Figleaf

Never demanded a *quick* answer. I took this: to have that implication. Why not take your time and review the rest of the hits? All of which use the term in the fashion I used it. Face facts, it's a common term. Take a look at Kevin O'Leary's comments on ROBTV yesterday. Would you believe him? And why don't you believe #5 knows what it's talking about? In fact, Ricki, you're deeply ignorant on this topic and you're talking shit. And stupid shit at that. That's par for your course. How about Morgan Stanley do you think they don't know what they're talking about? See second hit here: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=in...on%22&meta= NOW will you stop trying to challenge my knowledge with your ignorance?

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?

1. Right. The national interests of the UNITED STATES were involved, and our membership in an alliance led us to assist them in protecting THEIR national interests. I'm okay with that, but that doesn't make it OUR national interests. 2. The regime that threatened the national interests of our ally has been overthrown. Job well done. The rest of this 'mission' is a farce. The rest of the mssion is the most important part. It is apparent you have a very juvenile understanding of the situaiton. The rest of the mission is the part we have no obligation to fulfill, no viable strategy for accomplishing, and no hope of acheiving. P.S. Just because I disagree with you does not make my understanding of the situation 'juvenile'. Do you know what 'juvenile' means?

This is a really stupid thread, but since I come here so often, I obviously don't mind indulging stupidity. I think my language is the majority language of Canada. Other than the fact that we're a bilingual French/English country (which I like), I don't think minority language use is a serious issue at all. Hard to define -- sort of pinkish going to a light beige in the summer. What would be more informative for your purposes is that my heritage for countless generations back is British Isles/Northern European. What of it? More than two decades. Ideologies are not the main theme of my life. My "natural origin" is humankind, and yes, I'm interested in that. In my view, religion is one of the most disastrous and harmful constructs of the human race. Worse than nuclear weapons. I give my support on a case by case basis, though I've never found a case where it's a good idea to support tories. As Thomas Paine once said: "Every tory is a coward". What a funny idea!

Why not answer the question? Wouldn't an accepted term in the investment industry be found on industry related web sites? I'm sure if you look at them, you'll find it. For example, check out the comments made by Kevin O'Leary on ROBTV last night. I've already said I gave you the quick answer you demanded. What is your point? Do you really believe I made up the expression? If I show you you're wrong, would you ever admit it? Try this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=...amp;btnG=Search NOW will you please stop trying to challenge my knowledge with your ignorance? It's bothersome, and a waste of time and bandwidth.

When the status quo didn't involve Encana, BCE and Telus converting to income trusts. The situation changed, there was no status quo to protect. The first five links on your google search are from: 1. A philosohpy message board. 2. A translation from a French university Web site. 3. The blog of a self-described artist and punk musician. 4. A web site dedicated to the making the world better off for the New Millennium. 5. An article on providing "what every debater should know about economics". You would think a standard finance industry term would return some links to finance industry pages. Now can you please stop showing your lack of knowledge and highlighting it with such an ignorant and condescending response! It's you who wanted a source within two minutes. Why don't you look at the rest of the hits instead of deeping the impression of ignorance you already give?

Interesting question. Nothing other than incompetence leaps to mind ... it's not like the fisc is hard-up for money these days. I suppose grandfathering might be seen to be unfair to those who were thinking about converting and would then be prevented, but compared to the harm that came from what they chose to do it would be slight. What do you think?

Gawd, you mean people are going to follow the advice of the same advisors who suggested they go overweight on trusts in the first place? Well heck, people keep telling me some of them will vote tory again! Anyway, crystalizing the loss makes sense if they have gains to set off against. I don't agree. Advisors were perfectly right to tell people to include some trusts as part of a diversified portfolio, and advisors had no more reason than anyone else to think the tories would go back on their promise in such a shocking and destructive fashion.

How about the Front for Union Cares and Koncerns party?

Excellent points. Regarding tax leakage, most advisors are now telling investors to crysalize their capital losses on the collapsed trusts -- ensuring that the government now loses not just the capital gains on the trusts themselves, but on whatever other capital gains the investors set the losses off against. The bare facts are that not only did the government's lie completely 4uck over investors, it screwed itself too. The sheer incompetence of this move, let alone the dishonesty, should have people ready to turf the tories at their first opportunity.

1. Right. The national interests of the UNITED STATES were involved, and our membership in an alliance led us to assist them in protecting THEIR national interests. I'm okay with that, but that doesn't make it OUR national interests. 2. The regime that threatened the national interests of our ally has been overthrown. Job well done. The rest of this 'mission' is a farce.

Anytime any place. I'm not surprised that you'd want to resort to violence, given your deficiencies in discourse. But okay, you name a time and place in southern Ontario and I'm your huckleberry. So that promise didn't do anything? But why is breaking the promise such a big deal? The promise was to maintain a status quo. Yes, it is. Supporting evidence? I can't support the negative but if it is standard industry terminology it should take you about two minutes to find support. Don't think you will though... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=...amp;btnG=Search Now can you please stop challenging my knowledge with your ignorance?

Inapt is it? Your logic has Canada staying put within her borders, instead of fighting battles abroad. I never said that. Now you've moved from red-herring arguments to strawman arguments. Let's see if you can run the whole fallacy gamut! Okay, let me plod through an explanation simplistic enough for you to understand... WWII, unlike Afghanistan, did involve true national interests of Canada. WWII, unlike Afghanistan, was not impossible to resolve. WWII, unlike Afghanistan, did not involve remote foreigners. So, those three vital (and obvious to most people) differences make your comparison inapt. Billions of uneducated and oppressed people need help. I don't think Canada ought to shoulder that burden. What I have contempt for is people who'll send our soldiers to die without any sensible plan in a lost cause irrelevant to our national interests. So you feel we shouldn't care about the safety of our military people. Hurray for you. I feel differently. I know the reason we went in the first place, and I agreed with it. I can't fathom what good reason we have for remaining there. I see no plan or strategy for achieving or measuring success. I see no reason why we should be responsible for Afghanistan. And yes, I think our soldiers need our protection. Let the Afghans decide who governs them.

Pretty tough hiding behind that computer screen Figs. Likewise. ...What if we look at the index from election day. Isn't it fair to say that the government has still 'created' wealth on the income trust index? Actually, no. The tories were not responsible for the existence or nature of income trusts. They merely promised to leave them alone. Yes, it is.

... makes sense if you want peace with it. Before Fatah recognized Israel, how do you think it was brought around to doing so? Answer: through negotiations. Wrong! The fall of the USSR destroyed their only real ally prior to the "Palestinian's" re-alignment from "Marxism" to "Islamism". Thus, until "Islamism" replaced "Marxism" as the power in a position to topple the West (and get the support of misguided leftists) Fatah had nowhere to go but into Israel's arms, temporarily. So you're trying to say that Israel did NOT negotiate with Fatah? JBG, my dear fellow, were you drinking this morning?

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.

The same reason that Mississippians, New Jerseyites, New Yorkers, etc. are not entitled to a separate level of self-determination. No one proposed a "self-determining state" for the "Palestinians" while Egypt ruled Gaza and Jordan ruled the West Bank. This suddenly became very important when Israel finally established secure, defensible borders. Your hypocrisy sickens me. What hypocrisy, exactly, does your imagination make you perceive? The peace of the grave? No, a peace with its oppressed victims.

Destroyed as in earthquake, hurricane destroyed? Huh? I'm sorry you're not familiar with the terminology of capital markets. Yes. If you lost, then who gained? No-one, hence 'destroyed'. Irrelevant. How so?

What an utterly sanctimonious response. Sorry, Precious. Facts too much for you to take? If you don't want to be corrected, try not spewing utter drivel. BTW, do you know what 'sanctimonious' means? It's more appropriate to look at it over the whole time period and say (starting from the 30 bil. figure) that $26 billion was destroyed.

[/b

Rae was better. He was incompetent, but not malevolent.

What an utterly uniformed thing to say! The index fell from 165 to 140 overnight. On Friday it rose back to 144.

I hear numbers of between $20-30 billion being knocked off the market capitalization because of this decision. People seem to think Harper took billions from people. That's not true. He didn't take it. He destroyed it. Yes. And housing is an imperfectly comparable example. Stock market investments are more liquid, and they are often bought and used as security for margin.

Hmmm, actually he IS an economist. He's got a master's degree in economics, but he never worked as an economist. Exactly. A trained economist would surely have realized that many months ago and if he were honest would not have promised to leave them alone. An intelligent economist would also have realized that a precipitous about-face would burn a lot of people and would have considered grandfathering existing trusts to prevent slaughter in the markets. Typical. Blame the victims. What you shouldn't do is ever, EVER trust a tory.

I can understand resistance to systems that elect MPs that do not represent a specific riding...I don't agree with the arguments, but I understand. Why do you oppose multi-member districts? 1. Members end up not representing a whole definite set of people, they represent a special interest group within a district. 2. The people are deprived of the advantage of having a unique voice to speak for them. 3. The district is perforce a larger one and so members are more remote from individual constituents.