takeanumber

MRC credits are just expensive as U of C credits. I didn't go to a university which huge name recognition. My university is ranked 12th or 14th. I've long accepted the fact that I was gonna get royally screwed. I'm from a low income family (the military), so I had to go deep into debt. That's the cost of social mobility. I just don't see why the cost of social mobility for me has to be so much higher than it was for somebody just like me, growing up the 1960's. Is there something special about the "me generation" that they get everything cheaper?

Alright, so let's go with this 500-1000 dollar thesis. The 500 dollar suites are not downtown. They are not along any major transit line. (I just know the market well). Alright, so now we're going to assume that if it's a 500 dollar suite, that it is unfurnished, and doesn't include electricity or telephone. Now we can haggle over whether or not a person needs a phone after we talk about about what this persons protein source is... So now, we're up to, conservatively, no long distance calls back to Acme or anything. So now we're up to what, 700 dollars, conservatively. Alternatively, we can assume that phone and electric is included in the rent, bringing it up to 700. Your choice. So, just for basic shelter, no furniture, we're looking at 700 dollars a month. Which is 8400 dollars a month. Now, let's assume that he doesn't drive. That's 70 dollars for a bus pass. That's 840 dollars a month. And that bus pass comes first, because if he can't get to work, he can't get paid. Now, we're going to factor in food, which comes second or first. Now, let's say he lives exclusively off hamburger and it's helper. That's what? 200 a month. Now I know that's a ridiculous number for a grown man to live off of, because that's 6.50 a day, so assuming he eats a 700 gram package of ground beef (regular), he's looking at 3.50 gone there. That's, assuming 3 meals, 200g of protein. Plus an apple. Plus the helper. Let's say he could do it. Even though chances are he's doing physical labour, we'll just assume 200 dollars a month just to satisfy the 60yo men who post on these forums who remember and still think milk is 25 cents a quart. We'll say 6.50 a day even though it's pure fiction. That's 2400 dollars a month. We're going to assume the following things too: We're going to assume that this is not a proud man. We're going to assume that he gets his steel toed boots from the Sally Anne, and in fact, he gets all his clothing from there too. Moreover, we're going to assume that he relies on the Calgary Food Bank for the toileterries. You know, he needs soap, toilet paper, razors, shampoo etc.. He might even get a few extra things from there to supplement his diet. We're going to assume that he has sex quite often, but grabs free condoms from a social service. Alright, so he's entertained, fed, sheltered and clothed, already heavily subsidized by charity, because I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that some conservatives believe that somebody earning a wage SHOULD have to resort to asking for charity. We'll assume that he picked up a urine soaked matress from the Sally Anne too, so he doesn't have to sleep on the rough shag carpetting. So, to maintain this lifestyle, he would need to earn 1040 net. 1040/37.5/4 = 6.90/hr NET. (that's 12480, net) I believe at this level, he need not pay any income tax. If he earns more than 14000 gross in Alberta, that's 10 percent income tax. At the 12480 net level (which is also his gross), he would only get 50 percent subsidized for Alberta Health Insurance. Don't worry though, because he can use his GST rebate check to pay that off. So it balances out. Alright, so here we have a man, working full time, who has shelter. Hooray. Plus, he's living a life, according to many Albertan Conservatives, which is fitting for a lower class scumbag. (And note that he's not even drinking. No time! 1 hour commute each way, combined). Let's assume that he's found a job that pays 7.10 net. Wham. He gets hit with income tax. His income plummets, and suddenly, something has to be given up. He can't give up food. He can't give up electricity. He can't give up his phone (without forfeiting his deposit). So, gone is his shelter. Or worse, he starts using his credit card. So now he's homeless. Worse, it becomes really hard to bathe, but somehow, he keeps his job by living out of his bag and showering at the U of C gym. Or, let's assume rents as they were last year, eh, where a single on a far edge of a city would cost 810? Homeless again. And people, I'm assuming an extremely poor life here. Alright, let's talk options. He could get roomates. (He doesn't really know anybody, I suppose he could make connections, but I bet it's tough.) He could go back to Acme. (And better yet, tell others not to come!) He could wait 8 years for the market to rationalize. He could learn a trade. But to learn a trade, you need shelter, and trade wages are well below 6.90 net to start. ----------------------------------------------------- He is not getting 'ahead'. He is literally forced to ask for the neccisities of life. He cannot afford to drink. We say to these unemployed people in the regions to 'go where the work is', (hence the demand spike), yet, supply doesn't respond fast enough. And worse, those who were barely just getting by go homeless because their rents inflate faster than their wages. (Which is why we get families ending up going from Church to church, something I can't imagine doing, and I can't imagine how that would affect the kids.) [min wage 5.50; but most working poor earn in excess of this rate.] Call me crazy, but I believe that when rent exceeds 40% of the income of somebody who is borderline, there is a serious misallignment of the market. Worse, when working people are forced out of their homes when rent goes from 35% to 45% of their income, and they can't find another apartment in their price range, there is a serious problem with the market. I'm not saying 'subsidize'. I'm saying that just as we stabilize the macro-economic market, there should be policy in place to rationalize and stabilize micro-economic housing markets. I'm not saying 'raise the minimum wage', because only extreme youth and waiters earn the minimum. Unskilled labour already earns in excess of 6.50/hr. Raising the minimum wage will cause more unemployment. Introducing rent ceilings causes what? That's right everybody, a supply shortage, causing even more homelessness. The solution? Introducing stabilization policy so that when demand exceeds supply, the borderline working poor do not get thrown out as the supply lag works its way out. Stabilization policy can take a number of forms, including government-IGO/NGO partnerships, temporary housing a la Atco at previous rental rates, and greater incentives for supply to come online sooner to reduce the supply lag. I'm interested to hear critiques of the Takeanumber Free Market Rent Stabilization Policy. Better yet, I'd like to read a small 'c' economic conservative tell me that somebody earning 6.90 an hour, who doesn't drink or do drugs, should be damn thankful that he's able to sleep on a urine soaked mattress.

Father (Francophone): Haiti, Iraq, Somolia, Bosnia, Haiti. Uncle (Mother's side): Iraq. Mother(Anglophone): No combat experience. Grandfather(Mother side): (served in mail room, lol. No combat) Great Grandfather(Mother side): World War II. (Italian front.) Great Great Grandfather(Father side): World War I. (Vimy.) Great Great Grandfather(Mother side): World War I. (Mariner.) (Nobody in the Boer War) Great x 3or4 Grandfather(Mother side): Aroostook War. (Member of the Westmorland Rifles). And why not me? I'm opinionated, and opinionated people don't belong in the army. Thankfully the men in my family reproduced early in life. So yes, it is true. PM me about life in the armed forces during the 1990's. Think I'm angry with tories? I'm harsher on the Liberals.

Well, luckily I was born with a dazzling pair of the most blue eyes a guy could ask for, with a chizzled jaw and an ass that won't quit. So I'm fine in that department. No arguement there. But the title of the thread is 'Intergenerational Equity'. What I'm not understanding is why life should be made intentionally more fair for you at my expense. Life isn't fair. I'm saddled with a war on terror. Most Canadian boomers got off easy. (No vietnam, and lets face it, it was mostly Busters who fought in the first Iraq war.) That's fine. But this is a factor you boomers CAN control, and yet you're intentionally doing it, and what's worse, you know that you're doing it. Alright. That's your right to disagree. And I'm glad you actually read my point of view. That's more than some posters have been doing. Regards, Takeanumber.

Well, like I said, maybe even the moderates don't like Israel for you know, the Palestinian thing. I'm not going to touch that though. But I think maybe the moderates tolerate the extremists because they agree with some of their message, but I'll go out on a limb and say that they don't like the terrorism nor do they think that it's 'justified', but who knows. I don't know what they're really thinking because muslim old-Anti-Liberals really, really, really, lol, really strongly don't enjoy my point of view. lol. If you can believe that. That cleric who said that it was jews who were responsible for 9-11, totally disgusting. Totally vile. You know, one of the preconditions for comming to Canada is that you leave all your hatred behind at the door and wipe your feet before you come in. I could have sworn that was a Canadian value. Hmmm. Guess it's decaying. Anyway. If life is so intolerable for that cleric because he has to look and deal with Jews, maybe he should consider a country more to his liking. I'm not saying throw him out without a trial or a hearing or whatever. I'm just saying, you know, maybe it's time for some people, if they hate jews and peace-loving Canadians so much, to consider an alternative...like, gosh, Malaysia. I know it's a lot warmer there. Or, say, Saudi Arabia. I hear Saudi Arabia has a dental plan that rivals even that of Luxumberg. And d00d, you can't beat their beaches. Man, if the wind blows just right, you can see a little bit of leg right through the Burka's. Dy-no-mite!

Echo's= Born between 1980 and 2000. Amen. My rhetoric is directed at the bigots who have been running their gums about French assimilation and blatant disregard for minority rights. It WAS said that if the majority in this country wanted to, they could shove the jews right into the ovens. Which drew my ire. Even if this country wanted to, (more specifically, even if the 15% wanted to), the would not be allowed to go through with it. History will not be allowed to repeat.

It's not just paper. It's foregone consumption. My parents are not boomers. They're both Busters. Again, nice assumption. Eh? With an attitude like that, you understand my rage. You just keep on ringing up those charges on the credit card, while driving down the minimum payments. And here I thought you were a fiscal conservative! I guess, if you're a capital C Conservative over 45, that actually means that you're a capital L Liberal -- so in effect, just as selfish and corrupt as a Gagliano. Be sure to wrap yourself in the Canadian flag on the way out. Regards, Takeanumber. (BTW, the 60 cent calculation includes ALL inheritances and accounts for PV; don't feel smug. You guys are ripping us off, and if you're feeling aweful, don't blame me. Blame yourself. It's your behaviour and voting pattern that causes it.)

You're the one who said that you wanted to send jews to the ovens, not me. I merely told you that if you ever tried to do so, you'd have a massive fight on your hands, because we won't allow the errors of the past to repeated. Now let's talk about what those 15% or so twatwaffle Stockwell Day-Loving-Jew-Hating Old Anti-Liberals are responsible for, shall we? 1. Church abuse scandal. (Remember, the cultural genocide centres you guys set up?) 2. Japanese internment camps. (Remember those? Set up at the insistence of conservative Liberals? Yeh, you must remember those!) 3. Aboriginal abuse. (They just got the vote when, 1968 or 1972? Gosh. Sounds enlightened to me.) The past 5 generations of my family have served in the armed forces. My brother will probably carry the flag (he's heading that way), so you have no authority to haul yourself up on that cross. I lost several members of my family for long periods of time because of all the peacekeeping and war. You have no right to deny me my freedom of speech on the grounds of 'service' and 'sacrifice'. Try living on a private's salary. Canada prior to 1982. Alberta had eugenics. Aboriginals didn't have the vote until 1968 or 1972. Why don't you check out how Quebec treated Jehovas witnesses. I'm not saying Canadians prior to 1972 were Nazis. I'm saying they were prisoners of their time. And that the Charter era is better than the previous one. Surely you're not saying that all minorities are pedos, are you? That wouldn't be like the AF I know. My great grandmother was a member of the greatest generation. She once told me that "black people and Frenchmen are just like white people, there's good people and there are bad people". I still hold that view. Immigrants who hate other ethnic groups are bad people. White people who hate other ethnic groups are bad people. You seem to ignore this fact repeatedly, that hatred, whichever direction it flows, is wrong, yet you persist and persist in stating that your hatred is justified because everybody else is hating you. And you're wrong. I challenge you to quote this and to address it. You said it, not me. You said that if your group wanted to, you could easily send the jews right into the ovens. And I told you that we, as a generation, wern't going to let you 15% who would absolutely LOVE to get back at the Jews, do that. And you're not going to touch the gays, or the Tutsis or the Hutus or the Bosnians or the French either. We will NOT allow past mistakes to be repeated. Wasn't there. Actually, I'm a true small 'l' liberal in the Borovoy tradition. He's jewish. Try reading "The New Anti-Liberals" to get a perspective on the angle I'm comming from. I suspect that you're angry because you don't know where I'm comming from. Hmmmmmm. No. If I recall, during WWII, it wasn't the warrior veterans who started the concentration camps, it was the coward pussies who stayed behind who did. (see: Japanese internment camp.) Our troops were wicked. It's a damn shame that Conservatives in Alberta won't treat our veterans with more respect and dignity, especially when you look at our veterans hospitals. Another shining beacon of Conservative policy right there. Stand and be PROUD Mr. Alliance Fanatic at your fabulous Veteran Policy. I never implied that. I never said that. What you said though is that the majority can shove people into the ovens. You'll just have to live with those words, won't you? That's your right to tell me that. It's my right to reply though. I am more pro-freedom, pro-Libertarian, pro-free market than you. You're just like any other Old-Anti-Liberal, a defender of Injustice, a defender of the pre-1982 world where such other Old-Anti-Liberals drove the Anglophones from Quebec, locked up Jehova's witnesses (such a WONDERFUL record you old Conservatives have on religious freedom!) and of such glittering economic edifices as the Diefendollar. There will be no return to the pre-1982 world. Those days are gone forever. The mighty Old-Anti-Liberal Conservatives, once 55% of the population, now reduced to 15%, will never be able to bring those days back. If you have any other problems with me, Takeanumber. (There's a long line behind you.)

I'm just going to ignore you from now on. It's clear to me that you don't have the skills to understand something as simple as inter-generational debt, ie. How debt is transfered from one generation to another. I'm done with you. Cheers. (To answer your question, the national debt is serviced with interest payments. Those service charges are paid through the tax base (paid out to the boomers who loaned the money). When the next generation grows up, they pay some of the principle on that national debt, thus, transfering debt from one generation to another. A similar process occurs with corporate bonds, only that those servicing costs are paid through higher prices.) If more members of my generation understood how they were getting pwned, they'd be as mad as me. And I think it's a natural response for somebody of your age to dismiss me as 'confused' when you know I'm bang on the money. Nice try though. I'll have to pay your ass through healthcare AND your CPP AND your subsidized bus pass AND your subsidized property tax. These issues ARE important ALREADY. Don't dismiss my concerns as being baseless because I havn't paid taxes yet. Hooray. I want to keep it that way too. I'm afraid you don't know the same elites I know out of Calgary. These new Conservatives arn't like you and me. They have a different concept of 'justice'. The Echos have greater challenges then the Boomers ever will. Unlike Vietnam, the Echoists can't flake out and hide from the real war on Terrorism. (Remember the one raging outside Iraq?). This war is as big as WWII. I cut my card long before it was fashionable to do so because I couldn't stomach the corruption. (Back in 2000-2001). Good stewarts for YOUR generation because he wants to give you yet another break on your taxes. The years 2005-2012 are CRITICAL because your generation is in the prime earning age, and we NEED to get that national debt down to 15-20% of GDP and we NEED to get our infrastructure up to par BEFORE you guys hit 65. GUTTING THE TAX BASE is NOT THE WAY TO GO at this juncture. That's rich. Considering I know more about public policy than most of 55yo on this board. Classssic. Got any other pointers? Listen, I grew up in a military family. My father went to Haiti the 'first' time, Somalia, Bosnia and the First Gulf War. How dare you imply that I don't know what it's like other countries. Jesus, it must take some balls to be so partonizing. Maybe YOU ought to go check out how bad things are in Haiti before lecturing me on visiting Europe, Africa and Asia, eh? You paid 650 bux. I paid 5500. Index for inflation. I paid WAY more than you did. Why should different rules apply to me? Do you get some kind of special birthright because you were born before 1965? I sure as hell learnt a lot more than August. So, are tax cuts in the best interest of future generations with so many boomers set to retire in 2012? I think not. But do your best to justify the pillaging of the Echoists, and why Boomers deserve to live high on the hog at our expense.

Alright, one step at a time. I guess not all Conservatives know economics. First, I never said 'monopoly', I said 'monopolization'. There's a difference. The first term implies one firm, the other word implies an emerging single firm dominance. If Boardwalk Equity Trust has 50% share (which I believe is very close to the actual number), that means that all of the other firms have less than a 50% share. In fact, vis-a-vis everybody else, Boardwalk Equity has more power to move the market, depending on which model we're using. (Bertrand pricing, price competition, etc.) I never said that demand spikes lead to monopoly. I don't know where you got that from. Nothing I said even remotely implies that demand spikes lead to monopoly. What I said was that demand spikes and supply lags lead to market failures. I never said governments should engage in monopolies. If you actually read my post, I stated that I favoured three types of government intervention, partnerships with NGO's-IGO's (you wouldn't call a PPP a monopoly, would you, why would you call such partnerships such a thing?), incentives, and market share caps. In fact, the word 'market share cap' should have rang a little bell in your brain that a monopoly couldn't possibly happen with such market share caps, because it violates the def. of 'monopoly'. That said: you have not understood me correctly so far, instead, you've ignored what I have written with respect to markets and have jumped at calling me a big government inteventionist. Basement suites alone represent a share of apartments. But the apartment complexes represent significant capital investment and significant planning and building times. This is what causes lags. I earn a lot of money (I'm an analyst), and I reside in a lovely house in NW Calgary. Do not presume anything about my socio-economic status. As for your final charge, that I've invented all of this just to justify getting money, lol, I suggest you read again. I'm against rent control and quotas. I'm also against virtually all forms of subsidy. What I AM for is market correction and stabilization SO THAT GOOD PEOPLE DON'T END UP HOMELESS. It's a basic Canadian value and I posit that in the face of ECONOMIC FACT and somebody who really is holier than you are in economic policy are inventing facts about myself to disupte my arguement. August1991, your ongoing justification for the homelessness of working individuals is proof of my contention that it is a matter of values, and that your values are inferior to mine. You ought to be ashamed, and if I ever catch you using Christian logic on these boards, this thread will be used in reference to your religious hypocracy. You have been pwned. Regards, takeanumber.

Unions contribute to youth unemployment. That's just an economic fact. But they have a right to organize, and they have a right to strike. It's one of those evils you gotta accept. It's a part of being tolerant of others. In a certain way, unions, and the threat of unionize, keeps many businesses, and governments, in check. Remember, before there were unions, there was no such thing as the 40 hour work week or minimum age laws. I don't believe anybody is naturally virtuous, including businessmen. They gotta be held in check somehow (since transparency can't be applied to them), you have to use blunt force instruements like unions. I don't like'em, but they're a needed evil.

Do you really believe what you just wrote? The Babyboomers did not invent: Penicillin, most of the technology for DVD's, air travel, or long distance transportation. Did you, as a Canadian, invent the DVD, air travel, or LD transport? Then don't take credit for other people's work. No, they don't. Alright, here's how it works. We calculate out all the taxes that baby boomers pay, and all the benefits that they receive. Now if the boomers receive more than they pay, that means they've incurred debt. Who do you think ultimately pays that debt? Future generations, of course. Now, there are some things that other generations do that other generations benefit for. For instance, the hydro-electric damn of Quebec, and major transportation infrastructure. These are also paid for through bonds, which is a way of obtaining inter-generational equity. YET: it is unjust to force other generations to pay for DAILY OPERATIONS which future generations, by no stretch of the imagination, will ever benefit from. For instance, how did the spending orgy of 1972 benefit any of the Echoists? Very little of actual value was actually built during the 1970's. So, again, I ask you, is it fair for the boomers to force future generations to pay for their good time? Is it right for boomers to get tax breaks, to furthur screw the future generations out of their quality of life?

There is a lag between a demand spike and a supply response. This is because of the capital intensive nature of apartments. A similiar phenom happens in the oil/gas industry. This often happens in macroeconomic situations too, which is why we use stabilization policy. Which is why there should be similar policies in place for housing.

How many baby boomers does it take to replace a lightbulb? Two. One to tell the Echo-ist to run to the store and charge the new lightbulb to his/her credit card, and another one to hog all the light after the Echo-ist is done screwing it in. As somebody born around 1980, I can say that I'm one of the very few who is mad as hell about how much I'm getting PWNED by the Baby Boomers. First--Education. Grade 5, I got my education hacked back. Then again in Grade 8. Then again in Grade 12. University? I'm way in debt, even after working a job, and worse, I get stuck in classes with excess of a hundred people STILL. So, we finally get into a surplus situation, and instead of paying down some of that debt so I wouldn't have to shoulder THAT AND all the healthcare...what happens to it? Martin gives it out in business and income tax cuts just as the boomers are hitting greatest tax paying age of their lives. Here's a neat fact, as somebody born around 1980, I will only get 60 cents back for every 1 dollar in taxes I pay for the rest of my life. And the boomers? 1.25 (Source: Macroeconomics, 5th ed.) So, is this fair? Was it right for the boomers to get tax cuts in 2000 by Martin? Is it right for the Conservatives to promise tax cuts in 2005? Seriously, I challenge a boomer to tell me that it's just, given the challenges ahead.

Markets work 95% of the time. There are times when there is market failure. The monopolization of apartments in Alberta is one such example. I'm sure supply problems exist in other cities. When Markets fail, it is the governments job to step in. I'm against: Quotas Rent Ceilings Rent Floors What I'm FOR: Government sponsored/secured Co-op projects. (NGO/IGO-Government Partnerships) Government INCENTIVES for builders to add supply. Shelter futures. Market share caps. (No single individual/group of individuals may own/operate more than 10 percent of any given market, for instance) The Market often works. But when it fails, it's up to the government, and the taxpayer, to step in to correct it. For a Conservative to tell me "no, no, the market works all the time" need only look at the railroad industry, 1900-1925, to see that that is not the case.

So just because some immigrants are bigots gives YOU carte blanche to be a bigot? So just because some muslims and islamists hate gays, that gives YOU the right to bash'em? BOTH sides are WRONG. Them doing something repugnant doesn't make it RIGHT for YOU to do it. Jeebus, it's like I'm teaching you basic ethics. This is why I think you're just like all the other bigotted Conservatives I know -- you say the exact things they say, using the same justification. Sick. It's just sick. YOU AND/OR ALLIANCE FANATIC Er.... see that delightful little thread we had going about francophones in Kelowna. That's why we have a constitution and a strong court. Just in case you Conservative bastards try to repeat past attrocities. And I swear to God, if the Conservative MINORITY (The 15% or so twatwaffle Stockwell Day-Loving-Jew-Hating Old Anti-Liberals) EVER, EVER, EVER try to repeat those past attrocities (Church abuse scandal, Japanese Internment, Aboriginal abuse) the Echo generation will mobilize so quickly your head will spin. HISTORY WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED TO REPEAT If there is one thing this generation has learned, it's that we're all prisoners of our time, and we will NOT TOLERATE a discraceful repitition, in SPITE of all of your attempts to put gays and jews into the ovens. Got it?

I never thought much of Mills. Glad she went after him!

If he wants to be funny, he has the right to try. (There's no guarantee of success, clearly.). I don't see why it's such a problem, or how terrorism ties into this.

The only thing more vile than the Federal Liberals record on poverty (both child and working poor) is Alberta's. There is no excuse for having WORKING, GOOD people living on the streets because the labour market and the apartment renting markets are out of allignment. Slavik, I appreciate your point, it is very true that is it very difficult for a central government to resolve local market failures from afar. Yet, we have a central bank that (apparently) tries to smooth out the business cycle from Ottawa. It's not all sucessful, but at least they try. My point is: Ottawa really hasn't done much to give municipalities money for building affordable housing units. Alberta Conservatives are not outraged about the fact that good, hard working, non-alcoholic people, who are fully employed, are living on the streets, homeless. In fact, they seem to be just fine with it. And I think that fact speaks to some seriously sick values on the part of Alberta Conservatives. The fact that Martin's Conservative Liberal's don't care either is just sick, too. In my Canada, those who work and arn't addicted to drugs/alcohol, are the most deserving of shelter, and if market failures deprive those people of shelter, government needs to step in and address thoes market failures. The fact that neither brand of Conservative (Red or Blue) cares, speaks volumes about those people.

QUOTE Despite what Conservatives think, women and minorities count. And they pay taxes too. (Which I know some Conservatives hard a time with that idea, because according to some here, all immigrants are welfare bums.) I absolutely love how when I'm at a party with male Conservatives, they make all sorts racist, bigotted statements about immigrants, women, the French, and the especially the gays. (It's alright for white heterosexual men to be well-educated and elite, but "queers have simply gone too far".) ON THESE BOARDS such statements have been made more or less directly, especially about immigrants and attempts by the French to assimilate Anglo-Canada. But then, when you throw their own bigotry back at them, Conservatives by and large get angry and proceed to nail themselves to the cross of 'reverse racism'. Gosh darnit. Shall we turn to the typical Conservative woman's view of immigrants and of other women now? According to the data (Blais et al, Anatomy of a Liberal Victory), we know that Conservative women tend to be married, older, and in an upper income bracket. They tend to be Conservative because they see money flowing out of their household and into society. Amazingly enough, a Conservative woman is extremely likely to turn Liberal after a divorce. Why? Because these woman often need the programs that they previously railed against. (Suddenly, big government looks pretty good.) I'll posit that if the Conservatives in this forum don't want to get lumped in together with the Conservatives that I know in real life, then stop making statements that are identical to the bigots I know. You may be able to argue that just because you repeat these statements almost to the letter, that it doesn't imply that you're a bigot inside, yet, oddly enough, this is the same thing Conservatives at parties say after a healthy night of black-bashing, queer-bashing and immigrant-bashing.

They better come up with alternatives at that Cabinet meeting.

No, it is not unpatriotic to critique the US policy options and values. It's our right to free speech. And I support that right.

He's right. Martin first moved far to the fiscal right, and stayed there for awhile. Then, he seemed to move to social conservative right, which really enraged many. Then, he seemed to back away from the conservative right. And then he moved back to the social centre. And then he seemed to move back from the fiscal right to the fiscal centre with all of these recycled, rehashed problems. Then he made Chretien et al. out to be criminals (perhaps true?) and then expected none of the shit to splatter back? Then he backtracks again. Anyway, I guess my point is this: The scientific definition of a second is so many oscilations of a cesium atom. I respectfully suggest that the scientific definition of a day is measured by the number of position oscilations of Mr. Martin in a day.

Let's not. This statement really reminds me what Conservatism is all about. Let a white man decide how the country should be run. Despite what Conservatives think, women and minorities count. And they pay taxes too. (Which I know some Conservatives hard a time with that idea, because according to some here, all immigrants are welfare bums.)

Each province has a different definition of what poverty is according to what the political party of the day is. In Alberta, to be employed, yet unable to afford shelter, is not considered to be poverty. Why? Because for a Conservative government to admit that fully employed people could be homeless in Canada's richest province would be an admission of fault and failure. And admitting fault or selfishness is not part of the Conservative tool kit. So you see, in Harper's Canada, the working poor should be homeless, because that's just the Conservative vision of Canada.