Figleaf

The BBC did. Did they? How many scholars did they survey? What was their sample-selection methodology? What questions did they ask, and what replies were received? And you forgot to answer: Would you or would you not believe senior Israeli officials? I would listen to them for sure, but I would have to investigate if their claims were contradictory to known historical fact. As should you. Ummm ... historical 'fact' established how and 'known' to who? BTW, you haven't answered my basic questions about this alleged BBC survey of historians.

Six straight personal attacks? Only four more until I quit playing your little reindeer game. Is this my *punishment* for not respecting your authority? Personal attacks? No, I'm just sharing my opinion with you on what you've posted. Just like you do.

Four straight personal attacks. Good work figs. How high are you hoping to take the number? Personal attacks? No no, Precious, just giving you back what you've been dishing out. Take a big helping and then run crying to your Mummy.

Oh, now there's a brilliant comment.

Wow a typo is cause for such a witty personal attack? Power to you figs. You should learn how to do punctuation. And BTW, you wouldn't know wit if Oscar Wilde poured it down your throat.

I don't even understand that. You don't say!

First day with the new fingers, Rickiboy? Or is it the first day with the new brain? (We can only hope!)

What is this, stream of consciousness posting? Oh no, it can't be ... it's Ricki Bobbi.

Ever heard of learning to spell?

Your biased attack on Harper was biased. wtf? Good contribution. You're just sour because your comments yesterday made you look like an imbecile.

Man oh man this is ALL just so absurd. Harper's foolish move on income trusts was foolish, and demonstrated his dishonesty of character but the UTTER TRIPE some of you people come up with about the NEP is just the most pathetic nonsense. The NEP didn't devastate Alberta. Alberta had a simple recession, not devastation. And it was brought on by macro-economic factors, not the NEP.

Where did those people come from? How did they get there? What country owned the land that they petitioned to have made into a province? Canada held the territory in territorial status. The people were citizens of Canada. Which is why Canada generously agreed. It's a serious question meant to elicit an explanation for what relevance you think your point had. I ask because it seemed to have none. The problem is that you keep making the same complaint and ignoring the responses that explain why your complaint is off-base. Yes, the federal equalization program pays money to provinces that aren't as wealthy. What you need to understand is that the program is not targetting Alberta out of spite or anything else, it just happens that Alberta doesn't need the money and other provinces do. To make any kind of real point, you need to explain why that is so terrible, why the federal government shouldn't help provinces with less resources. When oil runs out or alternate energy becomes the way of things, Alberta may need the same kind of help. The problem I have with your position is that it ignores the fact that Canada is a WHOLE country. You seem to want us to be separate in all but name so you can keep all the lucre for yourself. Well, that won't fly because ALL Canadians have an interest in ALL of Canada. I know that. It was set up FOR western farmers to benefit WESTERN farmers only. It makes easterners PAY MORE for wheat. It restrict the farmers from bidding eachothers price down to protect the price for all of them. It's an advantageous program for western farmers, and the fact that you'd complain that its some eastern plot to harm you convinces me you'll complain about anything.

A competent advisor would have warned clients that such as promise could not counted on since trusts were eroding the gov'ts tax base. A fact known to the Conservatives when they made their promise. A tax base producing excessive surplusses. Surely advisors and investors were not crazy to rely on the tories' promise under those circumstances.

1. Canada DID create Alberta. It's a historical fact. 2. I've never claimed to know what's best for Alberta. Odd that you'd choose to characterize Alberta as a child. Personally I think of it as a province with reciprocal obligations to its fellow provinces and its federation. Reciprocal obligations that you seem to want to dodge. SO WHAT? That was to help western farmers and it did help western farmers. The very idea that you can use the wheat board as a complaint is absolutely ridiculous. It ensured that farmers got a higher price for their grain. A higher price that other consumers in Canada had to pay.

Any advisor who understood the economics involved should have expected the gov't to act the day BCE announced its conversion. You mean the government that said unequivocally that it would not?

I don't see the point of arguing terms. I hope you're not talking to me.

The BBC did. Did they? How many scholars did they survey? What was their sample-selection methodology? What questions did they ask, and what replies were received? And you forgot to answer: Would you or would you not believe senior Israeli officials?

Ummm ... NO. I only disagree with missions which have no connection to our national interests and which have no plan or prospect of success. For those who support continuing the Afghan mission, please tell me ... what's the strategy? How will we know we are succeeding? What are the milestones? When will it finish? To help the formation of a responsible country on the world stage that has human rights for its people. A democracy is good too and also a government that is able to effecively govern. I mean, this is pretty elementary stuff here. I am puzzled why you are mystified as to what the 'exit criteria' are. Did you fail to understand the questions? What's the strategy? How will we know we are succeeding? What are the milestones? When will it finish? And let me add another ... why should we do it?

Morgan Stanley? How about the BBC? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4562488.stm (under the heading "Reputation") Or the Guardian? Idiots, right? http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,463724,00.html (first paragraph) Certainly Business Week doesn't have anything to do with finance, I guess? http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...47050_mz011.htm (first paragraph) http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...13/b3725074.htm (second to last paragraph) Or how about MarketWatch on this very subject: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/45zN...dist=TNMostRead (tenth paragraph) So, Rickster, what further idiocies would you like to share?

Before I answer, please explain how that is relevant to the fact that Harper has never worked as an economist. Actually, yes. But what is actually relevant here is that they should be able to extrapolate the effect of economic policies on marketplaces. Either Harper is a lameass economist, or he's one who doesn't mind lying to the public to get elected. I don't think an economist is generally trained in how to avoid market fluctuations. Hilarious. It seems like you don't know much about what economics is about. Even more hilarious. The whole premise of the policy change was because of the presumed effect on the economy that was occuring due to investment trusts. Presumably their policy was all about achieving an economic outcome. I don't think this was a deliberate lie. This was a promise which, due to circumstances, they couldn't keep. What is becoming apparent on this thread is that tory supporters are willing to swallow virtually any crap the tory government dishes out. It does little for your credibility.

Morgan Stanley didn't edit the non-standard English of the original story. Pathetic foolishness??? I think you *destroyed* your own credibility with your attempts at defending your *knowledge*. Okay, I've given you dozens of citations for the use of the concept of 'destruction of wealth'. I've refered you to it's use by financial experts. I regard my point as proven and your ignorance as thoroughly demonstrated. I'm done indulging your stupid prevarications. (BTW, you said any time, any where. I'm waiting.)

Okaaaay. What basis do you have for your distinction between 'real' and 'unreal'? You can sell income trust units for 'real' money. You can use them as security for loans. That seems to have at least a valuable reality to it. One that you wouldn't want to lose. Sure, except for the people whose net worth was substantially reduced. I can't believe I'm trying to deal with people who have no idea of the concept 'destruction of wealth'! No. The derivatives market is a zero-sum game. Stocks have real value that can grow or diminish without someone else experiencing an obverse gain or loss. The value of a stock is based on the net present value of the income stream it will provide (including capital appreciation/loss and dividends). This is a real (though potentially changing) value. The people who bought them on October 30 bought on the expectation of a certain income expectation. The price on Nov. 2 was based on a lower income expectation. August, do you believe that the study of Finance is based on real knowledge, or is it just made up?

Common term ... maybe. Common term in the investment industry? No. What do you think you know about it? So, you don't believe Morgan Stanley knows what it's talking about? Riiiiight. And Kevin O'Leary, billionaire investor and commentator on ROBTV just made it up too, I suppose. It the best I need to do. My point is proven and I have no further need to indulge your pathetic foolishness.

Ummm ... NO. I only disagree with missions which have no connection to our national interests and which have no plan or prospect of success. For those who support continuing the Afghan mission, please tell me ... what's the strategy? How will we know we are succeeding? What are the milestones? When will it finish?

Right -- Israel started it. (Also, it's highly questionable that Israel's neighbors had any serious intention of attacking.) Then why did Egypt ask the UN peacekeepers to leave the Sinai in May 1967, and impose a naval blockade on the Gulf of Aqaba, sealing off the Israeli city of Eilat? For recreation? You want my interpretation? Egypt did those things in response to Isreal's provocations. In any event, they don't change the fact that it's highly questionable that the Arab states intended to attack. You keep repeating this but have provided nothing to back your claim. I have provided resources to back up my claim and you have not - yet you expect people here to take your word for it.. that's telling. You don't believe me? Who would you believe? Would you believe senior Israeli officials? Who would you believe? Would you beleive 'the majority of historical scholars' who side with me on this issue? You've done a survey of historical scholars to confirm this 'majority' I suppose? Would you or would you not believe senior Israeli officials?