Good for PM

[Dan #1]

Something sparked in my mind when i listened to Matthew's interview on the CKNW radios station the other day. Matthew Good is quite political and has good common sense/knowledge about society, etc. He is intelligent and well spoken.

 

Put those imaginative caps on now folks... tell me if you think Matthew Good should be Prime Minister of Canada. Why or why not?

 

Would you rather have the politicians do the politics while Matt does the Music thing? Or do you think Matt should mix it up a bit ;)

 

(note: although unlikely matt would go into politics, try imagining him going into it)

[Lauren]

id like him to stick to music. he'd be so tired of everyones bs he'd have a breakdown, and no one wants that.

[Crusader]

Yes, there's already a governator we don't need Matt for PM ;)

[ok_go_570]

lol the governator...

[insane_child]

whoa... that'd be so chaotic... b/c although mg is very political and "in the know" on so much stuff... he may be a bit overly adament. canada would change so dramatically... maybe good, or maybe bad... but, why chance it?

[loveisnotenough]

I don't think he would ever want to be that directly invloved in politics. He seems like a simple, albeit extremely intelligent, type of fella. But its an interesting thought. I wonder what his platform would be?

[juanpe]

i wouldnt mind AT ALL having someone like Matt as a PM or president of a country... at least someone who would share his ideas, his way of seeing the world, his way of caring for people and for social issues...

 

the new Spanish President (José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero) is very similar to Matt in those ideas: he seems to really care for society and for social issues and try to give profit to people who are in need...

 

he doesnt look like Matt physically but his ideas are similar in that sense ;)

[mg_forlife]

Lol about him having a breakdown. I think Matt would be a great PM. What I don't understand is how there are so many good people out there like Matt but we somehow always end up with the politicians that we've got. I like Mayor David Miller of Toronto though. I would vote for Matt... if only I could.

I don't think he'll be running either, but it's a good thought. ;)

[Dan #1]

I wonder if Matt has ever imagined being a political leader...

 

What party do you think he would want to be the leader of?

Edited July 25, 2004 by danimal

[Lauren]

matthew good party

[Dan #1]

That definitly has a ring to it...

[mg_forlife]

Lauren that is exactly what I thought when I read Dan's post, then I scrolled down and there you said it. ;) Maybe he'd put a human rights type of spin on one of the parties, most likely the NDP I think because it'd probably be the easiest to change.

[Matt]

I don't think he would be a good prime minister. He misses some aspects of society. And a lot of what he puts in his blog is for the most part seems to me that it's from CBC.ca and that's about it. And I just think he's too extreme.

 

And speaking about good politicians, Scott Brison anyone? He was a Progressive Conservative, but left during the merge, and is now a Liberal. He's in Paul Martin's cabinet as well, I think his position is "Minister of Public Works and Government Services".

[Crusader]

I personally don't find Mr. Good to be too extreme, why would you say he is? All he basically is, is anti-war and for human rights. Aren't we all like that?

[Matt]

I feel that there are some instances when war is necessary. Not when it's a first strike. But when it's in defence situations. And he's just extreme human rights. He's like the American government, just on the opposite side.

[Crusader]

I feel war is never the answer. If someone declares war on you then you defend yourself. But invading a country doesn't count as "defending" yourself.

 

He's like the American government, just on the opposite side.

Can you elaborate on that a bit more?

[Matt]

He's extreme, and the way he phrases his blog is similar to an american form of political speeches. And sometimes the best defence is to go to another country and fight them there. Such as in World War Two. Nazism needed a lot of force to stop it.

[Crusader]

But what have the Iraqi people done to the US? They didn't attack the US it was Bin Laden who did.

[Matt]

I said when it's not first strike. Iraq was first stike.

[Crusader]

Ah, yeah I would have to agree with you there. Pearl Harbour was a first strike by the Japanese but the Americans ended up dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima. That was overdoing it a bit... and as for attacking civilians...

[Matt]

In some ways. But that was Truman trying to end the war quickly. It's bad either way. Either civilians die, or people die in the fighting.

[mg_forlife]

I agree that Matt style of writing is very dramatic. No middleground for him, he wants to have a point and drive it home.

 

As for the atomic bombs, Japan was the only Axis power left to fight. Maybe the war would have taken a few more months to end, but it would have been worth all of those lives taken away in the two bombings. And it didn't just affect the people who were alive at the time of the war, the blasts also affected future generations. It was way over the top of the U.S. to do that. Unjustified.

[juanpe]

No war is ever justified, and of course NO invasion is ever justified... are we irrational animals to solve problems fighting?

[Matt]

War is justified. I wouldn't want to be saluting Hitler right about now. I like democracy truthfully. I think that the a-bombs also had to do with the "growing threat" of communism, and the U.S. wanting to look more suprerior.

[Crusader]

I don't like war at all but if the country formally declares war on you (the whole government and not just one group) then I guess it would be acceptable.