UN raises concern over Canada’s persistent ‘housing crisis’ | Toronto Star

WWRD? What would Reagan do? Obviously the answer it to let the market regulate itself to sort out the problem. If we just get out of the way and quit penalizing rich people and confiscating their wealth, some of that wealth will trickle down to the lower groups and all will be well. Eventually even the homeless will see some benefit, tho they hardly deserve it, the lazy bums. Just let unfettered capitalism do it's thing. Right, Shocked?

Strange that we've never seen that group of degenerate users give any of these other countries shit for how they handle their poor.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/2 ... 10018.html

I guess cost of living has no bearing on this issue since the whole world economy revolves around house price and for the record none of our cities are even in the top ten for house prices in the world so where's the moral outrage from the UN about those other countries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/prop ... l?image=19

Maybe someone forgot to tell Ban Ki-Moon that Harper is no longer our Prime Minister so the blatant anti Canadian rhetoric can stop because, we've got a new and much more UN compliant PM.

You have to compare median house prices with median income. Vancouver comes off very poorly there.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.2505524

Also, your survey looks at countries, not cities. If you put Canada in that list, it would be much lower in the rankings, because of all the places dragging down the rankings.

Also, if you actually read the story, you will see it's more about homelessness than high housing prices for the middle class.

What does that mean?

What does that mean?

Here's a hint.

or perhaps.



So in essence he and by extension our troops will be doing the UN's bidding as "their" peace keepers when it comes to world affairs and conflicts.

But hey, that worked out well for the Liberals in Rwanda, Kosovo and East Timor. The only problem is that it won't be him using idiotic ROE's that prevent him from defending himself without jumping through the UN's hoops.

I guess if he wants to turn our troops over to the people at 1 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017 USA who apparently don't give a shit about things like this, then who am I to judge.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/amn ... ar-BBlF7Zp

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-new ... -worldwide

WTF does that have to do with the housing crisis?

Which is my point. There's one hell of alot more to homelessness and poverty than house prices so the UN's pointing out that Canada is failing in this category while ignoring other jurisdictions is complete disingenuous bullshit.

The last link I supplied gave the most expensive real estate by square foot in the world by city and Vancouver didn't make the list but, strangely enough Toronto did at #20. So, I guess that means that Canada is the worst offender. Although after having seen Hong Kong, Shanghai and Singapore I'd say their poverty problems dwarf ours but then again I must be wrong because if that was true the UN would have said something about it instead of centring out Canada.

Nothing other than the fact it's the same warped fucked up organization that is condoning or ignoring rape and murder while trying to lay a guilt trip on Canada for our handling of the housing crisis.

So, TBH I'm taking anything the UN says with a grain of salt because any organization with the twisted morals of a rabid alley cat shouldn't be lecturing anyone how to run their affairs.

What is "their" bidding? UN commitment means nothing more than living up to the obligations we enter voluntarily. There is no "their bidding".


The Liberals were responsible for Rwanda, Kosovo and East Timor? You're off your meds.


What was left of your credibility on this topic went out the window with that last one. You're losing it, dude.

Your sentence doesn't make any sense. What is the UN ignoring, exactly?

Again, you have to look at what people are earning vs what it costs. And on that list Hong Kong did beat out Vancouver for the number one spot. And again, what does that have to do with the article, which was about homelessness, not people who can't buy a house. And fine, the cities you mention have greater poverty, does that mean we're OK, no worries, don't talk about Canada?

Screw what the UN thinks, Canadians should be concerned with the housing crisis in Vancouver because when the bubble bursts it's going to be epic.

What is "their" bidding? UN commitment means nothing more than living up to the obligations we enter voluntarily. There is no "their bidding".


The Liberals were responsible for Rwanda, Kosovo and East Timor? You're off your meds.


What was left of your credibility on this topic went out the window with that last one. You're losing it, dude.

As for being off my meds allow me to point out that at least I'm congnizant of and having my condition treated unlike some people.

Nice insult though.




As for Kosovo, Rwanda and East Timor. I never said the liberals were responsible for starting the conflicts what I meant was that they were responsible for giving the UN Canadian peacekeepers to send into those shitholes and in the case of Rwanda abandoning them. But I guess that is inconsequential because they were saving the world.

Rwanda 500,000 to 1,000,000 killed.
East Timor 300,000 killed.
Kosovo 2,047 killed.

Yup the UN sure made a difference. East Timor ended because Indonesia couldn't afford to occupy the country anymore, the Balkans ended because Clinton decided to bomb the antagonists back to the stoneage which woke them up and Rwanda, well, they just plain ran out of people to kill.

We got off lucky in those three places but if we keep giving our troops to the corrupt, despotic, morally bankrupt United Nations to do with as they please we'll likely see the same results that the Belgiums saw in Rwanda only with Canadians.

Trudeau has pledged the Canadian military to more "peacekeeping missions" which is a grand gesture when you're not the one doing the heavy lifting but, rest assured that the places the UN will need peacekeepers in the future aren't going to be nearly as civil to outside agencies as the places we've served before.

Hence my statement about Trudeau being a much more UN compliant PM because commitments like this are something Harper never would have done.

Wasn't meant to be an insult but to express genuine concern about your well-being.


But if the Conservatives had been in office at the time, those soldiers would still have been sent. Why would you think a Conservative government would have done anything differently? Are you saying that Conservative governments fail to live up to the international obligations that our country has entered into? Are you saying Conservative governments make liars out of all Canadians by refusing to follow through on promises made?


But that's not the way collective security works. We signed the UN Charter with a promise to provide troops to keep world peace. You're absolutely right that not all those missions turned out perfectly. But that's not a reason to say we shouldn't have been part of them and to offer our resources to help in those situations. That fact of the matter is that the UN works. We haven't had a large-scale conflict since WWII because it works. And it only works when countries live up to their obligation to send troops when the UN requests them.


When was Harper ever "non-compliant" with a UN request? Trudeau can't be more compliant unless Harper wasn't compliant. So when wasn't he? And if you think he wasn't compliant, isn't that just another way of saying "Harper failed to live up to Canada's obligations to keep global security"? So you're trying to rip Trudeau but really you're actually unintentionally ripping Harper. Oops!



Not that it matters, really, because your whole argument is based on a false premise. If you're saying Harper wouldn't have sent troops to Rwanda at the UN's request, you're wrong because of course he would have. Any PM would have because it's what we promised we'd do.

Wasn't meant to be an insult but to express genuine concern about your well-being.


But if the Conservatives had been in office at the time, those soldiers would still have been sent. Why would you think a Conservative government would have done anything differently? Are you saying that Conservative governments fail to live up to the international obligations that our country has entered into? Are you saying Conservative governments make liars out of all Canadians by refusing to follow through on promises made?


But that's not the way collective security works. We signed the UN Charter with a promise to provide troops to keep world peace. You're absolutely right that not all those missions turned out perfectly. But that's not a reason to say we shouldn't have been part of them and to offer our resources to help in those situations. That fact of the matter is that the UN works. We haven't had a large-scale conflict since WWII because it works. And it only works when countries live up to their obligation to send troops when the UN requests them.


When was Harper ever "non-compliant" with a UN request? Trudeau can't be more compliant unless Harper wasn't compliant. So when wasn't he? And if you think he wasn't compliant, isn't that just another way of saying "Harper failed to live up to Canada's obligations to keep global security"? So you're trying to rip Trudeau but really you're actually unintentionally ripping Harper. Oops!



Not that it matters, really, because your whole argument is based on a false premise. If you're saying Harper wouldn't have sent troops to Rwanda at the UN's request, you're wrong because of course he would have. Any PM would have because it's what we promised we'd do.




My well being. Nice try though.

I'm not saying Harper wouldn't have sent the troops if asked (but, I doubt he would have unless our other allies were involved) what I'm saying is that after a decade of Harper telling the UN to fek off and butt out of Canada's business we've got Trudeau telling them Canada's back and getting centred out for his efforts to ingratiate himself back into the fold.

http://www.cwp-csp.ca/2016/02//

Does that sound like someone who wants to restart a relationship or does it sound like someone dictating to him? And his response?

Maybe what pisses me off the most is being lectured to by a group of self indulgent, degenerate, nepotistic bastards who allowed the legacy of the Blue Beret to degenerate into nothing more than a symbol for the culture of rape, murder and pedophilia.

So, as far as I'm concerned our current PM should tell those meddling fucks to go screw themselves because until they clean up their own backyard and those of their most fervent acolytes they have no right to dictate morals to anyone.

Oh and to answer your question about Harper and the UN.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/why-ste ... -1.1868384