18 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Carney: This time it's... · 1 reply · +1 points

Look at the chart again. This is about growth and it hasn't been negatives since the early 1940s. If it were real dollars, I suspect you would see why the actual boom is longer than you would expect historically.

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Is Canada a nation? · 0 replies · +11 points

II often wonder whether it's proper to refer to myself as a Canadian Jew or a Jewish Canadian. It is two different identities and I think I ultimately put Canadian first (which actually makes me a Jewish Canadian), but I know there are many people (of many beliefs) who put religion first. I don't qestion their loyalty to the country as a result - I think that it means they want the country to comply with certain beliefs (multiculturalism being the one that many can agree on without conflict). Similarly, is it wrong to suggest that Canada can have multi-nationalism? I know I don't like the idea, but I'm not completely decided yet on whether I am outright opposed to it.

12 years ago @ Angry in the Great Whi... - Maybe there really is ... · 2 replies · +1 points

I think that actually supports my view. If the Tory ad buy is already done, wouldn't they be stuck with a huge expenditure early in the campaign that they cannot use later in the campaign when it matters the most? I'm pretty sure that spending limits are determined by when the product is provided and not when the money was booked.

12 years ago @ Angry in the Great Whi... - Maybe there really is ... · 4 replies · -6 points

Sorry, but this analysis is more amusing than interesting. I'll give you a much more simple answer - The sooner an election comes, the sooner the Conservatives are bound by spending limits. Why let them campaign for an extra two weeks unaanswered?

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Who are you, and what ... · 0 replies · +7 points

Andrew, this policy has been obvious for some time now. The only joke is the fact that the media required the PM to admit it before they would believe it.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The story the mainstre... · 1 reply · +1 points

I could have sworn I read about this in the Globe and Mail... just... yesterday.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Let's argue heatedly a... · 0 replies · +2 points

Making it a 24 hour break does not mean they only have 24 hours to write. They need merely decide today and announce later.

Also, let's assume this is about the Senate. Why not let Parliament return as scheduled then just proroge before the Olympics? If they are waiting till March either way, the only reason to prorogue now is to stop MPs from meeting and holding the government to account until then.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Let's argue heatedly a... · 5 replies · 0 points

I don't see why it matters. They could have prorogued as of the day before Parliament was scheduled to return for 24 hours. The fact that they did not do this is evidence that there is more to the story.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The Short Parliament · 0 replies · +3 points

lol. Note the 1996 - 2003. Compare those seven years to Stephen Harper's four and you have your answer.

14 years ago @ Angry in the Great Whi... - A sick Liberal Party, ... · 3 replies · 0 points

Come on Steve. If you believe what you've written, then you're the one who's sick.