CPCFTW

It is?

Are you retarded? I clearly said at "current price levels". Of course the scenario is not possible, we all know wealth is a zero sum game in the land of hippies..

Truly a brilliant study with a reasonable and logical conclusion.. Now what happens when you lock a person in a room, and have a steak dinner in the other room? I would think a wealthy far right ring extremist baby-eating predator would open the door and share the dinner. Whereas a feeble, hungry, and poor "woe-is-me" left wing "humanitarian" would eat the dinner himself before freeing the prisoner. Then he would blame corporations and society for his greed.

He's cutting thousands of federal govt jobs already. Give your head a shake.

I don't think people would care too much about income inequality if the lowest income bracket was making 100k, while the wealthy were making trillions (at current price levels). Income inequality is a red herring. Minimum income is all that we should be concerned about. Revolutions occur when the majority are in abject poverty, not when they can't afford a second car and third tv.

Meh 26 more politicians to help Harper secure 4 more years to shed thousands of bureaucrat jobs... I'll take it.

And to be clear, I actually do appreciate the media bringing these "scandals" to light. It at least gives some sort of check on government wastage. But I don't think it will affect voters opinions much, and I think it's hilarious to read lefties going batshit crazy over tories destroying democracy and Canada over these minor scandals.

You completely missed the point. I don't condone these scandals but I accept them because it is a foregone conclusion that people in the government will waste money and use sneaky political tricks to try to stay in power. I don't consider the calling constituents in a riding with a rumour any worse than forcing an election because of a no confidence motion. Just more bureaucrats trying to get power and cushy government jobs/pensions. Obviously Canadian voters saw things the same way as they gave the conservatives a majority after the "scandal" of a no confidence motion.

Scandal-plagued Tories become the new Liberals Chris Selley and the National Post disagree with you, including the use of the word 'scandal.' See Chris Selley and the National Post, above. See Chris... oh nevermind. LOFL! God? PLEASE! Bring back the Progressive Conservatives! Oh chris selley and the national post disagrees with me? My bad. Who else disagrees with me? The star, cbc, and the huffington post?

Nope.. We've already seen the effects of globalization and free markets in redistributing wealth. There are hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians who have clawed there way out of poverty while the entitled Europeans riot because their pensions won't be large enough to eat caviar in their seaside villas anymore. Poor guys. Free marketers just want to level the playing field.

Do you guys ever have anything useful to contribute? First Dre and now this nonsense. And you wonder why the "dumb" Canadians didn't vote for your guys.

And what the non-free marketers always ignore is that it was 700-800 million Chinese living on that type of income until freeing the market lifted hundreds of millions out of abject poverty. The world is a poor place and we live in a bubble that funnelled the wealth from billions to Europe and the Americas.. Free marketers want to end that oppression and allow all workers to compete for the scarce resources in the world. If you want to survive in this world you should have to work your ass off, not get a government job and surf the internet for half the day while getting guaranteed pensions and raises and inflation protection and reach arounds. When everyone in the world works as hard as an african would work for a meal a day, then the world will be a much better place. When there is enough wealth for 7 billion people to work, live, and prosper, then we can start talking about guaranteed pensions and all that other crap that we borrow to pay for right now.

The thing is that people on the right don't consider these things "scandals", they conisder them "politics", and business as usual for bureaucrats and government employees in general. The reason we don't care about these "scandals" is because we know that any other party will have similar "scandals". The conservatives are the only ones who talk about reducing the size of government, and therefore the potential scope of these "scandals". The other parties want more regulations and government which will result in more misappropriated funds etc. We don't condone these scandals, but we accept that they are politics as usual. We don't bring up the liberals to condone the conservatives, but rather to demonstrate that every government does these types of things. You aren't going to convince us to vote for higher corporate taxes, and capping credit card interest rates, and all the other NDP nanny state ideas by arguing "maybe if you elect us we won't misappropriate funds.. We may raise taxes, but we promise not to waste the extra revenue!!"

Which is relevant to the thread. Before you take another toke, try reading my post again without being blinded with rage at the word "hippies".

We the "1%" like to call that country "Canada" (without calling it a "piece of shit" of course).

Maybe not in body, but in spirit.. No one cares about your poster quality expectations. Relax comrade, go buy yourself a sassy french beret or something and come back when you have something relevant to contribute to the thread.

I see I struck a nerve. Don't be so mad... It's not so bad being a hippy. Relax, put on your flower laurel, and go smoke a j.

You just set the one post record. Welcome to the top of the shitty poster list!

That stuff's only ridiculous when the party hippies don't like is in power.

I'm not ranting about anything.. I'm responding to mcc's rant that bailing out corporations benefits no one but shareholders. Also I never backed off laying some of the blame on unions.. I never blamed the workers themselves.

The point is bailing out individuals is no more altruistic or helpful to society than bailing out the corporations employing those individuals (contrary to what middleclasscommunist, oops i mean "centrist" was arguing). I would argue that it is worse to bail out individuals since it causes a dependence on government handouts rather than allowing workers to develop their own knowledge and skills through employment. Furthermore, I would argue that a corporation is far more likely to pay back handouts through the taxation of profits and of the corporation's employees' incomes, then a welfare recipient is to find a high-paying job and pay off all the welfare handouts he/she received.

The issue isn't the flying, it's the lying about flying? Then why complain about the flying in the first place?

Great point, just look at how well detroit has done with the union-induced failure of corporations there. How much is it for a house there now? $10k?

Afaik, and according to the cmhc website, You have to get mortgage insurance if you put down less than 20%.