) 
    ROFL@, "the NRA may go bankrupt soon".

    There is nothing common sense about universal background checks. It's a national gun registry by another name.  I'll wager that if the poll was about support for a national gun registry, the results would be quite different; which make sense, since universal background checks aren't about reducing crime.  They have done nothing to reduce crime in the states that have implemented them, they would do nothing on a national scale.
    ApplesauceAlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 293 Pts
    edited April 1
    @AlofRI

    And for 5 years on another website, weed users, and their pro weed drug user fans/ adult babysitters, kept suggesting that the United States, should be like this or that country, where weed use was condoned?

    And I thought sure, the states where weed has been legalized, the weed using homeless population is booming, look at that weed user pride?

    In some of those same States, the underaged weed users, are still getting high, even after weed legalization took place, look at that weed user pride?

    And in the states where weed has been legalized, and hasn't been legalized yet, the weed addicts smoke their weed, in their vehicles, in a grocery store, and or a mall parking lot, because that's, what weed addict pride looks like right?

    And that's what weed addict happiness, looks like to, right? 

    And the title of this forum:

    "Canada is what the Unites States could be if we were more Liberal"

    Further reminded me about how some, view their inner liberalness, and wishfully desire the United States, to be like this or that country, and to accommodate, put up with, or pander, or cater, to this or that mindsetting individual, and to do for that individual, what they want, and that's for the liberal minded individual, to be catered, pandered, and babied, to suit their liberal desiring needs?

    Basically a liberal minded individual likes his or her actions to be condoned, on their time right? 



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2050 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    That was exactly the reasoning behind this country being made into a constitutional republic, as opposed to a democracy. The Founding Fathers knew that the general population tends to lack the foresight and prefer collectivist values, and they saw those values being given way as the main threat to the future of the nation.

    It does not surprise me that 60% of Americans favor strict gun laws; what does surprise me is that this fraction is so small, given that in most other countries it approaches 100%. Pandering to the immediate will of the majority nonetheless is not constructive, and is the sole reason we even need such concepts as individual liberties and human rights.

    If people focused on the big picture, as opposed to the immediate personal preferences, we would not need human rights, as they would be a given. We would not need a government that represents people; people would be able to represent themselves in direct democracy.
    But people do not. If you conduct a survey and ask random people whether they favor taking all the money from the 500 richest Americans and equally demanding it among the rest, then almost everyone except those 500 Americans will say, "Yes, please". Were this to be done, however, the economy would crumble that very day.

    In Canada, the majority decided that controversial rhetoric is dangerous enough to be allowed, and they now have aberrations such as the "gender pronounce" law not allowing people to freely use such basic words as "he" and "she". This kind of direct law-making based on pandering to the currently popular opinion leads nowhere good, even if at the moment it does not bring too much harm.

    We do not do that in the US. Even if 99.99% of the population wants something, but that something goes against the spirit of what this nation as a whole stands for - then they are out of luck. And what these people may see as the "common sense law regulations", the actual word of the law and the constitution may see as erroneous. And for a good reason.
    ApplesauceZombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar

    I do agree that a republic is a very good system to prevent majority tyranny, I do wish we (Canada) were one too... But it has no bearing on discussions about regulations of firearms... In the last case that reached the SCOTUS ( District of Columbia v. Heller)  the Court held, for the first time, that the Constitution’s Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms that is not tied to service in the military or a state militia. All it says is that a total ban is unconstitutional, rightly so I might add... 

    But the Heller opinion, however, makes clear that the Second Amendment right is, like most constitutional rights, not an absolute right, but a right subject to reasonable regulations necessary to protect the health and safety of the community. Thus, while the court held in Heller that a total ban on handguns is unconstitutional, it said that the Constitution nevertheless permits a broad range of reasonable regulations of guns. The court specifically listed examples of these permissible reasonable regulations, including bans on concealed carry of guns, bans on possession of guns in public places like parks and public buildings, bans on possession of guns by convicted felons, minors and people with mental problems, regulations of gun sales, and bans on weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for self-defense. Under Heller, the only gun regulations that raise significant constitutional problems are regulations that go significantly beyond the numerous categories of gun regulations that Heller recognizes as being constitutional under the Second Amendment.    

    The important thing to keep in mind is that Heller establishes a very narrow constitutional right to possess weapons for self-protection, not a broad right to own or possess any guns for any purpose. Mass shootings therefore raise problems for legislatures, not the Supreme Court, to solve. Although it would be constitutional for a legislature to do so, the court can't itself impose an assault-weapons ban, or regulate gun sales at gun shows. Meaningful gun regulation today is primarily a political issue for Congress and the state legislatures, not a constitutional issue for the Supreme Court.

    Which leads back to my earlier comment about the political center of the Legislative branch not being aligned with the people's... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • John_C_87John_C_87 226 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen ;

    The idea of republic as a means to regulate tyranny is not prevention. The whole truth is a democracy simply is a tyranny in principle unregulated. In basic idea a crime when worded correctly can be voted on by a group of people in a democratic fashion without their understanding of crime taking place. Parliament was democratic it simply refused to allow representation in an impartial manner. This was more than likely due to Piracy on the seas that was going on all over the oceans as a means of profit.

    Again the 2nd Amendment takes the focus away from the common defense originally set as truth and fact, preamble. Which has legal precedent in the burdens of application of lethal force as its foundation in equality of all people. So what is the basic principle in a mass shooting Plaffeivohfen?

    The word you are looking for is not absolute it is inalienable. A United State in Constitutional right is set to be inalienable by introduction of whole truth.



  • @John_C_87

    Sorry John, but I've stopped trying to decipher your peculiarly worded comments, sad as it may be. You might sound clear to some, but not to me, quite the contrary...   :/ 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2050 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    I agree that the exact mechanisms of the system are quite sophisticated, and I would not want to get into the details of that. My point was simply that, however cynical it sounds, what people in general want to happen does not strongly correlate with what should happen in a reasonable system.

    One of the necessary conditions of the government serving the people is that it puts itself above the immediate people's concerns and sees the bigger picture. The reason people elect the government in the first place, rather than governing themselves, is that they believe that they are not qualified to do so. Their representatives are, and that means that the representatives' actions will often be in strong dissonance with what people want. Plainly speaking, we are not supposed to vote for particular policies; rather, we are supposed to vote for the qualified individuals who will then come up with the proper policies. Which we might not agree with, and that is perfectly fine.

    The Legislative branch, or any other branch for that matter, is not supposed to be aligned with the people's political spectrum. The purpose of any governmental body, in my opinion, must be to uphold the Constitution and defend the derived people's rights; nothing more, nothing less.
    The government should not enact the policies which people support, when those policies go against the Constitution, or, more broadly, against its general spirit.

    The forefathers foresaw it; they knew that the Constitutional ideals are not eternal, and it is very likely that eventually there will be a generation of people who does not respect them more than they respect their immediate political preferences. Unfortunately, they failed to defend the Constitution from the resulting onslaught - but they did a better job at it still, than any other nation's founders, as far as I know.

    For one, anyone, being it an individual or a collective, or even a nation as a whole, it is paramount to have a certain ideals that override every other consideration. That is the only way to maintain consistency in one's existence. In this regard, our nation has pretty well defined ideals of individual liberties and property rights. Something like the universal healthcare or harsh gun control goes against those ideals.
    So we have to choose: do we hold on to our ideals regardless, even if the vast majority of the population is unhappy with the outcome? Or do we scrap them and give in to our immediate desires, hoping that somehow such a concession will in the end play out in our favor? To me, the answer is obvious - but not everyone can focus on the long term when emotional subjects are involved.

    We have a goal: we want to reduce the gun crime. There are many ways to go about it. Some ways are in the spirit of what our nation has historically stood for. Others are not, but they might be in the spirit of what some other nations have historically stood for. Many Americans believe that it is those others who have the objectively right way - but in reality, there is no such way. All ways are inherently subjective, and different ways work best for different nations.
    I am pretty strongly convinced that reforming our system to better resemble what Canada, Australia, France, etc. have is a very bad idea. Canada, Australia and France are very successful countries. So is the US. We have different models, but we all prosper immensely on the historical and worldly scale. Scrapping our model in favor of the greener grass mentality is not going to work very well.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2050 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    I agree that the exact mechanisms of the system are quite sophisticated, and I would not want to get into the details of that. My point was simply that, however cynical it sounds, what people in general want to happen does not strongly correlate with what should happen in a reasonable system.

    One of the necessary conditions of the government serving the people is that it puts itself above the immediate people's concerns and sees the bigger picture. The reason people elect the government in the first place, rather than governing themselves, is that they believe that they are not qualified to do so. Their representatives are, and that means that the representatives' actions will often be in strong dissonance with what people want. Plainly speaking, we are not supposed to vote for particular policies; rather, we are supposed to vote for the qualified individuals who will then come up with the proper policies. Which we might not agree with, and that is perfectly fine.

    The Legislative branch, or any other branch for that matter, is not supposed to be aligned with the people's political spectrum. The purpose of any governmental body, in my opinion, must be to uphold the Constitution and defend the derived people's rights; nothing more, nothing less.
    The government should not enact the policies which people support, when those policies go against the Constitution, or, more broadly, against its general spirit.

    The forefathers foresaw it; they knew that the Constitutional ideals are not eternal, and it is very likely that eventually there will be a generation of people who does not respect them more than they respect their immediate political preferences. Unfortunately, they failed to defend the Constitution from the resulting onslaught - but they did a better job at it still, than any other nation's founders, as far as I know.

    For one, anyone, being it an individual or a collective, or even a nation as a whole, it is paramount to have a certain ideals that override every other consideration. That is the only way to maintain consistency in one's existence. In this regard, our nation has pretty well defined ideals of individual liberties and property rights. Something like the universal healthcare or harsh gun control goes against those ideals.
    So we have to choose: do we hold on to our ideals regardless, even if the vast majority of the population is unhappy with the outcome? Or do we scrap them and give in to our immediate desires, hoping that somehow such a concession will in the end play out in our favor? To me, the answer is obvious - but not everyone can focus on the long term when emotional subjects are involved.

    We have a goal: we want to reduce the gun crime. There are many ways to go about it. Some ways are in the spirit of what our nation has historically stood for. Others are not, but they might be in the spirit of what some other nations have historically stood for. Many Americans believe that it is those others who have the objectively right way - but in reality, there is no such way. All ways are inherently subjective, and different ways work best for different nations.
    I am pretty strongly convinced that reforming our system to better resemble what Canada, Australia, France, etc. have is a very bad idea. Canada, Australia and France are very successful countries. So is the US. We have different models, but we all prosper immensely on the historical and worldly scale. Scrapping our model in favor of the greener grass mentality is not going to work very well.
  • @MayCaesar Freedom loving?  We are fat lazy brainwashed turds and even according to the Cato Institute Canada is much more free than the usa THE USA IS A JUNK YARD  a diseased land of fear and degeneracy and weak men pretending to be cowboys 

    https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new  The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark (tied in 6th place), Ireland and the United Kingdom (tied in 8th place), and Finland, Norway, and Taiwan (tied in 10th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Germany (13), the United States and Sweden (17), 

    Zombieguy1987
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @John_C_87 ;   Freedom for whom? and what good is freedom if you are starving the united states is the definition of a tyrany Canada is free The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark (tied in 6th place), Ireland and the United Kingdom (tied in 8th place), and Finland, Norway, and Taiwan (tied in 10th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Germany (13), the United States and Sweden (17),   
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark (tied in 6th place), Ireland and the United Kingdom (tied in 8th place), and Finland, Norway, and Taiwan (tied in 10th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Germany (13), the United States and Sweden (17), 
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty which are embodied in one maxim The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate - Bertrand Russell
    Zombieguy1987
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • okay?Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty which are embodied in one maxim The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate - Bertrand Russellbecause when you say freedom you mean your priviledge nothing more
    Zombieguy1987
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • MayCaesar said:
    @Plaffelvohfen ;

    The Legislative branch, or any other branch for that matter, is not supposed to be aligned with the people's political spectrum. 

    So, what does "a government OF, BY and FOR the people" mean if the Legislative branch does not reflect (Within the limits of the Constitution obviously...) the will of the people???  

    Nothing?? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2050 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    It means that people vote for the representatives that enact policies that, in their informed view, align with their interests. Not that in those people's view align with their interest.

    The point of having any sort of representative is to delegate the decision-making process to someone who, in one's opinion, knows better what they are doing, than them.

    When you pay money to a dentist to fix your teeth, you do not pay money for them fixing the teeth the way you think is right. You pay money for them fixing the teeth the way they think is right, even if you personally disagree with that way. The government is no different.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar the constitution is an anachronism representing the values of an age when women were property and owning negroes was considered a 'right' it is disgraceful anyone defends this putrid document
    Zombieguy1987
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • MayCaesar said:
    @Plaffelvohfen

    It means that people vote for the representatives that enact policies that, in their informed view, align with their interests. Not that in those people's view align with their interest.

    The point of having any sort of representative is to delegate the decision-making process to someone who, in one's opinion, knows better what they are doing, than them.

    When you pay money to a dentist to fix your teeth, you do not pay money for them fixing the teeth the way you think is right. You pay money for them fixing the teeth the way they think is right, even if you personally disagree with that way. The government is no different.
    I totally disagree... Legislators are not some kind of Hindu cast who know better by virtue of being legislators... 

    It's the Constitution that sets the limits within which the will of the people can express itself, not the legislators... Legislators are definitely there to reflect the will of the people, then if the system works right, the Judiciary will step in and remind everyone of the limits as defined in the Constitution...  " We the People " have room to move in the Constitution, it's a tool that helps free the people, not a ball and chain...

    Whether it's gun regulations, single payer healthcare or any other matter, if the Constitution allow it, legislators must respect the will of the people. If the Constitution does not allow it, then it's the judiciary's job to raise flags and call foul when a law would go out of bound and to repeal it...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • John_C_87John_C_87 226 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen ;

    You need not apologize Plaffelvohfen there was nothing to decipher the question was straight forward, what is the constitutional basic principle behind mass shootings? The legal precedent is murder we all share that point as a united state. What is your understanding of the basic principle in a mass shooting? In all mass shooting, is it the same gun, is it death, do they just want to hurt people not kill them, is it a form of religious suicide, what is your understanding of basic principle here?

    As for the 2nd Amendment my understanding is clear also. Those who move for legislation of gun without addressing first a common defense like the issuing of ballistic shield are just as negligent as the shooters, or those who do not address fire alarms in public places.

    As for the last point set to discussion, do think the Canadian people as a nation set in united state all understands that by not openly allowing a common defense such as gun ownership, they are exposing their soldier, and police to civil lawsuit as they are forced to be the only ones who are asked to use lethal force?


  • John_C_87John_C_87 226 Pts
    @billbatard ;

    A person longs to be free……..A person should not actual be free. No one wants to be really be free it is unpleasant and would mean they lose the right to hold a self-value greater than an assigned cost. You are not telling a whole truth when saying a person strives for freedom, it is liberty they so desire and dream of, hungry or not as a united state.

    It is great you have a pride in your Nation, however that does not answer an understanding of basic principle as a Nation. Do Canadians as a whole understand all truth in common defense to gun ownership? Litigation disclosure and limitation has become a big part of the liberal way of life, do the people in Canada understand that like the Germany citizen, they are opening to door to have trials for military misconduct on an international level after armed conflict? Of course they do we all do. So why no common defense for such action to limit the nations liability as a whole by democratic pressures to fight, disclosure set by opportunity to hold burden of lethal force equally at all time. This is equality is it not? It is equality without the use of military draft.



  • John_C_87John_C_87 226 Pts
    @billbatard ;

    The constitution is an anachronism representing the values of an age when women were property and owning negroes was considered a 'right' it is disgraceful anyone defends this putrid document .


    In whole truth an basic principle woman are still property, as are men. It is the necessity of war which set this as whole truth not documentation of United State Constitution. For the recorded a woman could not be President legally she would be, by lack of proper address to United state a assigned title Prasedera of the United States of America.

     A woman who would sit under oath of whole truth before united state constitution as a representation to all woman. This is a realistic whole truth.

    Owning negroes was considered a 'right' it is disgraceful anyone defends this putrid document .

    There is a double edge to this statement in whole truth. The bad first, there is a United State Constitutional argument to be made for ownership of a prisoner of war. This in basic principle makes it a right, yes. The separation however of constitution itself goes on also dictating treatment of objects which can seek liberty. Even when asked as freedom, after having been placed under tyrannical forms of freedom. Independence is no such tyranny. The Good news is when a negro served in the United States Military, that service to U.S. Military, having been paid or not, is a restitution for liberty by code of conduct in respect to their detention as a whole. Meaning United State.

     It sounds as if you are talking about a persons ability to desplay Consitutional principles and not the united state of consitution itself.
    Ever remaining imparial; 
    Singed : John_C_87

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2050 Pts
    edited April 2
    @Plaffelvohfen

    There are many ways to serve the interest of people, and pandering to their immediate will is not a good way. 

    When you are learning something under a professor and make a mistake, the professor will not play along; he/she will, instead, point the mistake out, and it will be up to you to chance your opinion, not to him/her.
    Same here: legislators must respect the spirit of the national foundation and its values, not what people unqualified to make any political decisions believe in at the moment. The majority of people do not know anything about a given subject, and politics is not an exception. The majority of people will be wrong on any given sophisticated matter.
    That is why, when you need your teeth fixed, you do not go to a random person; you go to a professional dentist. And the treatment you receive may hurt, which you might not approve of. But you willingly accept it nonetheless, because you believe that the dentists know better what he/she is doing, than you.

    On the other hand, when you delegate the decision-making process not to the professionals, but to the people-panderers (simply put, populists), then you get Trump or Trudeau.

    Letting people who know nothing of the economics, for example, decide what the economical policies should be is the easiest way to kill the economy off.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar

    You're missing the point. I'm saying that it's not the Legislator job to tell the people what's good for them, never was... The legislator's job is to write laws that reflect the will of the people and the judiciary's job to tell if those laws are constitutional or not and repeal them if necessary... 

    What you're describing sound like a paternalistic government who knows better than the people, it sounds incompatible with the freedom to self-determination... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @MayCaesar

    You're missing the point. I'm saying that it's not the Legislator job to tell the people what's good for them, never was... The legislator's job is to write laws that reflect the will of the people and the judiciary's job to tell if those laws are constitutional or not and repeal them if necessary... 

    What you're describing sound like a paternalistic government who knows better than the people, it sounds incompatible with the freedom to self-determination... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 836 Pts
    edited April 2
    Sorry about the double post...  I keep getting weird errors relating to SQL stuff... :/ 
    Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2050 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Well, that is the whole idea of a representative government. If the legistrators do not know better than the people, then what business do they have issuing legislations governing those people? If the legislators do not know better than the people, then the people should self-govern.

    The legislator's job is to enact policies that ultimately benefit the people, who elected him/her just for that purpose. And those policies may very well be very unpopular in the society at the time. A good legislator, in my view, is led by his/her consciousness, not by the public pressure, and is willing to make a very unpopular decision and lose the next election as a result - knowing that it is the right thing to do, even if no one else agrees.
    Zombieguy1987
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 836 Pts
    edited April 2
    MayCaesar said:
    @Plaffelvohfen

    If the legistrators do not know better than the people, then what business do they have issuing legislations governing those people? 
    ;)  A quick look around the houses, federal and state, will show many who clearly do not know better... Think Palin, Bachmann, or any other young earth creationists...  But this speaks more about the electorate than the elected I guess... :/  
    "...and is willing to make a very unpopular decision and lose the next election as a result."
    Sure, and the next legislator will repeal the unpopular law because the will of the people is paramount, and it's ultimately what gives any government its legitimacy... :/ 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2050 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    I think people often underestimate the difficulty of legislative work. It is true that many of our representatives have questionable views on various subjects, but they do have certain ability to compile a large amount of information and make an informed decision based on it, which people not intimately familiar with politics and economics do not.
    For all the talk from the critics of Palin (and yes, there is a lot to criticize), I am fairly confident that 95% of them would do a worse job in her place.

    That said, due to the way the election system works, it is natural that some of the elected people are going to be below average in terms of their ability to do a proper job. But that is a compromise we have to live in. Either we have this, or we have no electoral process at all and live in a dictatorship.

    Yes, and that is what keeps happening: the laws are instituted, then repealed, then instituted again in a modified version, and so on. This is because very few politicians actually stand up for the ideals they are supposed to protect. Most stand up for their own gain and for the gain of their respective political force.
    I am libertarian, bordering anarchism, for a reason. :) I would prefer there to be no government at all. But as long as we do have one, at least let us make it so it functions based on what works, rather than on what people approve of. These two are, more often than not, diverge.


    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • John_C_87John_C_87 226 Pts

     

    @Plaffelvohefen

    It is not the Courts job to approve the creation made under United State within Constitution. It is to hear them. The determination is to be reached on if there is precedent which goes beyond the basic principle of the United State brought together with writing or not.

    One: Any explanation of a complex nature is unconstitutional as it lacks basic principle as a united state. There are two area of legal precedent things which have been brought before the court, and things which have not been placed before the court. Principles as a relevance to topic change which means the process of introduction matters.

    Contradictions. Passing legislation which limits the direction of control to separation in the course of general welfare. Something is proven as illegal it is not legislated as illegal. legislation has been written to challenge a use to create a separation by its limit. Example: Recreational Marijuana is going to be made legal. Well great, I would love to smell the fragrance of fresh growing marijuana. I would love to be able to grown and make my own rope and canvas for sails. How was this illegal again I forgot? legislation said so? The government said I do not have that liberty? Why? Marijuana is prove to be illegal it does not start that way it is a limit. The common defense here is basic most drugs are sold, and when sold the drug is the violation to many limits, lethal force, taxation, monopoly's, limitation to the liberty of religion, etc.

    The description of United State Constitutional representation is to focus on what is needed to separation the user who consumes from the abuser who kills or harms to control and profit. 

  • Why did you use the word could instead of would?
    Zombieguy1987
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • @MayCaesar the constitution is an anachronism representing the values of an age when women were property and owning negroes was considered a 'right' it is disgraceful anyone defends this putrid document
    Come on, that's overblown beyond ridiculous...

    The problems that may arise, with any Constitution, is when it becomes engraved in stone, immutable, dogmatic and unable to adapt to new and unknown realities in the future. The mechanisms for this adaptation are much more comprehensive in the US document than in the Canada Act of 1982 imo...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen ;

    Constitution is carved in stone, basic principle and legal precedent are Constitution. A complex interpretation is no longer basic principle, an therefor is no longer in Constitution. It is changed as independent from Constitution.

     Plaffelovhfen a basic principle stands the test of the ages.


    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • @John_C_87

    So, the Bill of rights and the subsequent 17 amendments are unconstitutional now??  

    I see..........


    Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • A request for presidential state of the Union would have me ask you directly, do you feel all sliad in the articles mentioned is by truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth, basic in its principle?

  • Sorry, Do you feel all said in the Articles mentioned is by truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth basic principle on each account? Understanding possibly with just the help of an axiom the truths may be united?
  • @MayCaesar is that a good thing/ canada is a democracy and has the best  quality of life in the world
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @MayCaesar if we were a democracy our society would be better in almost every way, this society is about to self destruct
    CYDdharta
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch