shortlived

A lot of successful people dropped out of college, take Bill Gates for example. However we should be clear that he graduated from his undergraduate program, as well as the Bachelors of Education program, not exactly a drop out. There are not a lot of people that go back to school for a third degree in an unrelated field.

There were options like investing in your own electricity and engaging in microfit which would pay back, true a middle class and upper class initiative but a way of making money off your own electricity generation none the less.

oh and where did those fines, and the title of this thread come from? You are drinking tap water not water from your processing plant. He was killed because he walked across a street and took public transport. People in Syria have better luck than that. Probably funded with his tax dollars. Both the road and the transportation. Then they lock him up and would be required to feed him for however long he was locked up, and that would cost probably way more than the paperwork which probably cost more than him riding the public transit. Obviously crossing a street don't cost no one money. It is a street crossing fee, roads are not tollways. None the less you are just ignorantly denying the fact that they probably shoved him in jail to scare him out of skipping paying the bill. Instead the nut skipped on him. Dude the government is wrong with this stuff, it makes no bloody sense. The system has been made by a bunch of idiots and is being held as tradition by a bunch of idiots. Either that or it was a hit by corrupt officials. Also the fare jumping was probably well within the tax credit range, just more red tape to prevent freedom of the public.

looks like you found each other.

I watched a press conference today, he sounds Quebec with his French and Metro with his English. I'm suprised how young he looks. None the less elections are not presidential elections in Canada, sure he is a figure head for his party, and potentially Canada, he is however one part of a large puzzle. I think Trudeau does offer something harper doesn't and that is a decentralization of power from the office of the PMO, none the less I still think an NDP minority is more likely than a liberal minority but seat counts at this point look like they would be close between the CPC, NDP and Liberals. I think the liberals have a chance to take some seats, imo its all a question of how the bloc plays out which will drastically effect the outcome of the NDP, who with Quebec I think this time around could take a minory principly With Quebec, BC an dsupport in the maritimes and some seats in Ontario. It is still way to early to say but I suspect the liberals will gain a bunch of seats in Ontario, and the maritimes, depending on any retirements. I think a lot of the power base in ontario is just getting too damn old to consider another term, however the liberals may have a couple retirements too, but hmm maybe not. Without Ontario I think the CPC will go back to opposition, or even third party status, and even if they hold a chunk of it next election their seats will be in retirement the next one after no doubt, but I suspect that the CPC will be in for a serious fight to keep their seats, especially ones won by 10 or 20 vote margins. I also think people in general start to feel squeemish about 15 year terms for a given party, especially when the senate, courts and all offices are all practically already filled with party cronies. Only the hardcore, and hopefully limited stupid class of people will allow Canada to be a one party state. It would be minorty rule in the worst form. The next election is a much bigger deal, perhaps this one won't be rigged by the CPC.

As to? My political issues are not my issues, they are what I view are public issues. My personal positions as it effects my life are quite different than my social positions. Politics isn't about self advancement it is about making a better society. My major platform issues are federally -eradication of poverty -removal of income taxes -removal of the public debt -equalizing citizens rights -simplifying the justice system and justice reform - simplifying government into a bank -enfranchisement of the common person -and making society more productive with less waste and environmental destruction. Originally I had a 15 year timeline, but the conservatives poor fiscal management may have extended that to 18 to 20 years.

I already stated that causing a nuisance is not acceptable which is a law that is in the criminal code. 180. (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby (a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or (b) causes physical injury to any person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Marginal note:Definition(2) For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby (a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or (b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada. R.S., c. C-34, s. 176.I already said cops can arrest for indictable offences. (actually anyone can - using a reasonable amount of force and turning them over to police at the earliest time reasonable.) I think its you who is not reading or understanding what I've been saying. Protest is not illegal, but if people commit indictable offences cops can arrest them. (anyone can) All protests needn't be unruly or harass people and cause a public nuisance. But no the city doesn't designate those things it is the law. Cops shouldn't be taking instructions on how to enforce the law from political staff. If they think it is an indictable offence by all means, but the cops and city sat on this without attempting to organize it, instead they made the thing unruly by creating an opposition for it to occur fueling the unrest and anarchy of the movement. Bylaws tend to be arbitrary and arbitrary bylaws should not invalidate constitutional protections. If the fundamentals were universal then it wouldn't be a bylaw it would be federal law or common law. Frankly I would be suprised if protestors boxed in some random person, that doesn't sound like any protest I've been to. Sure orderly protests are important, bringing in the private land issue though validates idle no more. Because without the treaties upheld all the land is private indian land.

Oh I agree you cannot criminally harass people that is an indictable offence. As far as interferance in the peaceful lives, that is another matter, if it is not criminal by all means you can, if its not a crime, it is perfectly legal. It doesn't become illegal because it is a lawful act and a protest. That is where you are wrong. People don't need to move for you but you can also not be abducted.

cite a specific obligation. Protestors have no obligation to organize, they have the right to free peaceful assembly for the purpose of protest. I did not say they have a get out of jail card for indictable offences. Site the section of the criminal code you are referring to. If it violates the right of protest without invoking non withstanding caluses it is invalid and holds no force (but the justice act itself is a constitutional violation so it is somewhat redundant - the argument would be fundamental justice) prefenting large gathers for criminal undertaking can be seen as preventative arrest. i.e. breach of peace arrests however the cities bylaws if targetting limiting free protest are not valid so arrests under that bylaw would be invalid. Now I am not saying it is unreasonable to think that the protest could facilitate crime but the protest itself is valid. agent provocateurs and thugs should be detained. Legitimate protesters should not.. This is why police should have been active at the protest and within the protest if required to make preventative arrest, or if the gathering was large enough the military called out into Montreal, if police resources were not available, it was in fact a bit of a conflict of interest for police to be active on the protest, and it should have been military keeping the peace or other peace offiers However without a breach of the peace that is riot and the riot act read police shouldn't have started to make mass arrests or infringe the right of protest. Lots of illegal activities happening at justin beiber concerts, doesn't mean police are going to shut it down, same as out at the bar or club. If blocking streets as an issue then they should have been ticketed and directed to leave the street, and if they did it could be a form of obstruction, or grounds to make a detention under a breach of peace or public safety issues. Roads are right of ways, they are not public spaces.

I actually have a business. Why do you make tons of stupid assumptions about me, why not keep this focused on the issue rather than poking at me.

get a life. also stop harassing me you twit.

I think you need to read into what you read, and what it means, water doesn't come from your tap. If you think it does, you don't know life. The source is much further from the faucet.

Oh and what about home office write offs that lower your heating, electricity costs, and rennovation and upkeep costs?

Thanks for not answering the question, and applying a totally different situation. Actually no those two retirement plans means 0 contribution to cpp for those earnings. The same as every other item listed. Each has 0 CPP contribution required. Also yes you can write yourself a cheque to pay for business expenses which are deducatable including capital acquisitions for your business, which includes entertainment, luxury, and office equipment, meals and travel.

Why not? Thats what it is.... nay nay right. I know I shouldn't feed the trolls.

You seem to always suggest these two but leave out Groupei and Sa'Adoni http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/user/5968-groupeii/ http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1 keep working working at that ban I'm sure you'll get it. Charles will often ignore the flame baiting and ban mostly due to points the person posts being both strong and anti-conservative. Its the classic, oh I can't refute his points, lets gang rape him. That is exactly one of the things that has watered down my support of the Harper Government. This topic was about free education though, can we move on from your derail and stimulate intelligent discussion as opposed to your nonsense.

Already worked out in the gym moving weights for a few hours today,

No I asked Ok tell me after his private pension contributions and paying family members and employee sharing plan contributions, capital acquisitions and business expenses and the $3500 basic deduction would guyser need to pay in cpp contributions? Not what he pays cpp for, I asked how much we would pay if he paid into those things.

I've done both there is a difference. No how people who have money value labour and its actual worth are two different economic values. I don't work at $400 a week, it is guyser who runs his own business to earn $400/week. You need to pick up your reading ability seriously.

Yes the past doesn't lie either go find a retard to educate they might actually believe the junk you are putting out there.

MORE LIES. You are just flat out lying. The provincial governments were bought, you denying this ruins any credibility you may have had in this discussion. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/fate-of-bcs-hst-funding-depends-on-referendum-federal-leaders-say/article613248/ DUDE HST is a a federal tax, you denying this further shows you have no clue what you are talking about. do you say anything other than misinformation?

Yeah "you lose" a discussion you fill with lies and rhetoric then attempt to flame me to get a ban in place. You buddy suck plain and simple. Trolls like you ruin the internet. Further you devalue the forum by lowering the quality of discussion and attempt to prey on people of even lesser intelligence. Turn yourself around you havn't died yet you have time to reform. I edit for grammatical correctness due to at time typos appearing in my posts. Using swear words would be inappropriate for this forum nothing was edited out, rather spelling was corrected where needed. Get a life buddy.

1. LIE - Harper asked provincial governments and paid them to institute HST 2. LIE IT DOES NOT REPLACE EQUALLY IT ADDS TAXES ON GOODS THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY TAXED 3. LIE IT DOES BRING IN ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES AS WE CAN SEE YOU ARE A LIAR.

No no it isn't. It was requested and instituted by the federal government. Are you forgetting all the one time payouts to get provinces to opt into HST? Harper bought the HST in. You are heavily forgetting all the billions of penalties the federal government lobbed at BC when public opinion turned against HST, which ultimately caused Gordon Campbell's resignation, and him getting a patronage appoitment to be High Commisioner in the UK for screwing over the people of BC, for some change. You might want to learn a little about the tax before you make such broadly false statements.

HST before harper 0% HST after Caper =8% total hst/gst before harper =7% total hst/gst after harper = 13%