Signals.Cpl

If its incompetence fire them. If its bad apples fire them, fine them, and then promptly throw their ass in jail. The idea is be objective until you get the facts together instead of going around and putting the blame to vote fraud blame the Conservatives and then start moulding the evidence to fit the predetermined guilty party.

Where is the Outrage against these thugs?

voting irregularities that had nothing to do with the Conservatives, rather it was the people manning the polling station. But that does not feed in to your bias does it?

Because you where there right?

I understand and as there is a different but sometimes international law trumps domestic law.

It is not necessarily too far separated, if you agree that certain international laws apply in Canada and for Canada while others do not. If an international court approves the use of kettling but rules against something else, can Canada take one at face value and say its international law, and the other does not apply to us? This could apply to other nations, for example the trials for War Crimes, who is to say that a Serbian General who massacred thousands of civilians is guilty of a crime but does that crime apply because it happened in his country? We can say that international law should apply to and in all countries or none at all. If we claim that International Law should not apply to Canada we are in fact helping the agencies that make/enforce the laws irrelevant.

You stated you never said you agreed with any of the other rulings of those courts, yet in the same post you turn around and say that it applies only for the one ruling implying you are fine with the others. I was just pointing out where you said it.

Sorry should have been clear.

The government is punishing the full time workers by paying people who CHOOSE not to work EI. When the government year after year supports people who work for part of the year, contribute little to EI and get quite a lot out of it they are through this actions in effect punishing full time workers who choose to be full time. It might be a simplistic view, but supporting one is in fact its also punishing the other. If the government chooses to support the people who choose to work less by giving them additional benefits that it withholds from the full-time workers because they don't qualify it is punishing them. Maybe its naive but you work hard, and you get paid go home and raise your family, you work hard for 8 months of the year and get benefits for the other 4 months seems is rewarding people.

I just doubt that people who are getting say 2700 dollars while investing 700 will be happy to keep the 700 and not get the extra 2k. Unless they are really really short sighted. They will not be happy because money in your pocket now means less money at the end of the work term It is exactly an insurance plan. Pooled investor dollars to pay out claims. What else can it be. Auto insurance is the same, some get lots of payouts, everyone pays into it. Yet in Auto insurance if you keep making claims you will see your premiums rise and/or lose the service. In EI if you keep on using the system not due to circumstances but due to choice, they can't/won't increase your premiums but they sure can cut them off as they should if you are abusing the system.

Honestly I am not even aware of many of their cases? Maybe war criminal trials? WWWTT

double post.

Are you saying that if it doesn't fit your position it is ridiculous? Ever heard of the saying "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"? We don't study history for the sake of studying history, we study history to learn from mistakes made in the past and avoid making the same mistakes in the future. If you cannot see the comparison between 1936 and now thats not my problem. In 1936 the Nazi's were gambling that the western allies will not intervene in their plans. If the allies had moved in, the most likely outcome would have been a hasty german withdrawal and the collapse of the Nazi Party according to the Nazi Leadership. What happened was that the allies ignored the German threat when it was manageable and then fought them when it was too late. Iran is making a gamble, if the west does nothing it can blackmail the world simply by being in possession of a Nuclear Weapon, should the west avoid action when it is appropriate, then acting when it is too late could result in a nuclear exchange.

They are when the person receiving EI is unemployed by choice. If you take a job and its for 8 months, you should plan accordingly so that you have money for the other 4 months. There are plenty of professions that have an irregular income where they might get a lot of money at once and see no income for 2 or more months and thus they plan accordingly. Doubt that, as most likely pay less in EI then they take out of EI. I make a decent salary and I pay in 780 dollars in EI while if I went on EI I would receive 485 dollars a week. Its not insurance since so many people treat is as a source to supplement their income during the downtime. If its called Employment insurance but is not treated as insurance then it can't be proper insurance. If you know when you begin work that you will work for 35 years and every years for 3-4 months of the year you will not have a source of income, then either find a source for that time, make plans accordingly or find a different job altogether. The rest of the work force should not be supporting the people who work only a fraction of the year. Yeah it might be small, but it does not mean it is without a consequence, it is potentially millions of dollars a year and billions over decades.

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/information/teacher.shtml

Ok, but what the government is saying is that if you are on EI and there is a job that is open, you should do your best to take it. The idea is to prevent having 5,000 people on EI while 4,000 jobs go unoccupied. I have met plenty of people who due to their Canadian citizenship feel entitled to a free healthcare, and free education for their kids, government subsidized housing, welfare and all kinds of other things whole they feel no obligation to work and pay taxes in order to support these benefits. People shouldn't plan their lives on welfare and subsidized housing, or plan on EI covering 1/3 of the year that they don't work. I believe in a strong social safety net but the safety net should not be meant as a lifelong economic plan but as a means of help in times of need. There are plenty of people who live their lives by being underemployed and taking benefits that should not be awarded to them or staying on welfare while also enjoying the other benefits that working people pay for. EI should not be for people who MAKE the choice of being under employed.

The government, the same one that pays someone to stay home for 4 months and earn money until the next season of work while the low wage earner who works 12 months gets nothing but essentially pays in to EI to support the underemployed seasonal worker. So do you think seasonal workers would be happy if they didn't have to pay in to EI anymore? EI is supposed to be an insurance, a means to support yourself if you lose your job, not a way to supplement your annual income if you are unemployed for 4 months of the year every year.

Listen they can protests all year long, I couldn't care less, the problem here is not the increase in the price it is the disregard for the rights of the students who would like to be in school. All of the hundreds or thousands of protestors can protest to their hearts desire but some students do not have the luxury to protest. Some students want to remain in school, and others cannot afford to be protesting maybe they cannot afford the lost tuition or maybe they are a student from another province or an international student and thus have little interest in the politics of the province. What this thugs are trying to do is scare students from going to school, as far as I'm concerned those thugs should have been arrested on the spot.

If I work hard at Timmies or McDonalds for 12 months of the Year and my take home pay is 30 thousand and some guy works just as hard for 8 months of the year, gets 30 thousand take home pay and then the government gives him EI that rewards the person who is seasonally employed while while the person who is fully employed does not enjoy the governments assistance and is therefore punished for working 12 months rather then 8.

Yeah but at the same time you can't have someone taking 2 or 3 times as much as he invested every year for 40 years. It is insurance and thus it should be kept as a means of financial support between jobs, instead of 2,3 or 4 months of paid vacation. If I work for 20 years pay in to EI and lose my job take EI for 6 months its one thing, taking EI for 6 and a half years out of the 20 doesn't seem right.

Judging from my pay check, over an entire year there was 780 dollars deducted for EI. Now If 12 months of pay means I put in $780 dollars what do you think someone who makes 1)Less them me monthly 2)Works for only 8 out of the 12 months will invest less in to EI yet for those 4 months will probably withdraw no more then $458/week but lets be conservative and cut it in half 12 weeks at $225/week equals $2,700 for the time that the person is on EI. As I am being conservative with the figures, it could potentially be double. This means that using conservative figures the person is getting $2,000 more then they invested in to EI and that is every year.

1)How many of us expressed desire to go to war? None, all the people who posted here want peace but not at all costs. 2)Thats the same rhetoric that was present between 1933-1938 where most "experts" downplayed the German threat and the Allies missed a golden chance to take down the Nazi's with minimal casualties. If Iran does not want to give up their weapons program the US and Israel are not obligated to wait until its too late. 3)The Iranian economy is down the drain and I doubt that they can speed up their research mainly because if the US acts, I guarantee you the Iranians will be in big trouble. Imagine the problems the Iranians had over the last few years plus whatever the US adds to that.

Will you stop stating facts? This is not a thread about facts, its a thread to say "f*ck the police". Repeating the same fact over and over again will not help you break through the dream world some people live in.

Really makes you want to support these protestors thugs doesn't it?

What makes a seasonal worker special compared to full time workers who are at minimum wage? Why should the person who makes my coffee work 40,50 or 60 hours a week making minimum wage and 1 week of paid vacation a year be any different then someone who CHOOSES to work 7 or 8 months of the year making the same pay as the full time worker and then when he or she goes on 4 or 5 months vacation they can expect the government to pay for said vacation? Saying someone can work 51 weeks of the year and get 1 week of paid vacation deserves no help while someone who works only 34-40 weeks of the year and gets the remainder off deserves the assistance makes it seem like the system does not support the full time worker even if they make less then the seasonal worker. How can anyone sit here and explain that the full time worker gets 25 thousand take-home pay for 12 months of work while the seasonal worker gets 25 thousand take-home pay for 8 months of work and gets EI for the other 4 months that he chooses not to work? If you get a post secondary education and are gainfully employed the government will tax you in order to support those who choose to work part of the year and decided not to get a higher education. Punishing full time workers and rewarding seasonal workers is not the greatest of practices.