gdp's Comments

Macleans.ca : Are we like 1,000 per cent sure this is a good idea?

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:47:20 +0000

Bush did worse than "nationalize" the banks. He made the public take on all the risks of people's private investment in them, and then Obama did the same thing with GM (as did Harper and McGuinty in Canada). The only ways to stop these cycles would be for government to either stop taking shares in businesses and let them sink or swim (while keeping the banks regulated to prevent economic meltdowns) or for government to actually nationalize these institutions when they bail them out. Governments refuse to do either because of the political costs, so our youth are now going to spend years paying off the pensions of GM workers.

Macleans.ca : Are we like 1,000 per cent sure this is a good idea?

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:42:42 +0000

Of course, this is one of those hilarious policies where the President's economic council will tell the nation that they have to solve the economic downturn caused by sub-prime lending with sub-prime lending. Could it be that Obama has so few convictions that he is a near-perfect opportunist?

Macleans.ca : The unflappable Jean Charest

Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:26:53 +0000

I agree. Martin called in Gomery so that he could look good while he purged the party of all the Chretien infrastructure, having already removed all of the best Chretien MPs (Manley, Cauchon, etc.) There was nothing noble about creating such a spectacle to give oneself the opportunity to act faux-righteously indignant.

Macleans.ca : The unflappable Jean Charest

Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:22:09 +0000

Clearly he would go back to the Conservatives. They are the continuation of his old party, and he would have greater leverage over them anyways. He could campaign for the leadership promising to deliver seats in Quebec, whereas he would not have a similar edge in a Liberal race.

Macleans.ca : Thank you, sir, may I have another?

Sat, 5 Dec 2009 20:24:00 +0000

Apparently, the opposition would make us a fallen nation for handing over Afghan prisoners to their own authorities, who then may have been tortured, but we absolutely must tolerate China because it is such an important nation. Many of these people are the same idiots who would have us distance ourselves from the US because of Iraq.

Macleans.ca : This is how a Westminster model is supposed to work

Wed, 2 Dec 2009 00:39:12 +0000

An MP's job is to make good judgements, even if they go against the desires of their constituents. I can't see a way to spin this to make the Australian Liberals look good.

Macleans.ca : Coyne v. Wells on torture spin and HST pirouettes

Wed, 2 Dec 2009 00:15:11 +0000

The Liberals should just be honest about their ideology to Canadians: "We are against all for which the Conservatives and NDP stand, unless it is polling well."

Macleans.ca : This is how a Westminster model is supposed to work

Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:58:29 +0000

This event, of course, illustrates the problem with the caucus choosing the leader. Out of their own self-interests, half of the caucus voted to get rid of a leader who was doing the right thing. More importantly, since, as a result of FPTP, the caucuses do not accurately reflect the members of the party, a caucus choosing its leader might choose someone unpopular among unrepresented constitutuents (the Liberals might pick someone loved in Quebec, but hated in the West). Overall though, this change would probably be for the better, since it would empower individual MPs and make the leaders understand that their leadership role really is within Parliament. This type of election also prevents outsiders from moving quickly to the top of the party apparatus, which could be a good thing (since it would mean that party leaders would have to have actual parliamentary experience), but it can also give parties an unvetted, poor choice of leader (see Liberal Party of Canada, December 2008).

Macleans.ca : Would you please make up your minds?

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:05:04 +0000

I have not\"thought long and hard\" about feminism; I just assume that the Charter of Rightsand Freedoms should be goodenough to ensure equality, which it is.

From: notifications@intensedebatemail.com
To: jsrobinson@live.ca
Subject: Richard_S_Argent replied to your comment on Would you please make up your minds?

Macleans.ca : Would you please make up your minds?

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:01:45 +0000

All of this doctrine is just an excuse for "pay equity" and all that other bull. This type of feminism proposes that women are "separate, but equal" from men. There are fewer women than men in Parliament only because more men choose to run. Many successful women would (understandably) prefer to make more money in the private sector, with the result that when parties introduce gender quotas on their candidate pool, there are just fewer qualified candidates.

Macleans.ca : Would you please make up your minds?

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:57:47 +0000

What is ridiculous is that there even is a complex belief system built around feminism. Why can't we just assume that for the purposes of governance, all PEOPLE are equal and will advance on the basis of merit?

Macleans.ca : Would you please make up your minds?

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:49:40 +0000

This is why it is important to know our history when we make an argument about politics. Kim Campbell served as Justice Minister AND Defense Minister under Brian Mulroney.

Macleans.ca : Would you please make up your minds?

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:43:48 +0000

And you're so brave for criticizing people's opinions under the name "Anonymous."

Macleans.ca : Notes on a climate-research scandal

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:04:13 +0000

I agree. The only problem is that the people who will be worst affected are middle class consumers living in the suburbs. However, most of our economic problems are caused by their unsustainable benefits anyways, so we should implement these reforms now while they will be less harmful than if they came a generation later. Also, this is more fair: the babyboomers should have to pay for the consequences of the ridiculous debt and unsustainable suburban lifestyles that they have inflicted on North America with the collusion of out political class.

Macleans.ca : The road back

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:19:43 +0000

A number of people are saying that since populism has worked for Harper, Ignatieff clearly can't take the risk of doing the right thing. Here is the problem- he has failed miserably as a populist. If he is desperate and will lose if he continues down his current path, he should probably try being authentic.

Macleans.ca : That Krieber manifesto, short version

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:50:05 +0000

I wonder how Stephane Dion feels about all of this. It can't help his chances of getting to be a senior cabinet minister in an (unlikely) Ignatieff government Joe Clark-style. Maybe he and his wife are just that confident that Ignatieff will never win an election.

Macleans.ca : Defending the royals

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:17:12 +0000

I would counter your claim by saying that what these countries with monarchies have in common is that they didn't go through the periods of instabilitythat often come with changing into a Republic (andthat instability often remains).While the Republican model has produced successes like the United States, Israel and India,nations that decided to rid themselves of monarchy included Russia, Weimar Germany,Italy, and many African countries. These countries went through terrible periods to ris themselves of a worse kind of monarchy. If our monarch has strictly limited powers, and removing it from our constitution would require something not much less than a revolution and complete rewriting of the constitution, I am happy to stick with the monarchy.It took the French five tries to get their Republic right, and they were much moredesperate.

I don't really get your point about colonies- yousaythat they are having a hard time recovering, and while you argue, correctly, that in the pastmonarchies have inflicted tyranny, my point is that if modern monarchs have strictly regulated powers, why need we be rid of them? Democratic governments still inflict much suffering on people, as many are fond of arguing about the US inIraq.

From: notifications@intensedebatemail.com
To: jsrobinson@live.ca
Subject: DownEast replied to your comment on Defending the royals

Macleans.ca : Defending the royals

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:04:06 +0000

The point of Mr. Coyne's argument is that wewould have a Canadian head of state. Once the new king moved here, all of his successors would be natural-born Canadians, not Brits.

From: notifications@intensedebatemail.com
To: jsrobinson@live.ca
Subject: DownEast replied to your comment on Defending the royals

Macleans.ca : Defending the royals

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:03:07 +0000

My point is that \"Governor General\" is an office that is inherently colonial.Removing the middleman position will give us a more authoritatively Canadian identity. As I have saidelsewhere, there is no reason tofear constitutional monarchy; many of the most successful countries in the world (Britain, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Canada) are constitutional monarchies.

Spencer Robinson

From: notifications@intensedebatemail.com
To: jsrobinson@live.ca
Subject: DownEast replied to your comment on Defending the royals

Macleans.ca : The hunted look, the defensive crouch

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:15:17 +0000

Oh and Lord Bob, are you someone I know with the initials "MR?" If so, don't use an alias online- being unaccountable for your opinions makes these discussions uninteresting.