IntenseDebate - JSRobinson

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Are we like 1,000 per ... · 0 replies · +4 points

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.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Are we like 1,000 per ... · 0 replies · +1 points

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?

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The unflappable Jean C... · 0 replies · +1 points

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.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The unflappable Jean C... · 0 replies · +1 points

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.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Thank you, sir, may I ... · 0 replies · +1 points

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.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - This is how a Westmins... · 0 replies · +1 points

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.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Coyne v. Wells on tort... · 0 replies · -2 points

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."

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - This is how a Westmins... · 1 reply · 0 points

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).

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Would you please make ... · 0 replies · +1 points

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?

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Would you please make ... · 0 replies · 0 points

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.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with JSRobinson

People I'm following

JSRobinson