New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#26 2006-10-21 14:33:56

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

Free access across the Canada/US border has already been negotiated. It was agreed to many decades ago, removing it is reneging upon an existing agreement. There were three main reasons for this: to be good neighbours establishing good will, to avoid conflicts at the border, and because it cost so damn much money to arm the border. Our border from the Great Lakes to the Pacific is thousands of miles long, it's way too expensive to arm that. Proceeding with arming the border means the US has violated yet another treaty. The US has earned a reputation for doing that.

Free Trade doesn't mean we don't defend our borders, it doesn't mean that if youlegalize marjuana in Canada that its automatically legal here too. Free trade simply means an even playing field, but we still control our borders, we don't let illegal things or aliens through. Since our immigration agents aren't in every port in Canada and can't prevent people from entering Canada, we must instead check our own border with Canada to prevent people who shouldn't be here from coming it, that is the only way to so it short of a Customs Union, which NAFTA is not. Why am I having so much trouble explaining this to you. Its an international border, and nothing about the NAFTA treaty states that we have to let anybody walk through this international border without screening, and if our border agents aren't armed, they could be murdered by smugglers or terrorists coming across the border. Canada has alot of open and empty space, and alot of place for criminals to hide. What NAFTA deals with are tarriffs, nothing about NAFTA says that we aren't allowed to guard our borders against threats to our security. We may be a superpower, but that doesn't stop terrorists from coming across and shooting up a shopping Mall for instance. Border agents must be armed, just like any other Police need to be armed when doing their jobs, to expect otherwise is unrealistic.

How about if a black man buys a Canadian company, and drives white businesses in the area out of business?

Canadians would have no problem with that. We don't have any prejudice toward black people. I live in Winnipeg, a city that has been and multi-cultural from its founding, the longest cosmopolitan city in Canada's history. Yet I did hear prejudice expressed toward Sikh immigrants coming from Pakistan. The primary complaint was they wanted to continue their conflict with Hindus. Canadians feel strongly that if you move to Canada you have to leave your conflicts behind; you can keep your ethnic clothes, food, music, dance, but you're expected to assimilate into Canada's view towards tolerance of other cultures and peaceful settlement of disagreements. Furthermore, there is great resentment toward immigrants to immediately go on welfare; the view is immigrants must work to earn their own living. So if an immigrant buys a business and runs it successfully, fine that's what they're supposed to do.

There is a very easy solution to this. "You want welfare, then lets see your ID. If you are not a citizen, then out you go, your visa is revoked. If you can't find a job here, you have no business being here"

By the way, the founding cultures were English, French, Scottish, Ukrainian, German, Mennonite, Icelandic, Chinese, Métis, and Native. That's in no particular order; actually the local newspaper did a survey in the 1980s and found the largest single ethnic group was Ukrainian, not English or French. There are so many people of Native descent in Winnipeg that if it were a reservation it would be the largest (most populous) reservation in the Country; yet they're just people working for a living like everyone else. Métis are half Native/half French, but their culture became unique hundreds of years ago. Métis consider themselves a "first nations people" meaning native, but the native people don't. Métis were a key player in founding this province, Louis Riel is recognized as the founder of the province and he was Métis.

Let me give another colourful example. If an immigrant girl from Afghanistan wants to wear a Burke and stands next to an immigrant from Spain wearing nothing but a mini-skirt and bra, each girl has to accept the other without complaint. Yes we do have Sikh and Hindu immigrants, Palestinian and Israeli, Protestant Northern Irish and Catholic Mainland Irish, all living side-by-side. They're expected to accept each other and coexist peacefully or get out.

So realize prejudice in Canada works differently than in the US. In Canada immigrants are expected to assimilate Canada's core values, but not assimilate surface things like clothing. Most importantly, if you want to buy a Canadian business then move your ass to Canada. Business owned by immigrates are fine, but we have really hate foreign owned business.

That is a stupid rule, it inhibits the raising of capital. Prejudice against foreign owned business is still prejudice. If you want a free trade agreement, then you can't have stupid rules like that, it is something a third world country like Mexico would have. So don't go poking at us and complain about how we protect our timber industry when you complain about foreign owned business, that is like trying to have tour cake and eat it too.

In a negotiation, each side seeks maximum advantage for its side, and the process of negotition, each side tries to get what it wants, and their are some things each side doesn't want as badly and so it is willing to give those things up in exchange for what it really wants.

With an ally you're supposed to work together as a team for the common good. An ally is not an opponent. If you can't understand cooperation, then you're an animal and should be treated as such.

Each side knows its own interests best, I don't know what else you expect. Do you expect US trade negotiators to represent Canadian Interests? Friends negotiate, allies negotiate, each country knows what it wants, and knows what compromises its willing to make in exchange for what it wants, its like any other business negotiation. An analogy is when you go to the store and you want to buy something, the store owner says, this item you want costs this much, and you pay the price or you haggle a little, it is not that you are the store owner are enemies otherwise he'd give the stuff away for free, it is that he needs to earn a living, and if he gave away everything for free, then he'd be out of business and unable to ffed his family, it is fundamental economics. And with trade negotiations the rule is, if you want to get something, you have to give something, allies or no, its the same situation.

Perhaps the next trade negotiation should be held in Canada, and if American negotiators attempt to push their advantage then we'll house them in a kennel instead of a hotel room.

The bi-national free trade agreement had some things Canada really didn't want. America first asked Canada for a free trade agreement after the Foreign Investment Review Agency and National Energy Policy were established, many American CEOs really hated FIRA, and American politicians hated the National Energy Policy. But when a Canadian government was willing to negotiate, they acted like they didn't want it and tried to put Canada on the spot. Canada did not want to guarantee access to any Canadian resource, our stuff is our stuff, but American wanted access to Canadian oil. The free trade agreement gave American unrestricted access to buy Canadian oil, but America could not restrict importation of any Canadian goods. But when one single steel company built a new furnace in 1992 that enabled them to make steel that was higher quality than another other American or Canadian steel company, and sell it at a lower price but still with enough profit to make their bank loan payments and pay dividends to their share holders, American steel companies screamed. The bi-national trade dispute board looked at it and said it was fair business. But a Virginia state court ordered the Canadian company to increase their prices to the point they weren't competitive any more. Where does a state court get off overruling an international court, where does a lower court get off overruling a higher court? That's why Canada insisted on writing into NAFTA that the NAFTA dispute resolution board is a court, and its decision must be obeyed. An appeals system was built in as well; the highest appeals court has heard the case for softwood lumber and made their decision. The decision was not entirely in Canada's favour, mostly but not entirely. The decision is that American cannot limit the quantity of lumber exported into the US, cannot set a minimum price, must immediately revoke all duties, and must repay 100% of every single penny of duty collected to date. The American government has still refused to comply. Canada has engaged in multiple court cases over this, the American government now promises to pay 80% but won't do so or remove the duty until after Canada cancels its litigation. The American government then told Canada's ambassador to Washington D.C. that American won't repay even one cent of the duty. Prime Minister Stephen Harper then got on the phone and got the American government to promise to pay the 80% they committed to, but they would only pay after all litigation is cancelled. You know how this works; once all litigation is cancelled they'll refuse to pay anything. They already told Canada's ambassador they intend to do that. Unfortunately Stephen Harper is believing liars. Most recently the US announced they gave 5% of what they owe Canada to charity. That's another statement of intent to not pay Canada. This is not how you treat an ally. If you want good relations with Canada then obey the treaty your country signed.

The NAFTA treaty is a complicated document, and I'm not a lawyer. I do know that the NAFTA treaty is not a customs union, the problem is there are two governments each with his own interpretation of what the NAFTA treaty means, and each government has its own judicial system, and enforcement agencies, and they have legislatures that write their own laws. The US Government's idea of what NAFTA means does not always correspond 100% with what the Canadian Government thinks it means, so long as we remain soverign independent nations and their is no higher authority to arbitrate these disputes, things are always going to be messy, and nothing is going to be perfect. if you want a freely tranversible border, such as between New York and New Jersey, then you have to be part of the same country and under the same Federal Authority, otherwise any treaty signed is going to be interpreted differently by different court systems and different governments, and it is also voluntary. This isn't a perfect world when you have many nations. Saying that harms international relations because lawyers don't agree in a complicated legal dispute, is absurd. For instance, if the Canadians clear cut their environment and destroy a forest habitiat while our lumber companies carefully manage their forests, you are forcing us to abandon our enviromental regulations and destroy our natural environments in order to compete with Canadian companies whose regs may be more lax. If we have power plants with scrubbers and you don't because your government doesn't, does that mean you get to sell us cheap electricity from coal fired plants and drive our power companies out of busniness because they adhere to our Federal regulations? These are just a few examples, and a Free Trade aggreement doesn't offer any simple answers. That we disagree on some things, it no excuse for an hate America campaign. Part of being an ally is to agree to disagree on some issues, and not hold other issues hostage to other things. Life is not simple, and that disagreements on both sides exist is only to be expected, no treaty can cover everything.

As for an American billionaire owning a Canadian business: where do you think the profits go? We don't want our wealth sucked out of this country to subsidize another.

The profits go into the billionare's pocket as a return on his investment, regardless of whether he is an American or a Canadian citizen, he pays his taxes of course, if it is a company operating in Canada, he pays Canadian taxes, whether he's a Canadian or not and afterwards, its his money, not Canada's or America's, whether he's an American or a Canadian. I don't see why American Investors should be discriminated against, isn't their money just as good as a Canadian Citizen, and doesn't he deserve a return on his investment just like a Canadian Citizen would. By discriminating against certain investors, you are choking off growth to the Canadian economy by reducing the amount of capital available. if you are a Canadian business owner who wants to sell his business and retire, you are reducing the value of his company and his retirement savings by restricting who he can sell to.

I didn't want Canada to enter into a free trade agreement with Mexico because it has a third world economy, but now that they are part of NAFTA why are you attempting to establish trade and immigration barriers with them?

If you want Canada's coast guard patrolling Canadian waters, we already do that. Here is a list of Canadian Coast Guard vessels.

But Canada's Coast Guard is not the US Coast Guard, it is not out looking for US interests, it is looking out for Canadian interests. I don't see why we should rely on a Foreign coast guard to guarantee our security, and that would be exactly what we'd be doing if we didn't guard the US/Canada border, if we didn't do that then some other arrangements need to be made for our security like a Customs union and a Jointly run coast guard, since we don't have that, we guard our borders, that is not so hard to understand I think. If you keep on thinking your the good guys and we're they bad guys, and you wonder why we don't give things away for free just because we're allies, then were not going to get anywhere in this debate.

Offline

#27 2006-10-21 16:18:27

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 7,919
Website

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

The undefended border was established by treaties much older than NAFTA. The Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1817 followed the war of 1812. It limits ships on the Great Lakes to

On Lake Ontario to one vessel not exceeding one hundred Tons burthen and armed with one eighteen pound cannon.

On the upper lakes to two vessels not exceeding like burthen each and armed with like force.

On the waters of Lake Champlain to one vessel not exceeding like burthen and armed with like force.

… all other armed vessels on these Lakes shall be forthwith dismantled, and that no other vessels of war shall be there built or armed.

The term "burthen" referrs to the carry capacity of a ship including cargo, weapons, and ammunition. A limit of 100 tons means a coast guard vessel; modern NAVY ships are larger than this, even the smallest destroyers, frigates, or maritime coastal defence vessels.

This was signed before modern weapons were invented, when cannons firing 18 pound cannon balls were a significant naval weapon. This has been interpreted as "weapons of war". Read US or Canadian law, an automatic repeating fire riffle is a weapon of war. A 50 calibre machine gun is much more than a .223 calibre assault riffle, it can shoot down a helicopter. Look at the picture, it's a mounted deck gun.
machinegun_m240b060315.jpg
As a weapon of war covered by the Rush-Bagot Treaty treaty, the US coast guard is permitted only one such weapon per ship and only one vessel so equiped on Lake Ontario, one on Lake Champlain, and two on the upper lakes (Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Lake Huron). Notice it also says "all other armed vessels on these Lakes shall be forthwith dismantled". That means any vessels exceeding these limits must be dismantled. Removing the weapon isn't enough; the entire ship must be dismantled.

Offline

#28 2006-10-21 16:53:27

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 7,919
Website

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

if you want a freely tranversible border, such as between New York and New Jersey, then you have to be part of the same country and under the same Federal Authority, otherwise any treaty signed is going to be interpreted differently by different court systems and different governments, and it is also voluntary.

First we aren't going to join the United States. When the US declared independence from Britain, Benjamin Franklin went to all 16 colonies; 13 signed the declaration of independence, 3 did not. Those that did not were Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Many within the 13 colonies saw themselves as loyal British subjects, they didn't want anything to do with a war. They moved to Ontario or the mainland of what was then Nova Scotia. Most Nova Scotia settlers before that lived on the peninsula, only a handful lived on the mainland. So many refugees from the 13 colonies settled there that it was separated into a new province; that's how New Brunswick was founded. With an entire province founded by Americans who didn't want to be American, we aren't going to join now. Look at this announcement:
Bush signing terror bill into law
So much for the US constitution that grants everyone a right to a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, and the right to legal counsel. U.S. Constitution - Amendment 6:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Since the United States is in such a rush to tear up its own constitution, we certainly cannot trust its federal government.

As for treaties being "interpreted" or "voluntary", you just admitted we can't trust anything any American government representative ever says or signs. Why should we feel compelled to comply with the clause that guarantees access to Canadian oil?

Offline

#29 2006-10-21 17:25:07

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 7,919
Website

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

But Canada's Coast Guard is not the US Coast Guard, it is not out looking for US interests, it is looking out for Canadian interests. I don't see why we should rely on a Foreign coast guard to guarantee our security, and that would be exactly what we'd be doing if we didn't guard the US/Canada border, if we didn't do that then some other arrangements need to be made for our security like a Customs union and a Jointly run coast guard, since we don't have that, we guard our borders, that is not so hard to understand I think. If you keep on thinking your the good guys and we're they bad guys, and you wonder why we don't give things away for free just because we're allies, then were not going to get anywhere in this debate.

Canada does believe in teamwork. Canada does protect the interests of our ally. We do understand the concept of cooperation. NORAD has been a mutual defence against the Soviet Union for decades, we're as dependant on the US as the US is on Canada. If you seriously believe you can't count on Canada's coast guard to defend America's interests, then that's a confession the American coast guard will not defend Canada's interests.

Let me give another example. After the Canadian Avro Arrow was abandoned, Canada needed something to take out Russian bombers. The CF-105 Arrow was designed to intercept the Russian Tu-95 Bear bomber. That was Russia's equivalent to the B-52, capable of flying over the north pole and Canada to reach American targets. To intercept the Bear, Canada maintained CF-101 Voodoo fighters from 1961 through 1984. If Bear bombers were detected, they would fly to the US Air Force base in Bangor Maine where their armament would be swapped out with air-to-air missiles with nuclear warheads. As protection over Canada's Atlantic provinces, American fighters from Bangor would fly opposite to cover Canadian Atlantic airspace. Then the Voodoo fighters would fly a suicide mission to take out the Bear bombers. The pilots knew perfectly well that their plane would be inside the blast radius when the nuclear warhead exploded. They were ready and willing to sacrifice themselves for our ally. Can you say the same of American soldiers; are they ready to sacrifice themselves to protect Canada?

Offline

#30 2006-10-21 20:01:39

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 29,428

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

Wow 16 that could have signed... that was never taught when I went to school here in NH. Thanks for that ...
I agree laws in the US have become distorted and that most who have had to go before a court of law are assumed guilty and not innocent while a lengthy trail is the attempt to get off free when you know that oneself is guilty.

Offline

#31 2006-10-22 08:50:03

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

...This was signed before modern weapons were invented, when cannons firing 18 pound cannon balls were a significant naval weapon. This has been interpreted as "weapons of war". Read US or Canadian law, an automatic repeating fire riffle is a weapon of war. A 50 calibre machine gun is much more than a .223 calibre assault riffle, it can shoot down a helicopter. Look at the picture, it's a mounted deck gun.
machinegun_m240b060315.jpg
As a weapon of war covered by the Rush-Bagot Treaty treaty, the US coast guard is permitted only one such weapon per ship and only one vessel so equiped on Lake Ontario, one on Lake Champlain, and two on the upper lakes (Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Lake Huron). Notice it also says "all other armed vessels on these Lakes shall be forthwith dismantled". That means any vessels exceeding these limits must be dismantled. Removing the weapon isn't enough; the entire ship must be dismantled.

What if criminals are better armed than the border patrol? Do you think we're going to adhere to a 100+ year old treaty and allow crime lords to take over the Great Lakes Region? I believe Al Capone once ran smuggling operations across the US/Canada border, and Al Capone had machineguns. Machineguns are clearly a weapon of war, but Al Capone did not sign that treaty.

Offline

#32 2006-10-22 09:06:11

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

if you want a freely tranversible border, such as between New York and New Jersey, then you have to be part of the same country and under the same Federal Authority, otherwise any treaty signed is going to be interpreted differently by different court systems and different governments, and it is also voluntary.

First we aren't going to join the United States. When the US declared independence from Britain, Benjamin Franklin went to all 16 colonies; 13 signed the declaration of independence, 3 did not. Those that did not were Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Many within the 13 colonies saw themselves as loyal British subjects, they didn't want anything to do with a war. They moved to Ontario or the mainland of what was then Nova Scotia. Most Nova Scotia settlers before that lived on the peninsula, only a handful lived on the mainland. So many refugees from the 13 colonies settled there that it was separated into a new province; that's how New Brunswick was founded. With an entire province founded by Americans who didn't want to be American, we aren't going to join now. Look at this announcement:
Bush signing terror bill into law
So much for the US constitution that grants everyone a right to a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, and the right to legal counsel. U.S. Constitution - Amendment 6:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Since the United States is in such a rush to tear up its own constitution, we certainly cannot trust its federal government.

As for treaties being "interpreted" or "voluntary", you just admitted we can't trust anything any American government representative ever says or signs. Why should we feel compelled to comply with the clause that guarantees access to Canadian oil?

Because Canada is just the same. Canadians elect their own government seperately and so do US  Citizens. Just as you can't control who we put into power, we can't control who you put into power. If one Canadian government is friendly, the next one might not be. You can understand the reluctance of one independent nation to trust another independent nation to defend its borders, while not doing so itself. It is not the Canadian Military we're worried about so much as criminal elements operating out of Canada and using it as a base for terrorists attacks in the United States. The concept is very simple, lets say there is a terrorist organization operating out of Canada, and their is a liberal government in Canada that is very keen on observing the privacy rights of its citizens. The terror group begins training, and launching attacks across the US border, machine gunning down some US border patrol agents as it crosses the border, and then taking over an elementary school and then starts shooting the children. The FBI chases them across the US border again, and then the FBI stops because the their jurisdiction ends. The Canadian government is contacted, but the liberals in power don't like the US very much, considering them a bunch of imperialist aggressive bullies, so it does the minimum and the terror group flourishes, launching attack after attack after attack, and the Canadian police persistently insist that they can't find them, or they can't obtain the search warrant, or they are suffereing from budget cuts and don't have sufficient manpower to hunt down the terror suspects, besides they aren't bothering the Canadian citizens much, they are minding their own business and only killing American Children. Why should Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for hunting them down? But don't you dare send American troops into Canada to hunt them down, we've got our soverighty top protect after all. When situations like that develop, we need to protect our border, and your whipping up anti-US sentiment by saying we're being unfair sure doesn't help. I'm saying that both sides are not perfect and holding a magnifying glass to the imperfections of the opposite side, sure doesn't help things. Canada is not inherently better or morally superior to the United States. Such one-sided views do not help in the fight against terrorism. If we are going to fight them. we've got to work together, and not have such aggreived public finger pointing and accusations. Again. I'm not a Lawyer, and I'm not going to make legal arguments with you ovwer who violated which treaty. what is important is that both sides interests need to be considered and addressed, you only want to consider one side and make legal arguments about who violates the technical letter of a 100-year old treaty. The important thing to me is winning the war on terrorism, it is the general principle of the thing that is important to me. That we don't always operate on the same page must be addressed, but not the way you address them by finger pointing, and trying to worsen relations between the two countries. These disputes must be bridged in a civilized fashion behind closed doors, not by public orators trying to inflame public passions and whipping up anti-US hatred and Us-Them US-bashing, that is excactly what they terrorists want, and you are playing right into their hands with your Canadian chauvanism. I agree with you that there should be freerer trade between the US and Canada, and that their should be an open border, but I don't use the lack of such as an opportunity to point fingers and cast blame on the other side. If you want an open border, then both sides are going to have to work together on this.

Offline

#33 2006-10-22 11:30:29

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 7,919
Website

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

What if criminals are better armed than the border patrol? Do you think we're going to adhere to a 100+ year old treaty and allow crime lords to take over the Great Lakes Region? I believe Al Capone once ran smuggling operations across the US/Canada border, and Al Capone had machineguns. Machineguns are clearly a weapon of war, but Al Capone did not sign that treaty.

Al Capone was American. Terrorists don't come from Canada; they come from the United States.

Canada has very strict laws regarding guns; those same liberals you hate so much are so against guns they're almost paranoid. Any American who crosses the border with guns will be prime target, hunted down and arrested.

One other fact you ignore: RCMP cooperates with the FBI to capture American criminals who cross the border into Canada. It isn't a military issue, it's a police issue. Read this article:
U.S. investigations on Canadian soil done within the law: Day
Those liberals are concerned with FBI crossing into Canada without permission. But even when the Liberal party was the government there was frequent authorized activity within Canada. In fact the FBI has field offices in Canada.

A dramatic shoot-out with big guns is part of American culture, but it's very primitive and stupid. Competent police arrest criminals without firing a shot. Even in the United States, most real police go their entire career without ever firing their weapon. Perhaps at a shooting range, but never at a suspect. A single shot from a .38 calibre police revolver can take out a suspect with a .45 calibre Tommy gun. A good police officer can make the arrest without killing anyone. Coast guard vessels have been equipped with side arms for years, and each ship equipped with a single-shot riffle. If you know what you're doing that's all you need, if you don't know what you're doing possession of an automatic weapon is very dangerous.

Offline

#34 2006-10-22 13:33:45

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

RobertDyck wrote:

What if criminals are better armed than the border patrol? Do you think we're going to adhere to a 100+ year old treaty and allow crime lords to take over the Great Lakes Region? I believe Al Capone once ran smuggling operations across the US/Canada border, and Al Capone had machineguns. Machineguns are clearly a weapon of war, but Al Capone did not sign that treaty.

Al Capone was American. Terrorists don't come from Canada; they come from the United States.
Al Capone didn't have to be a Canadian citizen, and it wouldn't have mattered if he was or he wasn't. Al Capone could and did sneak into Canada, in Canada there was no Prohibition, he could just order some spirits from a distillery and then ship them across the border into the United States. Whenever the US authorities gave him too much trouble, he could always hide out in Canada.

Canada has very strict laws regarding guns; those same liberals you hate so much are so against guns they're almost paranoid. Any American who crosses the border with guns will be prime target, hunted down and arrested.

Its not the liberal part that I mind so much but the America bashing part that I don't like so much about Canadian Liberals. Because Canada is so similar to the United States, they often treat George Bush as the opposition, that means whenever liberals get into power in the Canadian government, intergovernmental relations gets worse. If they want to raise taxes and increase welfare spending, that is their business, but when you have Canadian fans booing and hissing American teams whenever they play in Canadian cities, that is also part of the liberal platform, it is wedded to this other stuff about social welfare spending and the like.
Do you want to solve the problems of cross border trade and movement, or do you just want to use it as an excuse to say bad things about the United States. Whipping up anti-US feelings in Canada is not going to bring down the trade barrier at the border. Things always change, so the relationship has got to be managed so long as their are two government. Do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution. The solution means coming to terms with why the border is not as free as it could be. Obviously the US Government does not feel so secure that it does not guard the border. Canada has an immigration policy that's seperate from the US, so their is the potential on Canada admitting immigrants that the US would not admit. I'm in favor of a dual key approach to admitting immigrants into our two countries, with something like that, we wouldn't need to guard the US Canada border.

[One other fact you ignore: RCMP cooperates with the FBI to capture American criminals who cross the border into Canada. It isn't a military issue, it's a police issue. Read this article:
U.S. investigations on Canadian soil done within the law: Day
Those liberals are concerned with FBI crossing into Canada without permission. But even when the Liberal party was the government there was frequent authorized activity within Canada. In fact the FBI has field offices in Canada.

A dramatic shoot-out with big guns is part of American culture, but it's very primitive and stupid.

Don't blame us, blame the criminals!

Competent police arrest criminals without firing a shot. Even in the United States, most real police go their entire career without ever firing their weapon. Perhaps at a shooting range, but never at a suspect. A single shot from a .38 calibre police revolver can take out a suspect with a .45 calibre Tommy gun. A good police officer can make the arrest without killing anyone. Coast guard vessels have been equipped with side arms for years, and each ship equipped with a single-shot riffle. If you know what you're doing that's all you need, if you don't know what you're doing possession of an automatic weapon is very dangerous.

Small time petty theives and burgalars aren't what I'm worried about. Police don't fire shots because they want to, but because they have to, it is not a matter of American culture. If a police officer goes unarmed into certain situations, he will be killed, and it doesn't matter how good a police officer he is. Yes, most police situations don't involve shooting, but the trouble is, you translate most into all. Just because a police officer is not likely to need his sidearm any given day of the week, doesn't mean he shouldn't have one. Otherwise when he encounters a terrorist group or something he won't be prepared. Liberals tend to be inflexible when it comes to law enforcement, they insist that police do everything according to the book and they write the book, but what you don't consider is that the book doesn't consider every possible situation that police might face. And have you, by the way, been to the hinterland of your own country?

Police: "Hello, this is the police."
Caller: "Help their is a Grizzly bear chewing on my leg!"
Police: "Just hold on tight, we're sending a patrol car over right away to shoot this bear, he'll be over there in 15 minutes."
Caller: "Well what do you suggest I do with the bear in the meantime?"
Police: "Don't offer him your other leg."

Offline

#35 2006-10-22 15:37:36

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 7,919
Website

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

Because Canada is so similar to the United States, they often treat George Bush as the opposition, that means whenever liberals get into power in the Canadian government, intergovernmental relations gets worse.

America constantly pressures Canada to comply and assist with everything America does. Our continental defence is integrated, there is no separation. The American government of the day does affect Canada, that's why Canada is so concerned.

If they want to raise taxes and increase welfare spending, that is their business

The Liberal Party of Canada is not 'liberal' in the American sense of the word. The Liberal party (capital 'L') is actually centre of the political spectrum. They claim during elections to be just slightly to the left of centre, but they way they run government is exact centre. The Progressive Conservative party was elected in 1984 on a campaign of eliminating the deficit, reducing the debt, and reducing taxes. After 2 full terms they had increased the deficit, doubled the debt, and increased taxes. That included increasing personal income tax as well as creating the GST and federal individual surtax. The Liberal party was elected from 1993 through January 2006; they eliminated the deficit, reduced the debt from $577 billion to $499 billion, abolished the surtax, and reduced personal income tax. They did this by cutting spending.

when you have Canadian fans booing and hissing American teams whenever they play in Canadian cities

That only occurred once, and there was a reason. When the baseball World Series was held in Toronto, an American marine hoisted the national flags of teams playing. He hoisted Canada's flag upside down. Canadians are not normally demonstrably patriotic. When the American anthem plays a typical American stands at attention with his hat over his heart. When the Canadian anthem is played a typical Canadian goes to concessions to buy a beer. Canadians do not normally wave flags or espouse how great their country is, but they quietly know within themselves that it is. However, show disrespect by hoisting Canada's flag upside down and you'll see how strongly they feel. Toronto fans demanded that the American flag be hoisted upside down at the next game. Politicians knew you don't do that to an American, but with no official act of revenge the fans took it upon themselves to boo and hiss. It was one incident that occurred years ago. President George H. W. Bush apologized to Canada on camera for that incident, an apology that was broadcast on national TV here. The marine went on a Canadian talk show to apologize to Canada in person. I noticed he didn't wear his marine uniform on TV. Was he discharged or was apologizing to all of Canada on national TV enough? It was one unfortunate incident committed, a stupid mistake by one individual, and long since over.

Liberals tend to be inflexible when it comes to law enforcement, they insist that police do everything according to the book and they write the book

Shouldn't they? What are laws for if not to be obeyed? If the police can blatantly violate the law (the book) then why should criminals obey the law? Police will never have any credibility with anyone unless they obey the same laws they claim to enforce.

And have you, by the way, been to the hinterland of your own country?

Yes I have. Have you ever taken a canoe out where there's no road, not power lines, no cottages, nothing but lakes and trees and rocks and fish and reeds? I have. When I was a teenager I took several trips in Lake of the Woods; two weeks at a time. No sign of civilization but what we brought with us, no sign until we arrived at the camp ground that was our destination. I've also driven out to cottages or camp grounds. In recent years I camped at Pine Point Rapids. The rapids itself is a 2.4km hike from the parking lot, and the road is about an hours drive from the nearest town, which is another hour and 20 minute drive from the city. There are bears out there. I've seen bears a couple times, just give them space and behave calm and they leave you alone. There's a chain link cage around the garbage cans, a couple loops of have been pulled out 4" to 5" inches from the fence; bears are strong but they don't want to mess with people.

You want a better example? I was part of the local community citizens patrol. We patrol the neighbourhood looking for crime, with flashlights and cell phones with a special number to the police. The police respond to a call from a citizens patrol more quickly than a normal call to 911. The group collapsed a few years ago due to internal community politics, but I'm starting it up again. We don't have guns, we don't have weapons, but the first time we got flashlights from the police; you know, big ones with 4 D-cell batteries and a steel case (hint, hint). The police also gave us radios, but cell phones are cheap now. Do you have the courage to patrol your own neighbourhood with nothing but a cell phone, notepad, and a heavy flashlight?

Offline

#36 2006-10-22 19:35:01

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 29,428

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

Citizen patrols or neighborhood watch groups do work when they stay focused on the issue of the neighborhood crime, drug traffic and other such unlawful acts. These groups must stay narrow in focus, such that the main goal stays obtainable; making it safe for all to live there.

Offline

#37 2006-10-24 06:40:04

Palomar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2002-05-30
Posts: 9,734

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

What if criminals are better armed than the border patrol? Do you think we're going to adhere to a 100+ year old treaty and allow crime lords to take over the Great Lakes Region? I believe Al Capone once ran smuggling operations across the US/Canada border, and Al Capone had machineguns. Machineguns are clearly a weapon of war, but Al Capone did not sign that treaty.

Al Capone was American. Terrorists don't come from Canada; they come from the United States...A dramatic shoot-out with big guns is part of American culture, but it's very primitive and stupid. Competent police arrest criminals without firing a shot. Even in the United States, most real police go their entire career without ever firing their weapon. Perhaps at a shooting range, but never at a suspect. A single shot from a .38 calibre police revolver can take out a suspect with a .45 calibre Tommy gun. A good police officer can make the arrest without killing anyone.

Geez Robert, you make all Americans sound like a bunch of drooling gun-toting idiots who can't wait to shoot up everything in sight.  Right...we have no liberals here, no one seeking gun control.  roll 

Yes, there is a lot of violence in the U.S.  I don't like it either.  Repeat:  I don't like it either.  Lots of Americans don't.

Terrorists come from other nations too.  We didn't invent suicide bombers...you know? 

And according to news reports I've heard, terrorists ARE coming from Canada over into the U.S., thanks to Canada's lax immigration standards.

Non-Americans try to stereotype all Americans as being stupid warmongers who have no decency or common sense.  Many Americans see non-Americans as wearing rose-colored glasses and being nitwits who naively think "If we're nice to them, they WILL be nice to us in return."  Or that you all have a false sense of moral superiority.

I'd laugh if it weren't so serious.


We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

#38 2006-10-24 07:08:43

Palomar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2002-05-30
Posts: 9,734

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

I was part of the local community citizens patrol. We patrol the neighbourhood looking for crime

:?  That sounds ... Orwellian to me.

with flashlights and cell phones with a special number to the police. The police respond to a call from a citizens patrol more quickly than a normal call to 911. The group collapsed a few years ago due to internal community politics, but I'm starting it up again. We don't have guns, we don't have weapons, but the first time we got flashlights from the police; you know, big ones with 4 D-cell batteries and a steel case (hint, hint). The police also gave us radios, but cell phones are cheap now. Do you have the courage to patrol your own neighbourhood with nothing but a cell phone, notepad, and a heavy flashlight?

Don't have to.  In this city of roughly 110,000 people our crime rates are (believe it or not) low.  The worst thing that's happened in our portion of the city was someone hitting our house with an egg a few Halloweens ago.  And in 2000, a "grinch" stealing a lawn ornament.

If Canada is as peaceful and "together" as you all try to make it sound, I'm wondering why you need civilian neighborhood foot patrols?  Honestly, the concept is strange to me -- particularly as it smacks of some voyeuristic "checking up on the neighbors."  If you only need flashlights/notepads then likely your crime rate IS low and you're wasting your time.

Some U.S. neighborhoods do have "Community Watch" -- wherein families therein have pledged to call the police in the event of suspicious activity.  I've never lived in such a neighborhood.


We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

#39 2006-10-24 08:08:28

DonPanic
Member
From: Paris in Astrolia
Registered: 2004-02-13
Posts: 595
Website

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

LO

Yes, there is a lot of violence in the U.S.  I don't like it either.  Repeat:  I don't like it either.  Lots of Americans don't.
Terrorists come from other nations too.  We didn't invent suicide bombers...you know? 
Non-Americans try to stereotype all Americans as being stupid warmongers who have no decency or common sense.

I'm a non american which knows that lots of Americans just love to live in peace.
But gun control is non liberal and avoids lots of carnages. That's a fact.
We're not wiser than you, have some drunkards which are already dangerous with their cars, they would commit easily homicides if guns were as easily available as in some US states

Offline

#40 2006-10-24 08:36:47

Cobra Commander
Member
From: The outskirts of Detroit.
Registered: 2002-04-09
Posts: 3,039

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

But gun control is non liberal and avoids lots of carnages. That's a fact.

I so didn't want to get into this debate but I just have to clarify something.

A gun is a thing. You can kill someone with it, but you can also save lives with it. This goes for Americans, Canadians, our French friends and everyone else. When someone comes after you with the intent of inflicting grievous injury what does everyone do?

Call people with guns and hope they show up in time. The difference is that in America, many times people don't have to wait and pray that help comes. They can take their defense into their own hands when imminent death faces them. It's not only a fundamental human right, it's a responsibility of citizens in some respect. Good, law abiding people with guns makes us all safer because it makes criminals think about the risks. They don't know who will fight back with lethal force. Legal guns save lives.

Criminals in the US can't just walk into the local gun shop and buy one, attempting to do so results in a long list of felonies that can get them sent to prison for most of their natural lives if prosecuted vigorously. We have background checks throught he FBI every time someone buys a gun. Some states (including my own) register handguns.

Guns used in crimes are almost invariably not in the registry and not acquired legally.

I'm not saying that France or Canada should start arming their citizens, run your countries however you see fit. But don't tell us how to run ours. I don't say this lightly, carrying a firearm is an awesome responsibility that not everyone is ready for. Even I didn't realize that fully until faced with the imminent prospect of being granted authority by my state government to do so for the purpose of protecting myself and others from death or grievous bodily harm. You can't flip off the guy that cuts you off in traffic anymore, you can't let combative drunk assholes draw you into a confrontation anymore. You have to turn the other cheek on the little things because when it really matters, you have the power to kill another person who is intent on inflicting irreperable harm on another.

It's not something to be taken lightly, but it's not something that should be dismissed outright either as barbarism. It's easy to point to incidents like the recent US school shootings and say "oh, think of the children, how can we allow people to have these horrible weapons?" Unfortunately no one ever implores that we think about the people killed in their own homes or the women raped because they were forbidden the means to protect themselves.

There are far more of the latter group than the former. I for one will not stand by idly and allow me and mine to be placed in such danger just because some politicians and their supporters are afraid of an inanimate object.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

#41 2006-10-25 06:06:17

DonPanic
Member
From: Paris in Astrolia
Registered: 2004-02-13
Posts: 595
Website

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

I'm not saying that France or Canada should start arming their citizens, run your countries however you see fit. But don't tell us how to run ours. I don't say this lightly, carrying a firearm is an awesome responsibility that not everyone is ready for. Even I didn't realize that fully until faced with the imminent prospect of being granted authority by my state government to do so for the purpose of protecting myself and others from death or grievous bodily harm. You can't flip off the guy that cuts you off in traffic anymore, you can't let combative drunk assholes draw you into a confrontation anymore. You have to turn the other cheek on the little things because when it really matters, you have the power to kill another person who is intent on inflicting irreperable harm on another.

Well, just ask the policemen wether they prefer gun control or not. I suppose that they would be more relax if they new that no driver have any gun. My friends which went to USA reported me how harsh was the first contact with the US road police patrols and how schoked they were to be aimed with guns on simple car controls.
"Steady, keep your hands on the steering wheel..." and so on
I can tell you that they didn't encouraged anybody to travel on your country roads, even if contact with peoples was mostly very friendly
That doesn't happen here because peoples aren't supposed to have any weapon.

You're talking about pretended saved lifes with guns, there are not statistics on deterred attacks; about raped girls, does a girl naturally have a gun in her bag ?

There are local architectural traditions, here in France, houses are almost all concrete attached houses, generally with safe oak doors and shutters, nowhere sash windows, when locked, it's very difficult to intrude, that let a lot of time to call for police or to get the double barrels hunting gun they have in the country.
When we see US movies, we're amazed to see how easy it's to intrude a traditionnal US wooden house, and understand why it's safer and cheaper to buy a gun than to have passive house defenses.

Now, you manage your country as you like and have Columbine type killings.

Offline

#42 2006-10-25 07:38:18

Cobra Commander
Member
From: The outskirts of Detroit.
Registered: 2002-04-09
Posts: 3,039

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

Well, just ask the policemen wether they prefer gun control or not.

Many of our police oppose gun control. I've gone shooting with a few of them, they recognize that it's a bad idea because the people that they have to worry about shooting at them won't be stopped by yet another law. Criminals are funny that way, always breaking the law.

My friends which went to USA reported me how harsh was the first contact with the US road police patrols and how schoked they were to be aimed with guns on simple car controls.
"Steady, keep your hands on the steering wheel..." and so on

Where did they go and what were they doing when they were stopped? I'm the first to agree that American police can be real pricks and are particularly anal about speeding compared to other nations, but never once have I had a cop approach me with a gun drawn during a traffic stop.  There's something that doesn't jive about the story, some piece of information that's missing.

But again, when police stop people here they can be divided into three types. Those without weapons, those legally carrying weapons, and those illegaly carrying weapons. Only the last group is a threat and the police generally act accordingly. If you have a legal weapon, they ask where it is, you show them, sometimes they ask you to unload it and set in on the roof while they run your driver's license. It's just not something law enforcement worries about, anyone legally carrying a gun isn't a threat to them.

You're talking about pretended saved lifes with guns, there are not statistics on deterred attacks; about raped girls, does a girl naturally have a gun in her bag ?

No, I'm not. There are statistics of crimes being prevented with privately owned firearms, though mostly at the state and local levels rather than nationwide studies. Sometimes the attacker is killed, but far more often merely brandishing the weapon ends the attack. There are also secondary statistics on crimes committed on victims who had neither the means to protect themselves nor the opportunity/time to call the police. No, I've talked to too many people who are alive and/or unviolated today solely because they had a weapon to brush them off as "pretend."

And yes, there are women here who have guns in their bags. There's no way to tell which ones just by looking, and that's kind of the point.

When we see US movies, we're amazed to see how easy it's to intrude a traditionnal US wooden house, and understand why it's safer and cheaper to buy a gun than to have passive house defenses.

I agree with you here, though don't put too much stock in our movies.  wink American housing is poorly built. But that's only half the problem, a weapon gives a person some means of protection outside the home as well. Cops can't be there all the time.

Now, you manage your country as you like and have Columbine type killings.

Such incidents are a tiny, statistically insignificant percentage of the total homicide rate. They get alot of press coverage because they're dramatic, but they're flukes. Making policy based on such flukes would be like saying trains are bad because Nazis used them. It's silly.

Spoons don't make people fat and guns don't kill people. It's the person, not the tool.

But there's something that needs to be pointed out here and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention it. Guns are more available here than elsewhere, making it easier for crazy people to do crazy things even though they have to break the law by stealing the weapons.

But 50 years ago guns were much easier to get and we didn't have anywhere near the crime rate. We didn't have shooting rampages in schools. So how is it that guns are the problem now, but they weren't in 1950 when a 17 year old could walk into Sears and buy one with no paperwork? Or 1930 when that same 17 year old could buy a machine gun with no paperwork?

No, blaming an inanimate object for social ills is an admission that one doesn't know the real cause and has no idea how to address it. It's floundering and stalling. And in this case, it would only make it worse by disarming the victims and emboldening the criminals.

Incindentally, schools are considered "gun free zones." Weapons aren't allowed. All those defenseless people scurrying about in a panic. Is it a coincidence they are popular targets of shooting sprees? If guns were the problem, we'd expect these things to happen at, oh, gun shops maybe.

If gun control works for the French and Canadians, keep at it and good luck. But it wouldn't work here, it's failed miserably every time it's been tried. As our capitol illustrates.

What we have here may be one of those cultural differences that prevents a full understanding between the participants. Canada, France and the US are very different places. Things work differently, the people are different, social forces are different. For the time being and for whatever reasons, right now the most unsafe places to live in America are the very places with the strictest gun laws. And that is statistical fact.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

#43 2006-10-25 07:47:18

Palomar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2002-05-30
Posts: 9,734

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

My friends which went to USA reported me how harsh was the first contact with the US road police patrols and how schoked they were to be aimed with guns on simple car controls.
"Steady, keep your hands on the steering wheel..." and so on

Where did they go and what were they doing when they were stopped? I'm the first to agree that American police can be real pricks and are particularly anal about speeding compared to other nations, but never once have I had a cop approach me with a gun drawn during a traffic stop.  There's something that doesn't jive about the story, some piece of information that's missing.

Agreed.  I've been pulled over by police maybe 6 times since age 16 (speed limit variations or perhaps a signal light was out).  Never had a pistol drawn on me.  I've driven past many pull-overs (even on quiet residential streets), have never seen a cop with a pistol in his or her hand while talking with the driver.

What we have here may be one of those cultural differences that prevents a full understanding between the participants. Canada, France and the US are very different places. Things work differently, the people are different, social forces are different.

Yep.  Major cultural differences.  Canada, for instance, seems much more British than American in many respects.  And I've no doubt if Canada could physically move to just north of the UK, they'd do it.

::EDIT::  As for women carrying pistols in their purses, to each their own.  It's enough of a hassle, though, trying to get ANYTHING out of a purse in a split second -- even if purse is tidy with few items in it.  There's a definite possibility of accidentally shooting one's self while trying to get it, or being overpowered and the pistol used against you -- particularly as the attacker's reflexes are likely quicker.


We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

#44 2006-10-25 07:57:12

Cobra Commander
Member
From: The outskirts of Detroit.
Registered: 2002-04-09
Posts: 3,039

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

::EDIT:: As for women carrying pistols in their purses, to each their own. It's enough of a hassle, though, trying to get ANYTHING out of a purse in a split second -- even if purse is tidy with few items in it.

At least in this area it's not altogether uncommon for women to carry snubnose revolvers in jacket pockets. They have aluminum or titanium frames so they don't weigh much, and they can be fired from inside the pocket. I suspect thugs are getting a little uneasy about approaching women walking down dark streets with a hand in their pockets. Hard to tell if it's keys or a .38 special.

Unlike those fat guys with fanny packs we see sometimes. That just screams "gun" and is way too obvious.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

#45 2006-10-25 08:37:11

Palomar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2002-05-30
Posts: 9,734

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

::EDIT:: As for women carrying pistols in their purses, to each their own. It's enough of a hassle, though, trying to get ANYTHING out of a purse in a split second -- even if purse is tidy with few items in it.

At least in this area it's not altogether uncommon for women to carry snubnose revolvers in jacket pockets. They have aluminum or titanium frames so they don't weigh much, and they can be fired from inside the pocket.

Oh.  neutral  This proves once again that I know very little about weapons, lol.  Jacket pocket, huh?  I've seen that on TV.  Wouldn't work so well around here with the hot weather.

suspect thugs are getting a little uneasy about approaching women walking down dark streets with a hand in their pockets. Hard to tell if it's keys or a .38 special

Yep.


We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

#46 2006-10-25 08:51:00

DonPanic
Member
From: Paris in Astrolia
Registered: 2004-02-13
Posts: 595
Website

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

My friends which went to USA reported me how harsh was the first contact with the US road police patrols and how schoked they were to be aimed with guns on simple car controls.
"Steady, keep your hands on the steering wheel..." and so on

Where did they go and what were they doing when they were stopped? I'm the first to agree that American police can be real pricks and are particularly anal about speeding compared to other nations, but never once have I had a cop approach me with a gun drawn during a traffic stop.

They weren't stopped, they were already stopped. They had bought a second hand cheap old estate car to cross America by Route 66 and had stopped on the side of the road on what looked like a parking place at 2 AM to have a rest. About an hour latter, they were harshly awaken by policemen which may have thought they were some kind of hobos which broke into the car, it was the time he, the boy, was long haired. Anyways, my friends felt threatened and were in panic.

For the time being and for whatever reasons, right now the most unsafe places to live in America are the very places with the strictest gun laws. And that is statistical fact.

There is a correlation, I guess it's uneasy to say where is the cause and where is the effect.

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtm … 002255.htm



As for fat peoples, sure they should eat less and practice a sport or stop riding their car to cover 400 yards, but you can limit a little obesity by ordering to food industry less fat and sugar in foodstuffs, but that's another kind of problem, when people get hooked to food as equivalent of a narcotic.

Offline

#47 2006-10-25 12:57:10

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

I'm not saying that France or Canada should start arming their citizens, run your countries however you see fit. But don't tell us how to run ours. I don't say this lightly, carrying a firearm is an awesome responsibility that not everyone is ready for. Even I didn't realize that fully until faced with the imminent prospect of being granted authority by my state government to do so for the purpose of protecting myself and others from death or grievous bodily harm. You can't flip off the guy that cuts you off in traffic anymore, you can't let combative drunk assholes draw you into a confrontation anymore. You have to turn the other cheek on the little things because when it really matters, you have the power to kill another person who is intent on inflicting irreperable harm on another.

Well, just ask the policemen wether they prefer gun control or not. I suppose that they would be more relax if they new that no driver have any gun.

If everyone obeyed the laws, there would be no need for Police Officers. If a Police Officer's job gets easier, there will be fewer of them hired; if it gets tougher, there will be more of them hired, in the end it all balances out, and so its a wash for those people who happen to be Police officers. The more police officers, the more the spread the risks, the less police officers, the more they concentrate it. People whose job it is to decide how many police officers to hire must consider the risk to each individual.

Offline

#48 2006-10-25 18:07:28

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 7,919
Website

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

I wrote a long reply last night, but when I hit "Submit" I just got a log-in window. The entire message was lost. I'm not going to write the whole thing again, I can't, but a couple points:
Tom, you've gotten the lovely Cindy upset with me. Shame on you!

Don't think the Conservative party in Canada will be any easier to work with. They want to arm Canadian customs guards. The excuse they keep coming up with is the case when an American was asked if he has a gun. His response was to point the gun at the customs officer and say "Yes, and what are you going to do about it? I guess I'm going in, aren't I." The Conservatives want to arm border guards to stop armed Americans. I argued that this was just one case with one individual, it rarely happens. That case is best dealt with by sending an RCMP officer after him, they're all armed.

Yesterday I talked on the phone to a co-worker who lives in Seattle. He moved to Winnipeg in 1990, and read about our jump in crime. The papers talked about how house break-and-enters doubled that year (actually over the prior 3 years), car theft tripled, and murders went way up. The media called Winnipeg the murder capital of Canada, they said that year we had the highest per-capita murder rate in the country. My co-worker looked for numbers to back this up, only fund one number at the bottom of the article. Winnipeg had 17 murders that year, in a city of 632,000 people. He just came from Redmond California that had 170 murders in a city of 67,000 people. He felt quite safe.

If you believe the propaganda about Canadian immigration being lax, then read the case of Maher Arar. He's an immigrant from Syria who lived in Canada so long he's a citizen. When travelling to the US he was arrested by American officials and deported to Syria. He travelled with a Canadian passport so Canada insisted he be sent to Canada, not Syria; American officials ignored the demand. He was tortured in Syria. He wasn't a criminal, he didn't terrorise anyone. He and others like him are those admitted with Canada's "lax" policies.

If you don't want Canadians getting upset with you, then don't believe the propaganda that terrorists are coming from Canada. The Bush administration is using scare tactics to get Americans accept loosing their freedoms in favour of a Stalinist form of authoritarian government. I'm amazed you're falling for it, but it's your country. The bottom line is don't blame Canada.

Offline

#49 2006-10-26 13:51:17

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

I wrote a long reply last night, but when I hit "Submit" I just got a log-in window. The entire message was lost. I'm not going to write the whole thing again, I can't, but a couple points:
Tom, you've gotten the lovely Cindy upset with me. Shame on you!

Don't think the Conservative party in Canada will be any easier to work with. They want to arm Canadian customs guards. The excuse they keep coming up with is the case when an American was asked if he has a gun. His response was to point the gun at the customs officer and say "Yes, and what are you going to do about it? I guess I'm going in, aren't I." The Conservatives want to arm border guards to stop armed Americans. I argued that this was just one case with one individual, it rarely happens. That case is best dealt with by sending an RCMP officer after him, they're all armed.

Yesterday I talked on the phone to a co-worker who lives in Seattle. He moved to Winnipeg in 1990, and read about our jump in crime. The papers talked about how house break-and-enters doubled that year (actually over the prior 3 years), car theft tripled, and murders went way up. The media called Winnipeg the murder capital of Canada, they said that year we had the highest per-capita murder rate in the country. My co-worker looked for numbers to back this up, only fund one number at the bottom of the article. Winnipeg had 17 murders that year, in a city of 632,000 people. He just came from Redmond California that had 170 murders in a city of 67,000 people. He felt quite safe.

If you believe the propaganda about Canadian immigration being lax, then read the case of Maher Arar. He's an immigrant from Syria who lived in Canada so long he's a citizen. When travelling to the US he was arrested by American officials and deported to Syria. He travelled with a Canadian passport so Canada insisted he be sent to Canada, not Syria; American officials ignored the demand. He was tortured in Syria. He wasn't a criminal, he didn't terrorise anyone. He and others like him are those admitted with Canada's "lax" policies.

How do you know that he wasn't a terrorist? Just because Syria tortures him doesn't make him innocent. I'm sure the US Government doesn't arrest every single Muslim or Arab that steps across the border from Canada to the US, they must have some criteria they use to arrest one man but not arrest another, there must have been something suspicious about him in the first place for them to make the arrest. Syria is not an ally of ours, it is a terrorist state, and I'm going to be very suspecious of anyone who comes from Iran, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, North Korea, or the Sudan. People who come from unfriendly countries are suspect. I'd rather receive immigrants from somewhere else, thank you very much.

If you don't want Canadians getting upset with you, then don't believe the propaganda that terrorists are coming from Canada. The Bush administration is using scare tactics to get Americans accept loosing their freedoms in favour of a Stalinist form of authoritarian government. I'm amazed you're falling for it, but it's your country. The bottom line is don't blame Canada.

Calling George Bush a Stalinist is propaganda in the extreme, this bears no relation to reality Has George Bush Purged anyone for instance? Did he deliberately starve anyone and kill 20 million people in a man-made famine?
I don't think so. If you don't like propaganda, then why don't you stop using it yourself? George Bush is also not a central planner, he doesn't have government take over whole industries and run them into the ground. It undermines your credibility when you call people Stalinists when they aren't actually Stalinists.

Offline

#50 2006-10-26 22:59:42

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 7,919
Website

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

How do you know that he wasn't a terrorist?

The Canadian government investigation said so.

Syria is not an ally of ours, it is a terrorist state, and I'm going to be very suspecious of anyone who comes from Iran, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, North Korea, or the Sudan.

That's the sort of prejudice that resulted in deporting a computer engineer to a regime where he was tortured. He was Canadian, travelling on a Canadian passport.

Calling George Bush a Stalinist is propaganda in the extreme... George Bush is also not a central planner, he doesn't have government take over whole industries and run them into the ground.

Economic system is irrelevant. George W. Bush has already admitted to operating secret CIA prisons, the prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Quantanimo were tortured, and this new bill has so many offensive things I don't know where to start. One American reporter who produced a piece showing the impact of the Iraq invasion on civilians had his report squashed. I saw a documentary on CBC, the NBC news producer said this piece would be the lead but the NBC president himself called the reporter that night to say it won't be shown, that nothing that reporter ever makes will ever be shown on NBC ever again, he's fired. He went to CBS and the president assured him he can always bring reports there. The following day the CBS president was replaced. That report was never shown on American TV, it was shown as part of the CBC documentary. Control of the press is one technique the Soviets use. Arming the Canada/US border looks like the iron curtain, the armed border between western Europe and Soviet block countries.

A frequent saying in the US is "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". The government wants you to forget what that means; it doesn't refer to any exterior threat, it refers to abuse of authority within the government.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB