IntenseDebate - canucklehead

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The untold story of th... · 0 replies · +4 points

Four more years would/will make Harper the 6th longest serving Prime Minister, right behind Chretien.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - How in God’s name do... · 0 replies · 0 points

I've never seen such a concentration of lame, snivelly comments. Geeeeez. I'd rather have a beer with Harper than Layton and maybe even Mercer, but definitely not with over half the commenters on this one.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - 'Get a better messenger' · 0 replies · +2 points

Weapons that require elbow grease?? Hope really is faint for the Liberals then.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The rich keep getting ... · 0 replies · +1 points

India and China are probably the most widely recognized examples of how freeing economies from government control creates wealth and jobs. Compare Hong Kong to the rest of China. One of Hong Kong's British governors actually refused to hold a census because it might give the government things to 'fix'. It's been one of the most economically free places in the world for several decades, and one of the wealthiest. The problem with government picking winners is that it keeps on picking them regardless of whether they keep winning. Compare a chart of the most economically free countries with the wealthiest countries... the corellation is amazing.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The rich keep getting ... · 0 replies · +4 points

I don't know but I've been thinking that this is because the poorest in countries like India and China have been advancing. In worldwide terms the very poorest are catching up more than ever. Closing borders would be the answer to that - at the cost of the world's poorest people and everyone's standard of living.

I'm not perfectly easy with the idea of a big spike at the top but I am certain that what matters is that the incomes of the poorest rise as much as possible regardless of what happens to the relative disparity.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - No country for good men · 0 replies · +4 points

Notice that all three of the issues Andrew points out are ones that left-leaning Canadians won't have serious conversations about. But other than that, you're right - to pretend Ignatieff wasn't the problem is way off. If negative messages alone killed Iggy how the hell is Harper still standing?

The thing everyone seems to be perhaps willfully missing is that Harper himself is an intelluctual policy-wonk kind of guy. Paul Wells' untold story of the election gives the reason for Harper's 5 question rule that if he talks too much he gets into either Angry Steve or Professor Steve mode. The primary thing I like about him is that he's a guy who spent time in university reading political writers like F.A. Hayek in his spare time. It's true that Iggy was a victim of seeming over-intellectual but how do you explain Harper if you're going to say we're a beer and popcorn nation then? The two groups of people most divorced from reality are the very dumb and the very smart, and I think it's reasonable to say that that is one of the primary reasons Ignatieff didn't shine in Canada's eye.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Week One · 0 replies · -3 points

hahahahahaha :P

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Ignatieff finds his fight · 0 replies · +1 points

Hey, if he refrains from invoking Harper's sulphurous airs and commitment to voter disengagement I will be happy.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Ignatieff finds his fight · 2 replies · -30 points

I kind of like Iggy's stump speech Paul quoted but it is nothing if not trash talk.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Harper doesn't care ab... · 0 replies · +5 points

It is a pretty fresh angle to argue that Harper's going into Newfoundland for the oil.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with canucklehead

People I'm following

canucklehead