BC_chick

Agreed, you're always going to afford something relative to the market in which you bought your home. Some people just like to be rich on paper I guess. They managed to get in the market before it shot up so they want to close the door behind them for anyone else who didn't get that chance. In order to preserve their perceived 'wealth' they would prefer people continue to take on mortgages that will cause hardship should rates go up 0.5%.

They all looked like kooky stereotypes to me.

Oh yeah, that particular one stumped me too.

According to Angus Reid, there is not 1 set of Canadian Values, but 5. CBC has put together a quiz to see where you fit on the scale. I'm not young and I thought I'm a melting-pot advocate since that's the values my parents instilled in me when we came to Canada, but the rest is pretty accurate: Permissive Reformer illustration Tending to be younger, university educated and living in cities, members of this group believe strongly in favour of more government support for Indigenous people and greater acceptance of the LGBT community. They are much more likely to believe Canada should encourage cultural diversity. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/which-type-of-canadian-are-you-answer-these-questions-to-find-out-1.3786252

There is only one poster on this forum who is stoked about the prospect of a woman president (she knows who she is) and the rest of us couldn't care less. I for one, have even been quite emphatic that this is not the woman I would have liked to have see as the first woman president. I would've much preferred someone like Elizabeth Warren. But I digress, you're right, both candidates are sleazy when it comes to shady dealings and questionable actions. In context of my discussion earlier, we were talking specifically about *sexual infidelities* when I said I find Bill Clinton to be sleazier than Donald Trump. Certainly, the sleaze runs deep on both sides so for me it's about the saner of the two candidates. Trump is a loose cannon and a darling of the white supremacists (who knows why since he's not REALLY a racist). I'll take the greedy old lady with pneumonia over the the guy who can't even show restraint against the family of a fallen soldier. The guy who tweets to slut-shame an adversary at 3:00am. The guy who calls Mexican immigrants rapists and says he wants to commit war crimes. The list is endless but the sleaze factor and his gender has very little to do with it. Just so we're clear.

Still didn't answer my question. What's wrong with ensuring people can afford a rate hike?

You didn't answer the question. Interest rates are very low which means the people taking out huge mortgages may very well end up seeing some hikes in the future of their mortgage. What is wrong with ensuring that people can afford it? You'd rather see a US-type of meltdown? Because that's exactly where we were headed with our average household debt.

It's way more than 20%. Vancouver and GTA make up 25% of the country's population alone but it also trickles down to the areas around it. All you have to do is look around Vancouver Island and Chilliwack to see how unaffordable things are becoming. Even the Okanagan is getting pricey. I'm sure the cities around Toronto are in the same boat. Also, what is wrong with ensuring that people can afford a what is essentially a very modest rate hike?

I would think that the majority of the cases would not be fraudulent. Also, how long can it go on, inevitably it'll have to stop. It's worth allowing some purchases to go through fraudulently in order to maintain a certain level of integrity within the government but that's just my opinion. Ultimately, if f someone wants to cheat, they'll find a way to cheat.

TimG, no, there could have been ways around it. Those in existing contracts could have had to get their contracts notarized by a certain period, for example. What happened was a travesty.

Great links on the psychology behind terrorism but you are being very disingenuous when you deny the element of territory. Throughout the 20th century we had Irish terrorism, Québécois terrorism and Zionist terrorism. America's Founding Fathers were terrorists to the British. None were Islamic and all of them were a result of land disputes and all of them came to an end at some point. Some say Bobby Kennedy's assassination was the first act of Muslim terrorism on US soil. The assassin was a disgruntled Palestinian who resented the Kennedy's support of Israel. But sure, if it makes you feel better, Israel has nothing to do with Islamic terror. What makes Islamic terrorism particularly scary is the callous disregard for human life, but don't kid yourself, it's not much different than any other kind of land disputes we've seen in the past.

The only people getting screwed are foreign buyers with pending contracts, speculators, and first time buyers. Foreign buyers with pending contracts should have been given exemptions, I think the Clark government handled that terribly. Speculators I don't feel sorry for because that's the risk for doing business in such a frothy market. You lose big or you gain big. Long-term investors are in it for the long-haul so hopefully it won't make a difference unless interest rates go up tremendously which I don't see happening. That leaves first-time buyers and what can I say? Anytime a bubble bursts the people who bought in the euphoria stage are going to see their assets devalue, but their terrible timing isn't reason enough to allow the bubble to continue. The longer it goes on, the uglier it's gonna get. We needed an intervention, I have no doubt about that.

It'll make things more affordable. They've now curtailed the local demand in the same way Vancouver had done to foreign demand. Inevitably this leads to prices coming down. It's basic economics. The whole country needed an intervention, not just Vancouver and GTA.

It's a message board, people express themselves. Get over it. ETA - you obviously didn't read anything I wrote because that's not even what I said. I said when it comes to infidelities, Bill Clinton is more sleazy than Donald Trump.

I don't think she'd pass her own test either.

And it's exactly that type of attitude that allows serial killers like Robert Pickton to get away with killing 50 women over the course of 2 decades. But who cares, they were just low-end prostitutes, right? They did drugs and had sex for money. Why would anyone waste 'limited police resources' looking into their deaths.

I'm not critiquing their sex life - Argus brought up the comparison to Trump and I merely commented that they are actually not all that similar. And sorry, there's 'criticism', then there's hiring investigators to go digging into someone's past dalliances in a concerted effort to blackmail silence. Just because I hope Clinton wins next month doesn't mean I have to bite my tongue about what I think was an awful thing that she did.

You're free to blame the other woman, I prefer to blame the one breaking his/her vows.

I know lots of people lose their marbles whenever anyone says something bad about HRC (and given the alternative I can see why), but there are some differences between Trump's infidelities and Bill Clinton's. First, Trump has overlapped his relationships, but he's nowhere near Bill Clinton's level of sleaze. Even though he said chauvinistic things while in relationships, we don't have reports of multiple affairs spanning years on end. Clinton's affairs were much more abusive in nature. Second, although HRC wasn't the one cheating, she went out of her way to discredit the women that Bill cheated with and smear them publically. That's a very difficult act to defend and frankly makes me sick to think of a woman doing that to another woman. Third, this is the woman who will be the first woman president, the iconic 'role model'. While I think we can all sympathize with a woman who was cheated on, when a woman puts up with a cheating husband for years on end our sympathy diminishes as she looks more and more responsible for her own predicament. To me, only a very unfortunate character would allow someone else to humiliate them to such extremes. She's still better than Trump in spite of it all, but let's not downplay Bill's infidelities for anything less than what they were.

You're free to speculate all you want about their 'real' intentions and not respect them for what they may have done if re-elected, but you can't dispute that they were the most fiscally responsible government we've had in recent history.

What are you talking about, I never denied the problems. Not one place on this thread did I even comment on my thoughts about FN communities.

I guess I'm being a bit more idealistic... I don't think sexist attires should be required of women - upfront or not - in either place. Thanks for the discussion Boges, that was fun.

I went through this with you before, I agree with dress codes, but I don't find high heels and cleavage to be reasonable dress codes for that job. I have similar views about Iran, women should not have to wear a scarf on their head. Women should have choice in what they are comfortable with. You're the one with the inconsistent views where servers can go take lower paying jobs if they're uncomfortable with the forced attire but master chess players shouldn't have to compete in lower level tournaments if they're uncomfortable with what they're required to wear.